So NOVA has happened and let us see how insane Quickjager is for declaring Conscripts op....

What was the #1 list?

Battalion Detachment
HQ - Creed, 2x Primaris Psyker
Elite - 2x Commissar, 2x Astropath
Troop - 3x 40 Conscripts
Heavy Support - 3x 3 Mortar HWT
Transport - 5x Taurox Prime w/Gatling Cannon, Hotshot Volleyguns, and Heavy Stubbers (I didn't even know they had Heavy Stubbers)

Elite (Vanguard) detachment
HQ - 2x Elysian Co. Commander
Elite - 2x 3-pair Elysian Sniper Squad
Elite - 2x Elysian Command Squad (4 plasma guns)
Elite - 2x Elysian Infantry Squad
Fast Attack - 1x 5 Seraphim
Heavy Support - 2x 3 Mortar HWT

Supreme Command Detachment
HQ - Celestine
HQ - 4x Primaris Psyker
Elite - 1x Astropath

Hmmmm looks like conscripts are pretty good right? Obviously they don't do heavy lifting, but their sheer MASS is simply too much for such a small point cost.

I'm with you on them being overly effective. That list pretty much reads as "adjust balance here" almost top to bottom. The Taurox Prime is insane dakka for it's points.

I wonder how AM players will feel when they end up being the first codex to come out with across-the-board nerfs rather than buffs.

Notice the 4 Primaris Psykers too. Full powered Smite is really powerful.

Not that Grey Knights would know.

Audustum wrote:
Notice the 4 Primaris Psykers too. Full powered Smite is really powerful.

Not that Grey Knights would know.

Full powered Smite is the reason why a lot of the Chaos lists these days take as many Malefic Lords as possible. Those guys are broken as hell.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I wonder how AM players will feel when they end up being the first codex to come out with across-the-board nerfs rather than buffs.

Pissed. We've been in a rough place since 5th edition. That said, we all want balance. Its whats best for the game. I don't mind being an underdog army.

Here is the deal with conscripts. You increase their point cost, you have to increase the point cost of guardsmen & HWT. Conscripts cannot have the same point cost as normal guardsmen. So now by increasing the cost of 1 unit, you just increased the cost of half the army. That is a problem.

Scions are overperforming for their point cost. I could see them increasing 1-2pts per model.

Basically, the reason guard are doing well right now is infantry is actually worth fielding. As they should be. IG's most plentiful resource has always been touted to be bodies & for the first time 8th edition reflects the 40k lore. Most of the other units in the codex won't be seeing play this edition until their point cost drops significantly. Take the chimera for example. Needed a 20-30% decrease in point cost last edition. It increased in point cost, now suffers -BS on the move, lost rear firing port, lost amphibious rule, & is no longer a command vehicle. LRBT needed a 20-30% point cost reduction. Instead increased in cost & in many cases its damage output decreased. Scout sentinels, which were actually a viable option in 7th lost their outflank ability puts them in a worse position than they were previously. They will largely be taken now to fill detachment requirements.

Outside of infantry the only other units worth fielding this edition are hellhounds, manticores & basilisks to a lesser degree. Outside of those units, nothing to write home about.

Bodies are nice.

Free orders that act like Stratagems that require no point cost against lists that either cannot or will not run snipers is even better.

Can you share a link to these results?

And it wouldn't surprise me if this list took first place. It's a "greatest hits" of cheese in 8th.

The #3 list also had 120 conscripts.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I wonder how AM players will feel when they end up being the first codex to come out with across-the-board nerfs rather than buffs.

Well if the nerfs were "across the board" I'd be pissed. It's conscripts and MT things that need nerfs, that's it from what I can tell. Quite a few things actually should be buffed, e.g Leman Russ (especially the Vanquisher).

The problem with these overpowered lists is not the amount of conscripts, is the possiblity to mix the most effective imperium stuff.

SoB stuff should be allowed only in Sob armies with inquisition allies at most.

AM + SoB + Primaris Psykers should be an illegal built.

Is there a link to the results?

nekooni wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
I wonder how AM players will feel when they end up being the first codex to come out with across-the-board nerfs rather than buffs.

Well if the nerfs were "across the board" I'd be pissed. It's conscripts and MT things that need nerfs, that's it from what I can tell. Quite a few things actually should be buffed, e.g Leman Russ (especially the Vanquisher).

MT's aren't even on that winning list, they were bumped off by Elysians.

 Quickjager wrote:
So NOVA has happened and let us see how insane Quickjager is for declaring Conscripts op...

Uh, I don't get it, are you trying to say everyone has been against you in this? Basically everyone has been calling conscripts op since the first index leaks...

Limit conscript squads to a Max of 30.

Even if you Max them, it's 180 models rather than 300. Also, smaller squad size = more careful deployment and extra buff troops needed (because keeping 4+ 30 man squads within 6" of a commissar or commander is hard work.)

Taroux prime needs a base point increase. Silly amounts of firepower for points.

Scions need a small points increase to avoid spam. 2 PPM sounds like a decent start.

Plasma as a weapon choice needs to be 10 points. It's the most effective all rounder yet the same points as a Flamer? Lolwut?

Just my 2 pence...

Yeah, the problem with scions seems to be plasma weaponry. An appropriate points bump would be useful.

Arachnofiend wrote:I wonder how AM players will feel when they end up being the first codex to come out with across-the-board nerfs rather than buffs.

Probably "just another day at the office" I have only been playing since 5th but it seems like every time IG get a new codex it is full of nerfs, GW only seems to ever buff IG by mistake.

Arkaine wrote:Bodies are nice.

Free orders that act like Stratagems that require no point cost against lists that either cannot or will not run snipers is even better.

I am not 100% sure what your trying to say here, but it reads like you think orders are free and are analogous to stratagems? In either case orders are not the problem for two reasons, first if they were OP then all guard infantry would be OP, and second orders are very similar to the buff auras that every army has, they just trade affecting everyone in range to at most two units in range for increased versatility and a loss of the ability to stack.

Honestly in my opinion, the best way to balance conscripts would be to bring back weapons that are actually good at killing them and not good at killing elite infantry, though I am not sure that is possible in the eighth edition rule set.

Maxing the amount of conscripts to 20 per unit and change the summary execution to NOT work on conscripts would be mutch better then giving them a point increase.

Iike it has been said, if conscripts goes up in points, regular guard has to allso and they cant as they are in the perfect spot right now.

as for scions and taurox, deffo increase the point cost so that some of the other stuff can actualy be used when they get a point cost reduction.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Maxing the amount of conscripts to 20 per unit and change the summary execution to NOT work on conscripts would be mutch better then giving them a point increase.

Iike it has been said, if conscripts goes up in points, regular guard has to allso and they cant as they are in the perfect spot right now.

as for scions and taurox, deffo increase the point cost so that some of the other stuff can actualy be used when they get a point cost reduction.

Honestly, just removing summary execution would do the job. Without it they would crumple under small arms fire, as they should.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
I wonder how AM players will feel when they end up being the first codex to come out with across-the-board nerfs rather than buffs.

Pissed. We've been in a rough place since 5th edition. That said, we all want balance. Its whats best for the game. I don't mind being an underdog army.

Here is the deal with conscripts. You increase their point cost, you have to increase the point cost of guardsmen & HWT. Conscripts cannot have the same point cost as normal guardsmen. So now by increasing the cost of 1 unit, you just increased the cost of half the army. That is a problem.

Scions are overperforming for their point cost. I could see them increasing 1-2pts per model.

Basically, the reason guard are doing well right now is infantry is actually worth fielding. As they should be. IG's most plentiful resource has always been touted to be bodies & for the first time 8th edition reflects the 40k lore. Most of the other units in the codex won't be seeing play this edition until their point cost drops significantly. Take the chimera for example. Needed a 20-30% decrease in point cost last edition. It increased in point cost, now suffers -BS on the move, lost rear firing port, lost amphibious rule, & is no longer a command vehicle. LRBT needed a 20-30% point cost reduction. Instead increased in cost & in many cases its damage output decreased. Scout sentinels, which were actually a viable option in 7th lost their outflank ability puts them in a worse position than they were previously. They will largely be taken now to fill detachment requirements.

Outside of infantry the only other units worth fielding this edition are hellhounds, manticores & basilisks to a lesser degree. Outside of those units, nothing to write home about.

Why can't conscripts be the same points cost of regular guardsmen? I mean, it's a lame fix, I'd much prefer a more creative nerf like limited benefit from commissars (something like a "Mad rout" roll where the commissar can only stop up to X casualties from morale and above that point the conscripts run away en masse anyway)or limited access to orders (roll vs Leadership to take an order). But as it is currently, they should be the same price. Or more. The ability to take so many of them is a huge benefit.

"Here is the deal with conscripts. You increase their point cost, you have to increase the point cost of guardsmen & HWT. Conscripts cannot have the same point cost as normal guardsmen. So now by increasing the cost of 1 unit, you just increased the cost of half the army. That is a problem."

IMO that what needs to happen. a 5+ save wound with a rapid fire weapon is a lot better than what gaurd are paying for it. Really Gaurd are underpaying by 10%-30% on practically every unit in the index.

 Xenomancers wrote:
"Here is the deal with conscripts. You increase their point cost, you have to increase the point cost of guardsmen & HWT. Conscripts cannot have the same point cost as normal guardsmen. So now by increasing the cost of 1 unit, you just increased the cost of half the army. That is a problem."

IMO that what needs to happen. a 5+ save wound with a rapid fire weapon is a lot better than what gaurd are paying for it. Really Gaurd are underpaying by 10%-30% on practically every unit in the index.

With the way Conscripts are so powerful is anyone even using normal Guardsmen anymore anyway? I mean we don't really know if a Guardsman is overpowered because no one is using them as the Conscripts are better. Conscripts need to fill a different niche instead of just "doing the Guardsmen's job a little cheaper." Otherwise it's a no-brainer. Guardsmen aren't better enough that they're worth the price over conscripts. They're effectively just conscripts with a little better stats, which isn't worth the price hike.

 Xenomancers wrote:
"Here is the deal with conscripts. You increase their point cost, you have to increase the point cost of guardsmen & HWT. Conscripts cannot have the same point cost as normal guardsmen. So now by increasing the cost of 1 unit, you just increased the cost of half the army. That is a problem."

IMO that what needs to happen. a 5+ save wound with a rapid fire weapon is a lot better than what gaurd are paying for it. Really Gaurd are underpaying by 10%-30% on practically every unit in the index.

The decreased point cost of conscripts/guardsmen came at a cost. We lost our platoons. So we can no longer combine squads. That is actually a pretty big deal. I'd much rather they just give us our platoons back, it would solve 99% of the complaints regarding conscripts. Previously you could only take conscripts if you fielded an infantry platoon. Creating this tax would effectively increase the cost of conscripts while not increasing their point cost. They have been 3ppm for many years now. It is only now that they are not locked behind the platoon prerequisite that people are having issues with them.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
It is only now that they are not locked behind the platoon prerequisite that people are having issues with them.

Well, more importantly now that they can't break and can abuse the new way commissars work to a ridiculous degree. Honestly, if commissars couldn't enforce order in the unit at a cost of 3 points, they wouldn't at all be the problem they are. He's doing the same thing 2CP would for 3 points.

Commissars have always had Summary Execution though. Just before it stopped the whole squad from running off the table instead of a handful of extra models.

There was one edition where commissars were upgrades to infantry squads instead of ICs, but in that edition priests granted Fearless so there was functionally no difference (except the priest didn't blam a model to do it).

There are only three things that have changed about conscripts:
1: they were pulled out of platoons
2: a 5+ save got a little harder to remove
3: they gained the ability to hurt T6+

Of those, two apply to every other infantry model in the game. Other than that they're the same as they've always been.

 ross-128 wrote:
Commissars have always had Summary Execution though. Just before it stopped the whole squad from running off the table instead of a handful of extra models.

There was one edition where commissars were upgrades to infantry squads instead of ICs, but in that edition priests granted Fearless so there was functionally no difference (except the priest didn't blam a model to do it).

There are only three things that have changed about conscripts:
1: they were pulled out of platoons
2: a 5+ save got a little harder to remove
3: they gained the ability to hurt T6+

Of those, two apply to every other infantry model in the game. Other than that they're the same as they've always been.

You realise that the game is completely different, right? Many many things that used to be able to wipe squads are now dealing multiple damage instead. Wiping squads is slightly harder and is mitigated with morale allowing you to wipe larger squads. Commissars are stopping that. End result is that even if the conscriots had the exact same of everything, they are now better. You can't just compare their stats in the old game to their stats in the new.

So take away Summary Execution and reducing them to 20 per unit, wtf is their purpose?

BTW, the list was full of cheese to begin with, it ain't just conscripts.

I mean.. one change which is pretty big is the the way concscripts hurt EVERYTHING now? Yeah it's bad odds on most things but chucking large amount of dice can produce funky results.

Anyone who doesn't think conscripts are OP like Gulliman needs their 40k competitive license torn up.

I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Or Summary Execution kills one guy and gives the unit Ld10 for the morale check. I think casualties should scale with losses, and just giving a different number to the execution doesn't do that. It just makes a random number of guys die. Could have lost 20 and only lose one on morale, or could have lost 3 and lose 6 on morale. A more linear change feels more sensible to me.

 Purifier wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Commissars have always had Summary Execution though. Just before it stopped the whole squad from running off the table instead of a handful of extra models.

There was one edition where commissars were upgrades to infantry squads instead of ICs, but in that edition priests granted Fearless so there was functionally no difference (except the priest didn't blam a model to do it).

There are only three things that have changed about conscripts:
1: they were pulled out of platoons
2: a 5+ save got a little harder to remove
3: they gained the ability to hurt T6+

Of those, two apply to every other infantry model in the game. Other than that they're the same as they've always been.

You realise that the game is completely different, right? Many many things that used to be able to wipe squads are now dealing multiple damage instead. Wiping squads is slightly harder and is mitigated with morale allowing you to wipe larger squads. Commissars are stopping that. End result is that even if the conscriots had the exact same of everything, they are now better. You can't just compare their stats in the old game to their stats in the new.

In previous editions, one morale check would basically delete an entire conscript squad if they were unsupported. With their LD they would break and never rally. Commissars (or priests, in 5th) have always been what prevented that. The reason this never happened is nobody ever deployed an unsupported conscript squad.

So commissars aren't doing anything new. Making conscripts unsupportable would break them the other way because they were never designed to function without support.

Conscripts at 4 ppm and normal guard infantry at 5ppm are still as good or better than what most armies have access to.

Conscripts would trade damage for staying power compared to cultists and beat termagaunts in both staying power and firepower.

It's just a bit silly we've had people try to argue conscripts are doing their screening job properly right now, rather than being obviously too good at it.

Edit: for everyone claiming that commissars aren't doing anything new, you are right they aren't. They are doing what they always have in an edition where almost every army has had there morale rules weakened, nerfed, or occasionally removed. That's kinda an issue.

SilverAlien wrote:
Conscripts at 4 ppm and normal guard infantry at 5ppm are still as good or better than what most armies have access to.

Conscripts would trade damage for staying power compared to cultists and beat termagaunts in both staying power and firepower.

It's just a bit silly we've had people try to argue conscripts are doing their screening job properly right now, rather than being obviously too good at it.

Edit: for everyone claiming that commissars aren't doing anything new, you are right they aren't. They are doing what they always have in an edition where almost every army has had there morale rules weakened, nerfed, or occasionally removed. That's kinda an issue.

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

 ross-128 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Commissars have always had Summary Execution though. Just before it stopped the whole squad from running off the table instead of a handful of extra models.

There was one edition where commissars were upgrades to infantry squads instead of ICs, but in that edition priests granted Fearless so there was functionally no difference (except the priest didn't blam a model to do it).

There are only three things that have changed about conscripts:
1: they were pulled out of platoons
2: a 5+ save got a little harder to remove
3: they gained the ability to hurt T6+

Of those, two apply to every other infantry model in the game. Other than that they're the same as they've always been.

You realise that the game is completely different, right? Many many things that used to be able to wipe squads are now dealing multiple damage instead. Wiping squads is slightly harder and is mitigated with morale allowing you to wipe larger squads. Commissars are stopping that. End result is that even if the conscriots had the exact same of everything, they are now better. You can't just compare their stats in the old game to their stats in the new.

In previous editions, one morale check would basically delete an entire conscript squad if they were unsupported. With their LD they would break and never rally. Commissars (or priests, in 5th) have always been what prevented that. The reason this never happened is nobody ever deployed an unsupported conscript squad.

So commissars aren't doing anything new. Making conscripts unsupportable would break them the other way because they were never designed to function without support.

No, but you were able to kill the squad more easily with mass template weapons among other things. So you didn't need to make them run. You do need to make them run now, because doing things that used to do 2D6 wounds now do 2D6 damage, which kills one conscript.

SilverAlien wrote:
Conscripts at 4 ppm and normal guard infantry at 5ppm are still as good or better than what most armies have access to.

Conscripts would trade damage for staying power compared to cultists and beat termagaunts in both staying power and firepower.

It's just a bit silly we've had people try to argue conscripts are doing their screening job properly right now, rather than being obviously too good at it.

Edit: for everyone claiming that commissars aren't doing anything new, you are right they aren't. They are doing what they always have in an edition where almost every army has had there morale rules weakened, nerfed, or occasionally removed. That's kinda an issue.

Every army except Tyranids or Orks.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Conscripts at 4 ppm and normal guard infantry at 5ppm are still as good or better than what most armies have access to.

Conscripts would trade damage for staying power compared to cultists and beat termagaunts in both staying power and firepower.

It's just a bit silly we've had people try to argue conscripts are doing their screening job properly right now, rather than being obviously too good at it.

Edit: for everyone claiming that commissars aren't doing anything new, you are right they aren't. They are doing what they always have in an edition where almost every army has had there morale rules weakened, nerfed, or occasionally removed. That's kinda an issue.

Every army except Tyranids or Orks.

5 Man Space Marine Squads also rather immune to morale. Necrons seem to have it good to.

 Freddy Kruger wrote:


Scions need a small points increase to avoid spam. 2 PPM sounds like a decent start.

They need to pay more for the weapons because of BS 3+. The problem is not the scion, is the cheap plasma.

Orks amusingly got their morale back after not having it, and they aren't particularly tough models for their price. Ditto with tyranids, pricier HQs and more fragile units. Ork boyz are ballpark same durability yet cost twice as much while termagaunts are a point more for less durability.

They are actually balanced for lack of morale casualties by being exceptionally flimsy.

I'm also going to ignore that someone just said morale rules aren't an issue for necrons right now, because it's too early for me to be able to form a civil response to such an utterly ignorant statement.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

As stated many times, if conscripts were not eligible for the moral abilities of the commissars, they would be completely manageable.
I'd even go so far as doubling the amount of casualties suffered from failed moral on them to represent their undisciplined nature.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Maxing the amount of conscripts to 20 per unit and change the summary execution to NOT work on conscripts would be mutch better then giving them a point increase.

Iike it has been said, if conscripts goes up in points, regular guard has to allso and they cant as they are in the perfect spot right now.

as for scions and taurox, deffo increase the point cost so that some of the other stuff can actualy be used when they get a point cost reduction.

As someone that is getting back into the game from 4th edition - I find this sort of min-maxing across codex's really unappealing - and it has got to make it practically impossible to balance, especially for Imperial forces. But even the eldar lists with a combination of craftworld and dark eldar just seems .... wrong.

For casual play, it's obviously up to whatever players agree with. But for matched play I feel like you should only be able to utilize one codex (along with any units specifically called out that can be taken from other lists of course).

SilverAlien wrote:

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

If you mean infantry only, I COULD see - in this case I took the quote out of its context. But as stated, is not that simple. In case of the scions, is the weapon cost that is too low for BS3+. Unless you want them to cost as much as marines for way less S, T and whatnot.

Concerning vehicles, you should tell me instead how a Russ or a Chimera are undercosted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
As stated many times, if conscripts were not eligible for the moral abilities of the commissars, they would be completely manageable.

So what's the point of taking them?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

This.

Pretty much every discussion about Conscripts breaks down into two separate (but often intermingled) arguments between:

- People who want to balance Conscripts but can't decide which specific aspect to nerf, and so they argue whether to nerf Orders or their synergy with Commissars.
- People who want to nerf Conscripts to the point they never see the unit on the table ever again, and so they argue with people who want to see the unit balanced but remain actually fieldable.

GhostRecon wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

This.

Pretty much every discussion about Conscripts breaks down into two separate (but often intermingled) arguments between:

- People who want to balance Conscripts but can't decide which specific aspect to nerf, and so they argue whether to nerf Orders or their synergy with Commissars.
- People who want to nerf Conscripts to the point they never see the unit on the table ever again, and so they argue with people who want to see the unit balanced but remain actually fieldable.

This.

Also, don't forget the people who want to nerf the entire IG codex for the sheer hell of it.


Anyway, regarding Conscripts, I have a few suggestions for possible nerfs:
- Reduce squad size.
- Prevent them from receiving Orders.
- Make Commissars reduce Ld casualties to 1d6 instead of 1.
- Make them a non-FoC choice. Instead of being troops, you can take one unit of Conscripts for every 2 Infantry Squads you take (the Conscripts don't take up a FoC space). This would make them less efficient, would prevent them being taken to fulfil min troop choices in a Battalion/Brigade and means that they can't get Objective Secured.

 vipoid wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

This.

Pretty much every discussion about Conscripts breaks down into two separate (but often intermingled) arguments between:

- People who want to balance Conscripts but can't decide which specific aspect to nerf, and so they argue whether to nerf Orders or their synergy with Commissars.
- People who want to nerf Conscripts to the point they never see the unit on the table ever again, and so they argue with people who want to see the unit balanced but remain actually fieldable.

This.

Also, don't forget the people who want to nerf the entire IG codex for the sheer hell of it.

Yeah, but that's always been the case when an army is powerful. It's almost always diehard loyalist Space Marine players who kick and scream at the audacity of any other army being powerful. Apparently CSMs still need to pay for 3.5 being so powerful, as I'm sure we'll never hear the end of whining about Eldar, Tau and now Imperial Guard for another ten years or so because they had their moment in the sun over (loyal) power armour.

There's something about them not being able to receive Orders that just feels... off to me. Like, the image of them being gibbering morons who can't understand the concept of pouring fire onto a specific target seems pretty silly to me.

I like the idea of a special rule where Conscripts - and only Conscripts - need to have 1d3-6 rolled for Summary Execution, rather than the single model. Perhaps it could also scale down as the unit gets weaker (20+ models you roll a 1d6, -19 you roll a 1d3, -10 you just remove the one as normal, etc). It doesn't make Commissars useless, but it makes the blobs more manageable if you manage to whittle them down. I get the feeling Games Workshop, in their infinite inability to diagnose a problem, will just nerf the entire codex across the board in a typical swing and miss though. Or at least Commissars will be nerfed into uselessness and Priests take back over.

Bringing back templates would solve the issue.

I think the most elegant solution for Conscripts, which doesn't required modifying any other rules, would be to cap them at 20 men per squad.

That allows them to do classic conscript things reasonably well, and in squadrons they can all enjoy a single Commissar's buff, but they lose a lot of efficiency on orders, and it becomes easier to kill a specific squad.

It also eliminates the fairly silly spectacle of huge conscript mobs.

SilverAlien wrote:
Conscripts at 4 ppm and normal guard infantry at 5ppm are still as good or better than what most armies have access to.

Conscripts would trade damage for staying power compared to cultists and beat termagaunts in both staying power and firepower.

It's just a bit silly we've had people try to argue conscripts are doing their screening job properly right now, rather than being obviously too good at it.

Edit: for everyone claiming that commissars aren't doing anything new, you are right they aren't. They are doing what they always have in an edition where almost every army has had there morale rules weakened, nerfed, or occasionally removed. That's kinda an issue.

Don't forget that Orders are automatic now.

 Arbitrator wrote:
It's almost always diehard loyalist Space Marine players who kick and scream at the audacity of any other army being powerful.

Could you quote that in this thread? Because the only one I can find here that says everything should get points cost increases is Unit, and he's first of all doing it with the caveat that it depends on everything getting good abilities, and second of all he's an AM player.

What is it with so many posts on this forum being about what babies the people that play X faction is? I see pissing and moaning from every single faction. I can't even begin to understand the bias you must view the world with to completely ignore every other whiner, while honing in on SM players.

 Purifier wrote:
Could you quote that in this thread?

I don't think I've seen it in this thread (yet ), but in one of the other Conscript threads there was at least one SM player who basically said that IG should only exist to serve as a whipping-boy for Marine armies.

To be clear, I'm not saying that all (or even most) SM players are like this - just that it does happen.

I shot a 400-pt blob of Noise Marines at conscripts with Prescience, the most shooty unit in all of Chaos, all featuring sonic blasters for triple shots that ignore cover.

Killed half the squad. Next turn killed the other half. Had morale been a thing, the entire squad would have died turn 1.

Those conscripts only cost half the points of my Noise Marines.

It's kind of a problem when objective secured guys can outlast any form of shooting your army can muster point for point. The only unit that can outkill Noise Marines are the Khorne Berzerkers and that's only in close combat with plenty of opportunity to shoot them off the board.

Drowned in bodies is the Imperial Guard thing and it's presently much too effective since in the few turns the game lasts you won't even kill all the conscripts, much less the rest of his tanks and artillery, the stuff that actually threatens your forces. If you fail to kill the conscripts, they just park on objectives and win by Da Rulez.

 Arkaine wrote:
I shot a 400-pt blob of Noise Marines at conscripts with Prescience, the most shooty unit in all of Chaos, all featuring sonic blasters for triple shots that ignore cover.

Killed half the squad. Next turn killed the other half. Had morale been a thing, the entire squad would have died turn 1.

Those conscripts only cost half the points of my Noise Marines.

It's kind of a problem when objective secured guys can outlast any form of shooting your army can muster point for point. The only unit that can outkill Noise Marines are the Khorne Berzerkers and that's only in close combat with plenty of opportunity to shoot them off the board.

Drowned in bodies is the Imperial Guard thing and it's presently much too effective since in the few turns the game lasts you won't even kill all the conscripts, much less the rest of his tanks and artillery, the stuff that actually threatens your forces. If you fail to kill the conscripts, they just park on objectives and win by Da Rulez.

See I hear about stuff like this, and I wonder why people think it is bad.

Why should every unit in the game be able to 1-turn delete what it is designed to do? I mean, a 3-lascannon HWS is a dedicated AT-unit in AM, why can't it one-shot a Rhino off the board?

Yes, things can still have roles within an army (anti-infantry, anti-tank, high mobility, whatever), but that doesn't mean they should simply get a free "I delete the unit as long as it is the one I counter" card they can play every turn.

Conscripts, even after the nerf, should take at least one shooting phase to shift, because if they take less than one shooting phase to shift, then they are useless as a screen.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

This.

Pretty much every discussion about Conscripts breaks down into two separate (but often intermingled) arguments between:

- People who want to balance Conscripts but can't decide which specific aspect to nerf, and so they argue whether to nerf Orders or their synergy with Commissars.
- People who want to nerf Conscripts to the point they never see the unit on the table ever again, and so they argue with people who want to see the unit balanced but remain actually fieldable.

This.

Also, don't forget the people who want to nerf the entire IG codex for the sheer hell of it.

Yeah, but that's always been the case when an army is powerful. It's almost always diehard loyalist Space Marine players who kick and scream at the audacity of any other army being powerful. Apparently CSMs still need to pay for 3.5 being so powerful, as I'm sure we'll never hear the end of whining about Eldar, Tau and now Imperial Guard for another ten years or so because they had their moment in the sun over (loyal) power armour.

There's something about them not being able to receive Orders that just feels... off to me. Like, the image of them being gibbering morons who can't understand the concept of pouring fire onto a specific target seems pretty silly to me.

I like the idea of a special rule where Conscripts - and only Conscripts - need to have 1d3-6 rolled for Summary Execution, rather than the single model. Perhaps it could also scale down as the unit gets weaker (20+ models you roll a 1d6, -19 you roll a 1d3, -10 you just remove the one as normal, etc). It doesn't make Commissars useless, but it makes the blobs more manageable if you manage to whittle them down. I get the feeling Games Workshop, in their infinite inability to diagnose a problem, will just nerf the entire codex across the board in a typical swing and miss though. Or at least Commissars will be nerfed into uselessness and Priests take back over.

Not sure why it seems off to you.

Concscripts were conscripted to fight, they haven't been trained through the rigors of the imperialism war machine. They should not have access to orders like other AM units.

The fix to conscripts is simple. They cannot receive orders, and commisaers go up in cost significantly.

I'll go with what i've said before, as a criticism of 8th edition in general:

1. No model, costing less than 6 points, should get a save. For their points, Orks should be the most survivable in terms of cheap, high casualty infantry. Therefore, Orks should be a benchmark for being the *best* at being a wall of bodies. Brimstone horrors, Conscripts, and anything less than 6 points should not get a save, period, based on 8th edition internal balance. Orks should set the bar here.

2. Smite in its base form is simply too strong. Instead of d3/d6, it should be 1damage, and on 11+, d3. Magnus should be d3/d6. Anything that costs less than 60 points should NOT have full strength smite, if they insist on keeping smite in its current form. Sorry, that's just too strong. And that applies to *every* army.

3. Update the cost of plasma and other weapons to be properly costed. I'm sorry but even with that, Hot-shot guns are pretty damn good, they'd have to be adjusted. I would also increase the cost of drones.

4. Alter character rules so they cannot be targeted ONLY if there is a non-character unit closer. As opposed to one character screening for another.

5. Ban forgeworld completely from matched play. I know people disagree, because unit X isn't overpowered, but they have too many strong units for competitive play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
I shot a 400-pt blob of Noise Marines at conscripts with Prescience, the most shooty unit in all of Chaos, all featuring sonic blasters for triple shots that ignore cover.

Killed half the squad. Next turn killed the other half. Had morale been a thing, the entire squad would have died turn 1.

Those conscripts only cost half the points of my Noise Marines.

It's kind of a problem when objective secured guys can outlast any form of shooting your army can muster point for point. The only unit that can outkill Noise Marines are the Khorne Berzerkers and that's only in close combat with plenty of opportunity to shoot them off the board.

Drowned in bodies is the Imperial Guard thing and it's presently much too effective since in the few turns the game lasts you won't even kill all the conscripts, much less the rest of his tanks and artillery, the stuff that actually threatens your forces. If you fail to kill the conscripts, they just park on objectives and win by Da Rulez.

See I hear about stuff like this, and I wonder why people think it is bad.

Why should every unit in the game be able to 1-turn delete what it is designed to do? I mean, a 3-lascannon HWS is a dedicated AT-unit in AM, why can't it one-shot a Rhino off the board?

Yes, things can still have roles within an army (anti-infantry, anti-tank, high mobility, whatever), but that doesn't mean they should simply get a free "I delete the unit as long as it is the one I counter" card they can play every turn.

Conscripts, even after the nerf, should take at least one shooting phase to shift, because if they take less than one shooting phase to shift, then they are useless as a screen.

The issue is that guard artillery can 1 turn delete units, and if it takes more than 1 turn to kill a single conscript squad (say it takes 2.) then anyone taking say 3 conscript units becomes functionally invulnerable for the entire game to any close range combat. I would argue that say half an armies worth of offense (at peak efficiency for a designed task) should be able to delete a unit that costs under 200 points

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why should every unit in the game be able to 1-turn delete what it is designed to do? I mean, a 3-lascannon HWS is some of the best anti-tank in AM, why can't it one-shot a Rhino off the board?

I didn't say anything about it should be able to 1-turn delete anything. My twice the cost elite unit was firing at a unit it was HIGHLY EFFICIENT against, the BEST IN MY FACTION at killing, yet could only kill 1/4 of its point cost. For the same cost as my Noise Marines, you can field two 50-man conscript blobs and it would take this elite unit FOUR TURNS of shooting to erradicate them all in a 5-7 turn game. Assuming you don't shoot back.

That's the issue... even with my Sorcerer backing me up, cutting my misses in half, it wasn't enough to matter. I have literally no better unit to use for the task either. Meanwhile, if you drop Magnus on the board, my Obliterators can wipe him out in 1 or 2 turns. See that Baneblade you brought? It took 12 wounds the turn they arrived. I can spend some CP to shoot again and finish it off. Tanks die to melta or lascannon spam, even if it takes 2-3 turns or 2-3 units. Heck, anti-tank tends to be CHEAPER than the tanks because counter units would be kind of absurd if they cost you more than what they were countering.

Conscripts don't have much in the way of counters and it's mostly due to that Commissar negating their losses. Killing him is all but impossible since deep strikes don't work this edition, can't shoot him directly except with my non-existant snipers (can we borrow the Vindicare?), and the psychic powers that can target freely only have a small chance of actually doing the job, assuming he's not behind a building where you can't see him.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Conscripts, even after the nerf, should take at least one shooting phase to shift, because if they take less than one shooting phase to shift, then they are useless as a screen.

Currently they take four turns to shift. If I use my elite units named the Conscript Crushers. If I used my similar cost conscript squad, the Cultists, they'd just be sitting there all day flailing at each other until I was forced to take more morale than they do and lose to attrition.

Coupled with their ability to receive free Stratagem effects without CP expenditure in the form of Orders, Conscripts are the most bargain units in the game with plenty of advantages and staying power.

They definitely shouldn't have ObSec... :/

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Units are generally dying like flies right now. Average pts damage per pt firing is something like 0.5-1.0 for many of the good units with at least midranged (12+'') weapons firing at a given appropriate target. Conscripts are an exception to this trend, the very best midranged anti-conscript weapons are around 0.2-0.3 in that scale. I would prefer to see a functional nerf to conscripts where almost everything else gains survivability instead, barring that they need to be less survivable to achieve balance.

I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that "Send in the Next Wave" is no longer a thing

I quite like the solution of reducing squad sizes - Conscript squads over the size of 20 always nagged me in some way. Combine that with no orders and I think that's likely to solve the issue.

Shame that Platoons were taken out. I doubt Conscripts would be an issue if the Platoon system was still in place...

 Marmatag wrote:
I'll go with what i've said before, as a criticism of 8th edition in general:

1. No model, costing less than 6 points, should get a save. For their points, Orks should be the most survivable in terms of cheap, high casualty infantry. Therefore, Orks should be a benchmark for being the *best* at being a wall of bodies. Brimstone horrors, Conscripts, and anything less than 6 points should not get a save, period, based on 8th edition internal balance. Orks should set the bar here.

2. Smite in its base form is simply too strong. Instead of d3/d6, it should be 1damage, and on 11+, d3. Magnus should be d3/d6. Anything that costs less than 60 points should NOT have full strength smite, if they insist on keeping smite in its current form. Sorry, that's just too strong. And that applies to *every* army.

3. Update the cost of plasma and other weapons to be properly costed. I'm sorry but even with that, Hot-shot guns are pretty damn good, they'd have to be adjusted. I would also increase the cost of drones.

4. Alter character rules so they cannot be targeted ONLY if there is a non-character unit closer. As opposed to one character screening for another.

5. Ban forgeworld completely from matched play. I know people disagree, because unit X isn't overpowered, but they have too many strong units for competitive play.

1.) Not sure I agree here, what I would rather see is more use of the lower toughness scale. I would say perhaps no save should be better than 5+. But if conscripts were T2 with a 5+ I think they would be ok. If brims were T1 with a 5++ or 6++, I think they would be ok. I think horrors always should have been Blues at T2 and Brims a T1.

2.) Smite is ok but I agree that it should be weaker for anything under 60 points. Part of me wishes it were similar to some old powers where you could invest "spells per turn" to make it better.

3.) probably true,

4.) I think that is a fine fix.

5.) I'm not sure on this one, I think it largely depends on how FW addresses balance issues.

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Commissar > Runtherd, equivalently priced unit with essentially the exact same role. Commissar is lightyears better. Don't get into tanks, guard has the best tanks period.

As an ig player I have to agree, conscripts need to be changed. As others have said they are not trained solders, they are criminals given the choice to fight or rot in prison, they are civilians forced to fight for their homes, they are normal people who have the unfortunate luck of being caught in a war zone who are given little other choice but to fight.

The commissioner should still work on them, not arguing against that. That's a commissioners job, to keep the other units in line. But it would make more sense if when he executes then they lose 1 model and use his leadership for the test and not just auto pass. Thats for all guard units, not just conscripts.

Also I agree if your playing guard you should not get access to any sob units. Some parts of the indexes are designed around support like inquisition, you can't really field an inquisition force by itself it would need access to either guard or sob or gk because that's how they work. But guard with Celestine make no sense to me, she is a sob and should only be taken if your primary detachment is sob.

40k has always had issues with allies and making rules that make sense with the fluff. They tried something this time that allowed imperium players to more freely work their different armies together but it's not really as easy to Balance because of this. I agree with the earlier sentiment, match play should be one codex /index army at a time. I should not be able to take terminators in my guard army, I am the Imperial guard for crying out loud. If I want terminators I should grab my space Marines.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that "Send in the Next Wave" is no longer a thing

Only because AM doesn't have stratagems yet. They gave Chaos their own "Send in the Next Wave" for cultists.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
I shot a 400-pt blob of Noise Marines at conscripts with Prescience, the most shooty unit in all of Chaos, all featuring sonic blasters for triple shots that ignore cover.

Killed half the squad. Next turn killed the other half. Had morale been a thing, the entire squad would have died turn 1.

Those conscripts only cost half the points of my Noise Marines.

It's kind of a problem when objective secured guys can outlast any form of shooting your army can muster point for point. The only unit that can outkill Noise Marines are the Khorne Berzerkers and that's only in close combat with plenty of opportunity to shoot them off the board.

Drowned in bodies is the Imperial Guard thing and it's presently much too effective since in the few turns the game lasts you won't even kill all the conscripts, much less the rest of his tanks and artillery, the stuff that actually threatens your forces. If you fail to kill the conscripts, they just park on objectives and win by Da Rulez.

See I hear about stuff like this, and I wonder why people think it is bad.

Why should every unit in the game be able to 1-turn delete what it is designed to do? I mean, a 3-lascannon HWS is a dedicated AT-unit in AM, why can't it one-shot a Rhino off the board?

Yes, things can still have roles within an army (anti-infantry, anti-tank, high mobility, whatever), but that doesn't mean they should simply get a free "I delete the unit as long as it is the one I counter" card they can play every turn.

Conscripts, even after the nerf, should take at least one shooting phase to shift, because if they take less than one shooting phase to shift, then they are useless as a screen.

The issue is that guard artillery can 1 turn delete units, and if it takes more than 1 turn to kill a single conscript squad (say it takes 2.) then anyone taking say 3 conscript units becomes functionally invulnerable for the entire game to any close range combat. I would argue that say half an armies worth of offense (at peak efficiency for a designed task) should be able to delete a unit that costs under 200 points

More than one unit of Guard artillery can 1-turn delete units. I specifically said "one unit" should not be able to defeat "one other unit."

And they only become invulnerable to the game if the game is "kill the conscripts." The game isn't that, FYI. Kill one squad, charge through the gap it left, and tear up everything behind them, just as one thoughtful example. And what you mean depends entirely on army size. If we've 200 point armies, then absolutely no unit worth half an army's cost should be able to delete < 200 pts.

Arkaine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why should every unit in the game be able to 1-turn delete what it is designed to do? I mean, a 3-lascannon HWS is some of the best anti-tank in AM, why can't it one-shot a Rhino off the board?

I didn't say anything about it should be able to 1-turn delete anything. My twice the cost elite unit was firing at a unit it was HIGHLY EFFICIENT against, the BEST IN MY FACTION at killing, yet could only kill 1/4 of its point cost. For the same cost as my Noise Marines, you can field two 50-man conscript blobs and it would take this elite unit FOUR TURNS of shooting to erradicate them all in a 5-7 turn game. Assuming you don't shoot back.

Four turns for two squads sounds about right, actually. 2 turns to delete a squad seems reasonable, rather than one turn. Deleting units in one turn is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Arkaine wrote:
That's the issue... even with my Sorcerer backing me up, cutting my misses in half, it wasn't enough to matter. I have literally no better unit to use for the task either. Meanwhile, if you drop Magnus on the board, my Obliterators can wipe him out in 1 or 2 turns. See that Baneblade you brought? It took 12 wounds the turn they arrived. I can spend some CP to shoot again and finish it off. Tanks die to melta or lascannon spam, even if it takes 2-3 turns or 2-3 units. Heck, anti-tank tends to be CHEAPER than the tanks because counter units would be kind of absurd if they cost you more than what they were countering.

Right. I am saying no-unit should be one-shotted. Part of the problem with 8th is that (as you point out) it is certainly possible to one-shot units. That needs to stop, not become more prolific.

Oh, and you yourself admit that it will take a unit 2-3 turns, or 2-3 of said units, to kill conscripts. So they're literally the same as what you're saying about the tank. And antitank is absolutely not cheaper than the tanks... because 3 Lascannon HWTs is 72 pts, not 70, and it only gets worse if you talk about anti-tank units like the Vanquisher or Devil Dog.

Arkaine wrote:
Conscripts don't have much in the way of counters and it's mostly due to that Commissar negating their losses. Killing him is all but impossible since deep strikes don't work this edition, can't shoot him directly except with my non-existant snipers (can we borrow the Vindicare?), and the psychic powers that can target freely only have a small chance of actually doing the job, assuming he's not behind a building where you can't see him.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Conscripts, even after the nerf, should take at least one shooting phase to shift, because if they take less than one shooting phase to shift, then they are useless as a screen.

Currently they take four turns to shift. If I use my elite units named the Conscript Crushers. If I used my similar cost conscript squad, the Cultists, they'd just be sitting there all day flailing at each other until I was forced to take more morale than they do and lose to attrition.

Coupled with their ability to receive free Stratagem effects without CP expenditure in the form of Orders, Conscripts are the most bargain units in the game with plenty of advantages and staying power.

You and I agree - Orders need to be removed from conscripts. And one unit takes 2 turns, just like I have been saying is fine (and apparently you agree but only with tanks (??)). Four turns is for two units, which is in fact the same as saying one unit in two turns.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that "Send in the Next Wave" is no longer a thing

Dont joke about that it may come back as a stratagem

Azuza001 wrote:
As an ig player I have to agree, conscripts need to be changed. As others have said they are not trained solders, they are criminals given the choice to fight or rot in prison, they are civilians forced to fight for their homes, they are normal people who have the unfortunate luck of being caught in a war zone who are given little other choice but to fight.

BZZZT. WRONG.

Conscripts are those you have mentioned(and really, why are we thinking that Hive Gangers aren't able to fight?) plus recent inductees from the PDFs of a planet.
What are PDFs?

Oh that's right...
TRAINED. SOLDIERS.

Also I agree if your playing guard you should not get access to any sob units. Some parts of the indexes are designed around support like inquisition, you can't really field an inquisition force by itself it would need access to either guard or sob or gk because that's how they work. But guard with Celestine make no sense to me, she is a sob and should only be taken if your primary detachment is sob.

She's a Living Saint. People rally around them.

40k has always had issues with allies and making rules that make sense with the fluff. They tried something this time that allowed imperium players to more freely work their different armies together but it's not really as easy to Balance because of this. I agree with the earlier sentiment, match play should be one codex /index army at a time. I should not be able to take terminators in my guard army, I am the Imperial guard for crying out loud. If I want terminators I should grab my space Marines.

Nah.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
I shot a 400-pt blob of Noise Marines at conscripts with Prescience, the most shooty unit in all of Chaos, all featuring sonic blasters for triple shots that ignore cover.

Killed half the squad. Next turn killed the other half. Had morale been a thing, the entire squad would have died turn 1.

Those conscripts only cost half the points of my Noise Marines.

It's kind of a problem when objective secured guys can outlast any form of shooting your army can muster point for point. The only unit that can outkill Noise Marines are the Khorne Berzerkers and that's only in close combat with plenty of opportunity to shoot them off the board.

Drowned in bodies is the Imperial Guard thing and it's presently much too effective since in the few turns the game lasts you won't even kill all the conscripts, much less the rest of his tanks and artillery, the stuff that actually threatens your forces. If you fail to kill the conscripts, they just park on objectives and win by Da Rulez.

See I hear about stuff like this, and I wonder why people think it is bad.

Why should every unit in the game be able to 1-turn delete what it is designed to do? I mean, a 3-lascannon HWS is a dedicated AT-unit in AM, why can't it one-shot a Rhino off the board?

Yes, things can still have roles within an army (anti-infantry, anti-tank, high mobility, whatever), but that doesn't mean they should simply get a free "I delete the unit as long as it is the one I counter" card they can play every turn.

Conscripts, even after the nerf, should take at least one shooting phase to shift, because if they take less than one shooting phase to shift, then they are useless as a screen.

The issue is that guard artillery can 1 turn delete units, and if it takes more than 1 turn to kill a single conscript squad (say it takes 2.) then anyone taking say 3 conscript units becomes functionally invulnerable for the entire game to any close range combat. I would argue that say half an armies worth of offense (at peak efficiency for a designed task) should be able to delete a unit that costs under 200 points

More than one unit of Guard artillery can 1-turn delete units. I specifically said "one unit" should not be able to defeat "one other unit."

And they only become invulnerable to the game if the game is "kill the conscripts." The game isn't that, FYI. Kill one squad, charge through the gap it left, and tear up everything behind them, just as one thoughtful example. And what you mean depends entirely on army size. If we've 200 point armies, then absolutely no unit worth half an army's cost should be able to delete < 200 pts.

A single mantacore is more than able to 1 turn delete plenty of units. and 3 of them is the same cost as the 400+ point unit described here. Are you telling me 3 mantacores cannot single turn delete many vehicles in the game? You really need to look at points not units. A single acolyte is 1 unit and realistically should be 1 shotted by almost anything in the game. A single devastator squad with 4 lascannons is not unlikely to delete many vehicles in the game in a single turn. The Shadowsword can pretty much delete most tanks in the game.



As for half the army I am talking 2k points. So 1k points of my army should wipe a conscript squad in a single turn assuming they are meant to be anti-infantry.

For the "play the mission response" that only works if you can survive the shooting from the AM player. Otherwise kill the conscripts literally is the game. Charging through gaps assumes those gaps exist, and are not just covered by the other conscript squads.

There are fixes that need to be made to anti-infantry firepower in the game.

 Kanluwen wrote:
BZZZT. WRONG.

Conscripts are those you have mentioned(and really, why are we thinking that Hive Gangers aren't able to fight?) plus recent inductees from the PDFs of a planet.
What are PDFs?

Oh that's right...
TRAINED. SOLDIERS.

The nature of Conscripts vary from case to case. Often they're just simply Guardsmen who haven't completed their training in time, and who are desperately needed on the battlefield. While perhaps they could still follow orders nearly as effectively as regular Guardsmen lore wise, removing the orders option sounds more logical than removing a Commissar's ability to shoot them in the head when they don't obey their command.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Four turns for two squads sounds about right, actually. 2 turns to delete a squad seems reasonable, rather than one turn. Deleting units in one turn is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Except we're talking about the best in my army at deleting units of conscripts. Every normal unit I have for fighting conscripts would 4-5 turns to wipe them out. It's 2 turns to delete a squad with a TWICE COSTED ELITE SQUAD THAT TRIPLE FIRES!

You're acting like if I drop a squad of 10 terminators onto your Leman Russ, it should somehow survive the turn. Deleting a squad in one turn is MORE than possible with sufficient force. The issue is how much "sufficient force" is required to kill Conscripts is horribly disproportionate to every other unit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. I am saying no-unit should be one-shotted. Part of the problem with 8th is that (as you point out) it is certainly possible to one-shot units. That needs to stop, not become more prolific.

Except the units I mentioned cost less than the units they counter. Three obliterators are only 195 points. Yet they can over the course of a few turns kill their points worth in tanks easily, especially that 24 wound megatank sitting in front of them or that 18 wound primarch. Conscripts have the reverse outcome. It takes an overwhelming force that exceeds their point cost multiple turns to kill them. Things are DEFINITELY capable of being one-shotted when zerged with supreme firepower and should remain that way unless you want your 200 pt conscript squad to tank 1500 pts of shooting and still be alive at the end of the turn.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh, and you yourself admit that it will take a unit 2-3 turns, or 2-3 of said units, to kill conscripts. So they're literally the same as what you're saying about the tank. And antitank is absolutely not cheaper than the tanks... because 3 Lascannon HWTs is 72 pts, not 70, and it only gets worse if you talk about anti-tank units like the Vanquisher or Devil Dog.

No, I didn't. I said it takes FOUR turns to kill back a Noise Marines' points worth of conscripts. Also, Anti-tank is definitely cheaper than the tank because you're forgetting the guns for the tanks. A Rhino may only be 70 pt for the chassis but it also has a combi-bolter that it must take, putting it at 72 pts, same as your THREE SQUADS OF LASCANNONS and that's if it takes none of its other weapon options. Also, I didn't say the 1-turn-1-shot was what was cheaper, even a single heavy weapon can counter a tank over the course of a few turns. A predator, an actual main battle tank that lascannons would be used against instead of troop transports, costs 90 pts base but must also pay for a 49 pt autocannon, making the cheapest predator cost 139 pts. If you add side lascannons, the cost of a predator jumps to 189 pts. Lascannons for marines are 25 pts and can go on any 13pt Havoc, making them extremely cost effective for murdering their points worth in tanks.

Conscripts on the other hand take four turns of shooting for a similarly costed unit to wipe them. A single squad of conscripts dies in 2 turns to a unit that costs twice what they do. Imagine if it took you 2 turns and 6 Lascannon HWTs (12 shots total) to kill a single Rhino. That's what we're talking about here.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You and I agree - Orders need to be removed from conscripts. And one unit takes 2 turns, just like I have been saying is fine (and apparently you agree but only with tanks (??)). Four turns is for two units, which is in fact the same as saying one unit in two turns.

No it's not the same as saying 1 unit in two turns. The unit shooting that unit is twice the point cost. If you want me to cut my Noise Marine squad in half and use a 10-man squad, same cost as the conscripts, it now take 4 turns of shooting assuming I suffer no casualties to kill that one squad. I also used a Sorcerer to buff them with Prescience, removing that increases the time to kill them to 5 turns. One should not require 2 turns with TWICE the point value shooting at it WITH BUFFS to kill a unit.

To put it into perspective, imagine if you had your own unit trying to kill mine. Mine is a Rhino costing 72 pts. To be as fair as conscripts, you need to use 2 turns with twice the point cost to kill my one Rhino. So in other words, 144 pts of SIX Lascannon HWTs each firing for TWO TURNS at my Rhino just to kill it. If that's what you want this game to be then I willingly accept my Rhino's buff to 20 wounds.

SilverAlien wrote:
Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Guard has more than infantry, and "across the board" doesn't indicate "infantry only".

Breng77 wrote:
Don't get into tanks, guard has the best tanks period.

Not in 8th edition.

Hell, Space Marines have better tnaks than Guard do, by far.

 Melissia wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Don't get into tanks, guard has the best tanks period.

Not in 8th edition.

Who has better tanks? Eldar?

 Marmatag wrote:
Who has better tanks? Eldar?

Just to start?
Space Marines. Quad-las predators are better than leman russ battle tanks, point per point.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Don't get into tanks, guard has the best tanks period.

Not in 8th edition.

Who has better tanks? Eldar?

Probably eldar.

but i figure it would ultimately depend on what you think is best

T8 is pretty significant. wounding on 3s vs 4s. or 5s vs 6s.

But then Lemons dont have the BEST offensive capabilities.

Id say the Best Offense would go to Dark eldar glass cannon boats.

For the "across the board" thing, I meant infantry and all that that entails, in order to avoid having to make the list I am making now:

Conscripts, IG squads, HWTs, scions, veterans, command squads, company commanders, platoon commanders, lord commissars, ratlings, and special weapon squads.

And those should only go up by a point if the Regiment rules for them are pretty darn awesome (like the RG -1 to hit, or the Salamanders, or the like).

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Who has better tanks? Eldar?

Just to start?
Space Marines. Quad-las predators are better than leman russ battle tanks, point per point.

Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns. Or are we not considering those as tanks?

Why don't you see conscripts screening for Quad-Las Predators...

I don't know who started the myth of the quad-las predator, but they get absolutely stomped in the current meta. You might see them in a Guilliman parking lot but that's about it.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Who has better tanks? Eldar?

Just to start?
Space Marines. Quad-las predators are better than leman russ battle tanks, point per point.

Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns. Or you'd see conscripts screening for Quad-Las Predators.

I don't know who started the myth of the quad-las predator, but they get absolutely stomped in the current meta. You might see them in a Guilliman parking lot but that's about it.

Manticores and Wyverns are artillery, not tanks. Armoured Regiments would have 0 in the fluff.

Minor nitpick, but important to those of us who want to run tanks and not artillery.

Azuza001 wrote:
But guard with Celestine make no sense to me, she is a sob and should only be taken if your primary detachment is sob.

1) There is no such thing as a 'Primary Detachment'.

2) You know her aura specifically affects IG units, right? it kinda implies that she's meant to be taken with them as well as with SoB.

3) If we're not allowed to take St. Celestine with IG, can we have rules for our own Living Saint? You know, like we do in the fluff.

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

I've been thinking about conscripts, and here's my idea on how to balance them:

- Max squad size of 30
- Commissars cause 1D6 casualties rather than 1
- Cannot contest objectives
- Do not get the benefit of cover

Thoughts? Doesn't increase points, but limits what they can do and their durability.

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
I've been thinking about conscripts, and here's my idea on how to balance them:

- Max squad size of 30
- Commissars cause 1D6 casualties rather than 1
- Cannot contest objectives
- Do not get the benefit of cover

Thoughts?

1) Fair enough, alone and with no other changes.
2) Fair enough, alone and with no other changes.
3) What? Why? This is one of their major functions and uses.
4) This pretty much already happens in 8th, I can barely think of any terrain pieces large enough to hold 30-50 models completely, and all it takes is 1 off by itself standing outside and the whole squad loses it (at least until the next shooting attack).

Overnerf.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Who has better tanks? Eldar?

Just to start?
Space Marines. Quad-las predators are better than leman russ battle tanks, point per point.

Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns. Or you'd see conscripts screening for Quad-Las Predators.

I don't know who started the myth of the quad-las predator, but they get absolutely stomped in the current meta. You might see them in a Guilliman parking lot but that's about it.

Manticores and Wyverns are artillery, not tanks. Armoured Regiments would have 0 in the fluff.

Minor nitpick, but important to those of us who want to run tanks and not artillery.

That's bad reasoning.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Who has better tanks? Eldar?

Just to start?
Space Marines. Quad-las predators are better than leman russ battle tanks, point per point.

and worse than Mantacores, Basilisks, Taurox primes...

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
BZZZT. WRONG.

Conscripts are those you have mentioned(and really, why are we thinking that Hive Gangers aren't able to fight?) plus recent inductees from the PDFs of a planet.
What are PDFs?

Oh that's right...
TRAINED. SOLDIERS.

The nature of Conscripts vary from case to case. Often they're just simply Guardsmen who haven't completed their training in time, and who are desperately needed on the battlefield. While perhaps they could still follow orders nearly as effectively as regular Guardsmen lore wise, removing the orders option sounds more logical than removing a Commissar's ability to shoot them in the head when they don't obey their command.

"That nature of Conscripts varying from case to case" is hogwash. We're not getting different types of Conscripts to cover each "type"(and really, the idea that they're "simply Guardsmen who haven't completed their training in time" is just as silly of a justification for them losing access to Orders).

Commissars are a thing, the whiny "Guard have to be played as hordes! with Commissars! because Russians!" people wanted them to stick around and they have.

What sounds more logical, to me, is forcing people to accept that TAC lists don't cover every extreme. They didn't in the past, and they don't now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Who has better tanks? Eldar?

Just to start?
Space Marines. Quad-las predators are better than leman russ battle tanks, point per point.

Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns. Or you'd see conscripts screening for Quad-Las Predators.

I don't know who started the myth of the quad-las predator, but they get absolutely stomped in the current meta. You might see them in a Guilliman parking lot but that's about it.

Manticores and Wyverns are artillery, not tanks. Armoured Regiments would have 0 in the fluff.

Minor nitpick, but important to those of us who want to run tanks and not artillery.

That's bad reasoning.

Why? If I say "I'm running a tank company" would you say "Why don't you run Basilisks and Manticores?" and if you did say that, what's stopping you from taking the next logical step and saying "Have you tried playing conscripts?"

As a tank company player, I'll never be fielding IG artillery. It's unfluffy, and it's not tanks, despite the fact that many people don't understand the distinction between self-propelled artillery and tanks.

Breng77 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Who has better tanks? Eldar?

Just to start?
Space Marines. Quad-las predators are better than leman russ battle tanks, point per point.

and worse than Mantacores, Basilisks, Taurox primes...

Not really for the first two.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

Breng77 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

What happens when those Marine tanks are behind a Conscript screen out of range?

Breng77 wrote:
Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

Sure, in the magical land of "50% of the gameboard is protected from line of sight at all times from all angles no matter what", a scenario which doesn't actually exist no matter how much people bitch and whine and moan that it does.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Yes it was full of Taurox Primes, which while are not tanks, are still vehicles doing the job of a tank.

Mathhammer does not do this justice, though, considering the predator needs line of sight and the others don't. That's a *huge* thing. If you took away the LOS buff from the manties and wyverns, and gave them a 48" range, then yes, the quad-las predator would be superior.

Do you honestly, genuinely feel that Space Marines have the best tanks? I mean, really, genuinely believe that? Have you actually played a game of 8th edition using space marine tanks?

Space marines have the best flyers. And until boots on the ground, they were a viable build.

Also, just to reiterate:

Artillery (or the new contender, armoured transports) != tanks

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

What happens when those Marine tanks are behind a Conscript screen out of range?

Probably nothing as screening doesnt stop you from shooting the tanks.

Sure it stops deep strike tactics but you are still exposing those preds to other lascannons.

The artillery shooting from out of LOS makes them untouchable. but then you would need to add the points for the screen to prevent derp strikes.

ITT:

"Marine tanks are better than guard tanks."

"BUT ARTILLERY"

"Yes, guard artillery is better than SM artillery. Why are we comparing a tank to artillery again?"

 Marmatag wrote:
Mathhammer does not do this justice, though

Given the prior arguments made about conscripts, this is one of the most unintentionally funny things to have been posted on dakka in a long time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, just to reiterate:

Artillery (or the new contender, armoured transports) != tanks

Right, that != should be a ">"

Mantacore is 69 points cheaper than the Quad Las pred, has longer range, higher strength, does not need LOS, and has more shots on average. I can run 3 for every 2 predators you bring.

Basilisks are 94 points less, has longer range, same strength, does not need LOS and has ~ the same shots on average, I can essentially field 2 for every predator you run.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

Sure, in the magical land of "50% of the gameboard is protected from line of sight at all times from all angles no matter what", a scenario which doesn't actually exist no matter how much people bitch and whine and moan that it does.

You don't need 50% you need about 5% to hide a few of these tanks, + their long range.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Mathhammer does not do this justice, though

Given the prior arguments made about conscripts, this is one of the most unintentionally funny things to have been posted on dakka in a long time.

It's horribly disingenuous to snip one line of my post and attempt to use that to create a ridiculous false equivalence.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, just to reiterate:

Artillery (or the new contender, armoured transports) != tanks

Not all artillery is tanks, but some of them are. I'd argue that things like Wyverns and Whirlwinds are tanks, whereas things like Batteries and Thunderfires aren't.

Commissars should be altered so that if they are babysitting a conscript squad, they cannot affect any other unit in range. It's not perfect, but it would add a commissar tax to every conscript unit that you want to use in that way, AND it would mean that the other infantry squads in the area would be fairly useless.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

What happens when those Marine tanks are behind a Conscript screen out of range?

Out of range of the Basilisk? or Mantacore? What tables do you play on where 10' or 30' ranges are ever out of range?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:

"Marine tanks are better than guard tanks."

"BUT ARTILLERY"

"Yes, guard artillery is better than SM artillery. Why are we comparing a tank to artillery again?"

Because the guard artillery are tanks. Just because you draw an arbitrary line between 1 chimera chasis vehicle and another doesn't mean one exists. In fact based on the game rules, the things pointed out here are vehicles, tank is a class that does not exist, and artillery is something else entirely.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) Fair enough, alone and with no other changes.
2) Fair enough, alone and with no other changes.
3) What? Why? This is one of their major functions and uses.
4) This pretty much already happens in 8th, I can barely think of any terrain pieces large enough to hold 30-50 models completely, and all it takes is 1 off by itself standing outside and the whole squad loses it (at least until the next shooting attack).

Instead of not being objective secured by default, how about either one of these two:

A) Obsec only if 50% if squad remains

or

B) If there is a friendly officer within 6"

I'll grant the cover one is quite moot - just some brainstorming really. But the fact conscripts (generally being poor individual soldiers) can capture contested objectives just doesn't seem to fit right. Either make them use their numbers to capture objectives, or get an officer to babysit them.

The solution for conscripts is a simple one:
-Orders and Commissar effects do not effect Conscripts.

The idea is that Conscripts are the able-bodied rabble that the IG put together to throw more bodies on the field. They gave them a helmet, a lasgun, and said "go shoot that way." That's why they can be fielded in such large units. They should not, however, be organized enough to obey orders and should not succeed morale tests by one guy being shot (when the enemy slaughtered 20 of them previously).

Boom, done. You don't adjust point costs. Just make that change. Then, commissars are still good for keeping regular infantry in line and regular infantry doesn't get a nerf in point cost or anything. Just Conscripts.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #2 - Alpharius]

[MOD EDIT - RULE #2 - Alpharius]

[MOD EDIT - RULE #2 - Alpharius]

Here's the wikipedia article on self-propelled artillery:
https://wiki2.org/en/Self-propelled_artillery

Just read the article. Literally. It reiterates, many times, how and why self propelled artillery isn't a tank.

For heaven's sake, just read the sentence that begins "while they may superficially resemble a tank..."

SPGs aren't tanks. Even the ones with rotating turrets aren't tanks.

Equivocating the two is just... I don't even know. Ignorant of military affairs, I guess. Sloppy, is another term that comes to mind.

As for what chassis it uses: Yes, I will draw a distinction between the Chimera, an APC, the Wyvern, an SPG, and the Hellhound, a tank, just like I will draw a distinction between the Namer APC and the Merkava MBT despite them having the same chassis.

drbored wrote:
The solution for conscripts is a simple one:
-Orders and Commissar effects do not effect Conscripts.

The idea is that Conscripts are the able-bodied rabble that the IG put together to throw more bodies on the field. They gave them a helmet, a lasgun, and said "go shoot that way." That's why they can be fielded in such large units. They should not, however, be organized enough to obey orders and should not succeed morale tests by one guy being shot (when the enemy slaughtered 20 of them previously).

Boom, done. You don't adjust point costs. Just make that change. Then, commissars are still good for keeping regular infantry in line and regular infantry doesn't get a nerf in point cost or anything. Just Conscripts.

Except nobody uses regular infantry right now anyways.

Regular infantry suck compared to Conscripts. They're unfocused, they have weird mish-mashes of weapons, and the only real benefit they would have is in toting Vox-Casters.

Your statement is not a fix. It's neutering the army because of one unit that people can't handle with their TAC lists.

Why should we Guard players care about their W/L being disrupted? Not our problem they didn't bring a sniper-heavy list to deal with the support staff.

The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

Who the feth cares whether a Manticore is a tank or artillery. Can you guys move this to a private message and stop derailing the thread, please? Same for the meme kids.

My Manticore performs very well if a bit unreliably. My two Predators (usually Destructors or Executioners) play well, too. They don't get the huge hits in like a Manticore does once in a while, but they have reliable output and they can be supported much better than a Manticore that can only get a Master of Ordnance for re-rolls above 36'' while the Preds can benefit from both a Lieutenant and Captain (or Chaptermaster even) without any range limitations.

As an eldar player I say you should care because a period of being the most OP army results in nooone wanting to play and people assuming bad things because of you army choice.

IG have 2 overperforming units conscripts (with help from a commisar) and artillery so those need a nerf and/or a points adjustment. A lot of OP armies can become by simply nerfing the one OP build.

Irl artillery and tanks work very different , but not in 40k there they are mechanically very similiar.

I care, nekooni, deeply. Because I want to be able to play an IG Tank Company and not an IG Artillery Company, much like how I don't want to play Tau or Eldar either.

The fact that people conflate the two grates on me so very much.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

The issue is that the game doesn't differentiate. SO you are drawing lines outside the grounds of the game to define a limited set of vehicles that are pretty similar to be different. Your argument becomes "the Quad Las Predator is better than the Leman Russ." Which ignores other more effective options for Guard. Saying, well I wouldn't run that because "insert arbitrary fluff reason" is no different from me removing any number of units from a discussion because I don't like them in my list.

drbored wrote:
The solution for conscripts is a simple one:
-Orders and Commissar effects do not effect Conscripts.

Why not just remove the Conscript entry from the IG book?

Your suggestion amounts to the same thing.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

The issue is that the game doesn't differentiate. SO you are drawing lines outside the grounds of the game to define a limited set of vehicles that are pretty similar to be different. Your argument becomes "the Quad Las Predator is better than the Leman Russ." Which ignores other more effective options for Guard. Saying, well I wouldn't run that because "insert arbitrary fluff reason" is no different from me removing any number of units from a discussion because I don't like them in my list.

The Leman Russ, Hellhound, Devil Dog, and Banewolf are all tanks, actually, and the Predator is better than all of them.

And you're still wrong. If a new player came up to me and said "I want to play a tank company! What army do I pick?" and someone else said "Guard have the best tanks!" I'd go have a discussion about why they were wrong. If someone wants to play tanks, they usually don't want to play artillery.

And you're right, Breng, it is arbitrarily removing units from the discussion. Just like how "My BA are doing badly." shouldn't be replied with "Go play Eldar." then "My tanks are doing badly!" shouldn't receive the reply "Go play artillery!"

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

Indirect fire is not the main difference between mobile artillery and tanks. The difference is armor. The difference in armor between mobile artillery and tanks is negligible in 40k 8th - they are essentially the same thing - heck tanks and walkers aren't any different ether in terms of armor.

except the units in question (in terms of the game) are not artillery. Ork Big guns are Artillery (have the keyword and everything). Tanks don't even really exist in this edition as far as the game is concerned. The answer to "I want to play a tank company" is still Guard, because they have the widest variety of effective armored units, and overall still has the best tanks unless that person just want to run Predators and nothing else (all other marine tanks are terrible, unless land raiders are also tanks despite being transports) I'm also pretty sure that in previous editions things like the Chimera (and its variations) had the tank keyword. So in game it is not the same as saying "go play a different faction" If you are saying I like these 4 units and they suck, I feel for you and they should be viable. But in a discussion of power among what are "tanks" in the game of 40k guard largely has the best selection of effective "armored vehicles" filling the tank role.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.

Should have used battle cannon. btw the reason IG are winning lots of games is because conscripts counter every viable strategy to get to undercosted tanks/artillery shooting over walls. This is why russes aren't used. They don't shoot over walls - which means losing is a possibility. The russ itself isn't any better or worse off than a predator. They are in the same ballpark.

In this topic, people not understanding that when people say X is the best unit, they mean for its point cost.

inb4 someone says Khorne Lord of Skulls is the best tank/artillery/jellyfish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

drbored wrote:
The solution for conscripts is a simple one:
-Orders and Commissar effects do not effect Conscripts.

Why not just remove the Conscript entry from the IG book?

Your suggestion amounts to the same thing.

If you think no one would run conscripts that can't take orders, you should look at Cultists.

Breng77 wrote:
Mantacore is 69 points cheaper than the Quad Las pred, has longer range, higher strength, does not need LOS, and has more shots on average. I can run 3 for every 2 predators you bring.

Basilisks are 94 points less, has longer range, same strength, does not need LOS and has ~ the same shots on average, I can essentially field 2 for every predator you run.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

Sure, in the magical land of "50% of the gameboard is protected from line of sight at all times from all angles no matter what", a scenario which doesn't actually exist no matter how much people bitch and whine and moan that it does.

You don't need 50% you need about 5% to hide a few of these tanks, + their long range.

Higher strength means feth all past str 9. Most everything gets wounded on 3's at that point. The Manticore also does less damage and has worse AP.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

Indirect fire is not the main difference between mobile artillery and tanks. The difference is armor. The difference in armor between mobile artillery and tanks is negligible in 40k 8th - they are essentially the same thing - heck tanks and walkers aren't any different ether in terms of armor.

I... disagree completely.

The main difference is armour because the artillery can afford to have thinner armour, since getting into direct combat is not a design consideration because the entire vehicle is designed around indirect fire.

You're saying "the difference is armour" but that's one step too removed. "Why the difference in armour?" Well, because they're designed for different things - and that different things is indirect vs direct fire.

Gotta love IG players - they will actually try to convince you a manticore is bad...it's like they havn't even looked at a Nightspinner. Which is +36 points - has a way worse weapon - BUT is the most cost efficient weapon in the entire eldar codex....

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.

Should have used battle cannon

Saving 18 points for a weaker gun doesnt solve the problem of the tank not living past turn 2. Why would I spend 12-15% of my points on a unit that MIGHT get to shoot twice?

The only tank I've seen do any good is the Relic Falchion. Survivable enough to live to shoot and can almost drop an Imperial Knight in a single turn on average.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Oh the irony. I made this exact same argument back in 7th for Tau not being a strong faction just the Riptide Wing and the Stormsurge and the mob clearly came and gutted the dex anyways. Despite how sweet it would be to do the same I agree. I want them nerfed but not so they are the worst unit in the dex. I doubt they will see competitive play (because 8th has a big spam issue) but in casual games they should be okay tier. It they can find a way to keep them viable without being OP that is fine as well.

I just hope people can be fair about Tau balancing changes in the future.

They're a xeno shooty army, its not going to happen.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Gotta love IG players - they will actually try to convince you a manticore is bad...it's like they havn't even looked at a Nightspinner. Which is +36 points - has a way worse weapon - BUT is the most cost efficient weapon in the entire eldar codex....

Hey keep misrepresenting my arguments some more. I never said it was bad, I said saying it has higher strength than a las pred is meaningless when you factor in the LC's better AP and damage because the to wound rolls are identical against everything but T9 and T5, which are not super common.

I hate to talking about something on topic, as you guys seem to be having so much fun talking about your own thing... but anywho -

The Taurox Prime seems to be a rather underpriced bit of kit. And this becomes even more obvious when that guy has bought 5 of them as "transports" to a fight, where not one single unit in his army seems to be able to actually ride one.

As far as I am aware, only Tempestus troops can ride a Taurox Prime, or an Inquisitor, and he has none of either of those in his list. So he's paying for a transport just for its weaponry... which basically means that the Prime is worth it's points for weaponry and toughness alone, and gets a 10-person transport capacity for free.

Would seem the Prime needs a massive nerf, or a big points increase.

Conscripts should be the worst infantry in the book. They are conscripts! They should be there to be bullet shields and should not be overshadowing the rest of the army, who are the trained guardsmen.
I like the suggestion above that the Commissar kills a conscript to use his leadership. I also like the other ideas of double morale losses for them and they in no way should be able to receive orders.
As long as they are better guardsmen than the Guardsman are, there is an issue. The orders should be one of those things that define the discipline as well as something for morale. Rabble won't stay around long no matter if you shoot one or not if things go too far sideways.

The Taurox Prime is definitely out of line compared to both the Chimera and the standard Taurox.

Some adjustments I'd consider on that front:

TPrime to 70 points from current 65

Chimera to 70 points from current 75

Allow standard Taurox to take the taurox gatling gun

Multilaser to ~7-8 points from 10

Restore 2 firing ports to Chimera

As you can see I tend to favor small adjustments, but in general that should push all three transport options a bit closer together.

After how with Chaos Marines Codex and FAQ's GW buffed the worst units in the Chaos Range and nerfed the ones that deserved it (Like Brimstones) I'm confident that GW will nerf conscripts ,Tempestus, etc... but buff the units that aren't good like Leman Russes.

 Galas wrote:
After how with Chaos Marines Codex and FAQ's GW buffed the worst units in the Chaos Range and nerfed the ones that deserved it (Like Brimstones) I'm confident that GW will nerf conscripts ,Tempestus, etc... but buff the units that aren't good like Leman Russes.

Yeah they seem to mostly be on top of things for once.

Though i forget if girlyman is still on the op tourny must take side of things.

I gotta be honest...I don't like the idea of conscripts anymore. If I could, I'd do away with them altogether.

But since I can't, I suggest limiting their numbers to 20 per squad.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Oh the irony. I made this exact same argument back in 7th for Tau not being a strong faction just the Riptide Wing and the Stormsurge and the mob clearly came and gutted the dex anyways. Despite how sweet it would be to do the same I agree. I want them nerfed but not so they are the worst unit in the dex. I doubt they will see competitive play (because 8th has a big spam issue) but in casual games they should be okay tier. It they can find a way to keep them viable without being OP that is fine as well.

I just hope people can be fair about Tau balancing changes in the future.

You post this in every thread but Tau are still one of the best factions in the game. Just because you choose to ignore the best units in the codex because it doesn't match your playstyle or collection doesn't mean they aren't good.

It has literally been proven with recorded competitive data that Tau are a top faction. There's no opinion involved.

And I would LOVE to have a unit as effective & efficient as commanders in my GK codex. I would absolutely love it. And people would cry all day that GK are OP. And I'd say, "oh, but i can't spam the garbage in my codex and win, therefore GK are bad," all the while, GK are dominating tournaments coast to coast and internationally.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Oh the irony. I made this exact same argument back in 7th for Tau not being a strong faction just the Riptide Wing and the Stormsurge and the mob clearly came and gutted the dex anyways. Despite how sweet it would be to do the same I agree. I want them nerfed but not so they are the worst unit in the dex. I doubt they will see competitive play (because 8th has a big spam issue) but in casual games they should be okay tier. It they can find a way to keep them viable without being OP that is fine as well.

I just hope people can be fair about Tau balancing changes in the future.

You post this in every thread but Tau are still one of the best factions in the game. Just because you choose to ignore the best units in the codex because it doesn't match your playstyle or collection doesn't mean they aren't good.

It has literally been proven with recorded competitive data that Tau are a top faction. There's no opinion involved.

And I would LOVE to have a unit as effective & efficient as commanders in my GK codex. I would absolutely love it. And people would cry all day that GK are OP. And I'd say, "oh, but i can't spam the garbage in my codex and win, therefore GK are bad," all the while, GK are dominating tournaments coast to coast and internationally.

Tau have an abhorrent internal balance. I know that as you don't play Tau, you don't care about that and only about their external balance. That Commanders are OP I can agree with. But as a Tau player, personally I want internal balance for my Codex. So yes, Is totally legitimate to say that Tau need to be fixed just like Tyranid in 7th needed even when Flyrant being pretty OP.
Sorry that I'm not of the crow of "edition-hotness" and I don't like to use my crisis suits as 10 Commanders.
But this is offtopic, so I'll leave this here.

 Galas wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Oh the irony. I made this exact same argument back in 7th for Tau not being a strong faction just the Riptide Wing and the Stormsurge and the mob clearly came and gutted the dex anyways. Despite how sweet it would be to do the same I agree. I want them nerfed but not so they are the worst unit in the dex. I doubt they will see competitive play (because 8th has a big spam issue) but in casual games they should be okay tier. It they can find a way to keep them viable without being OP that is fine as well.

I just hope people can be fair about Tau balancing changes in the future.

You post this in every thread but Tau are still one of the best factions in the game. Just because you choose to ignore the best units in the codex because it doesn't match your playstyle or collection doesn't mean they aren't good.

It has literally been proven with recorded competitive data that Tau are a top faction. There's no opinion involved.

And I would LOVE to have a unit as effective & efficient as commanders in my GK codex. I would absolutely love it. And people would cry all day that GK are OP. And I'd say, "oh, but i can't spam the garbage in my codex and win, therefore GK are bad," all the while, GK are dominating tournaments coast to coast and internationally.

Tau have an abhorrent internal balance. I know that as you don't play Tau, you don't care about that and only about their external balance. That Commanders are OP I can agree with. But as a Tau player, personally I want internal balance for my Codex. So yes, Is totally legitimate to say that Tau need to be fixed just like Tyranid in 7th needed even when Flyrant being pretty OP.
Sorry that I'm not of the crow of "edition-hotness" and I don't like to use my crisis suits as 10 Commanders.
But this is offtopic, so I'll leave this here.

Hear hear. The data shows it's only Tau commanders + drones + troops being spammed and it's clearly falling in effectiveness as people adapt to their one note trick. Not all of us want 2-3 commanders in a casual list just to stand a chance and far more in comp lists. The internal balance for casual play is so bad it's ridiculous. Except you never once will admit that because you don't really care about balancing anything. I'm not some fair weather balance person here I'm trying to make serious balance suggestions for the long term that will stick. I was right on board with Tyranid buffs in 7th and supported Ork buffs and much more alongside my Tau balance changes. Heck I'll admit I was wrong when I thought Necrons were too strong in 8th they could use some small buffs too.

In line with my preference for small adjustments, the most I would consider is putting them behind a platoon-style structure (ie 2 infantry squads for 1 conscript squad, which would handily boot them out of soup lists), or having them roll to pass orders.

Doing both would be too much at once, completely removing orders is entirely too far, and ripping out their spine (ie making the commissar useless to them) would mean no conscript would ever touch the table for the rest of the edition.

And these massive combi-nerfs where people want to give them a price hike, remove orders, remove the commissar, remove their armor, and make them take double battleshock at the same time? Those are right out. If you did all that they'd struggle to be worth 1 point, much less 3 or the proposed 4.

 Gamgee wrote:

Hear hear. The data shows it's only Tau commanders + drones + troops being spammed and it's clearly falling in effectiveness as people adapt to their one note trick. Not all of us want 2-3 commanders in a casual list just to stand a chance and far more in comp lists. The internal balance for casual play is so bad it's ridiculous. Except you never once will admit that because you don't really care about balancing anything. I'm not some fair weather balance person here I'm trying to make serious balance suggestions for the long term that will stick. I was right on board with Tyranid buffs in 7th and supported Ork buffs and much more alongside my Tau balance changes. Heck I'll admit I was wrong when I thought Necrons were too strong in 8th they could use some small buffs too.

To be fair

most of these power level comparisons are based off the competitive results

the kinda place where people used to one trick triple riptides and other power lists in the first place.

so commander spam is to be expected.

Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

They may go the route that AoS did and only allow 20% of your army as allies and you can only choose one alliance.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Conscripts should be the worst infantry in the book. They are conscripts! They should be there to be bullet shields and should not be overshadowing the rest of the army, who are the trained guardsmen.
I like the suggestion above that the Commissar kills a conscript to use his leadership. I also like the other ideas of double morale losses for them and they in no way should be able to receive orders.
As long as they are better guardsmen than the Guardsman are, there is an issue. The orders should be one of those things that define the discipline as well as something for morale. Rabble won't stay around long no matter if you shoot one or not if things go too far sideways.

Have you actually played against/with conscripts? You regularly lose 15+ in a turn. Against a Cawl ball, you lose 30+. Making them Ld 8 after killing a conscript as you suggest still causes you to lose 23 in the latter scenario and 8 in the former BEFORE you even roll the D6 during the morale phase. Now if we stack your double morale losses suggestion onto that, there'd be no point bringing Conscripts except in blocks of 50, and even that would be questionable.

If GW listens to most of you, they might as well just not release an am codex. Good lord.

 Gamgee wrote:
Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

Do you even understand what you're saying here?

There absolutely is a "safeguard against spam lists". There are detachments with specific numbers of slots, etc.

 Gamgee wrote:
Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

You'd need to bring back platoons then, because there'd be no way to fit a remotely competitive Guard army in a single detachment assuming you made Battalion the standard matched play detachment for everybody. You cant make Brigade the standard because theres a ton of armies that cant even come close to filling the slots before running over points. If anything, just drop the recommended detachment number from 3 to 2 at the 2k level. Still offers list building flexibility and makes brigade more attractive as a means to get more slots.

I know, but currently there are too many of them. You can take a vanguard detachment and get as much of that slot as you need for example.

There needs to be only a single detachment and an allied detachment again like in 7th and everyone and every race has to adhere to it for maximum balance.

 Gamgee wrote:
I know, but currently there are too many of them. You can take a vanguard detachment and get as much of that slot as you need for example.

There needs to be only a single detachment and an allied detachment again like in 7th and everyone and every race has to adhere to it for maximum balance.

Problem is it still doesnt stop a Imperial army from going ham on mixing and matching.

but ultimately this is the kinda thing that the Touny organizer needs to deal with not GW.

GW can deal with internal balance though as they should.

Audustum wrote:
The only tank I've seen do any good is the Relic Falchion. Survivable enough to live to shoot and can almost drop an Imperial Knight in a single turn on average.

Yeah it's a freaking monster for sure. If you run it with Azreal it's really hard to kill - if you run it with Guilliman you will likely destroy their 2 best units a turn - if they brought anything big - it's dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
I know, but currently there are too many of them. You can take a vanguard detachment and get as much of that slot as you need for example.

There needs to be only a single detachment and an allied detachment again like in 7th and everyone and every race has to adhere to it for maximum balance.

Problem is it still doesnt stop a Imperial army from going ham on mixing and matching.

but ultimately this is the kinda thing that the Touny organizer needs to deal with not GW.

GW can deal with internal balance though as they should.

I agree - torny organizers need to do more to help balance. Single faction needs to be stressed more. Perhaps even reducing detachments to 1 or 2. Plus outright point fixes for the most obnoxious units - like conscripts - manticores - ect.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Audustum wrote:
The only tank I've seen do any good is the Relic Falchion. Survivable enough to live to shoot and can almost drop an Imperial Knight in a single turn on average.

Yeah it's a freaking monster for sure. If you run it with Azreal it's really hard to kill - if you run it with Guilliman you will likely destroy their 2 best units a turn - if they brought anything big - it's dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
I know, but currently there are too many of them. You can take a vanguard detachment and get as much of that slot as you need for example.

There needs to be only a single detachment and an allied detachment again like in 7th and everyone and every race has to adhere to it for maximum balance.

Problem is it still doesnt stop a Imperial army from going ham on mixing and matching.

but ultimately this is the kinda thing that the Touny organizer needs to deal with not GW.

GW can deal with internal balance though as they should.

I agree - torny organizers need to do more to help balance. Single faction needs to be stressed more. Perhaps even reducing detachments to 1 or 2. Plus outright point fixes for the most obnoxious units - like conscripts - manticores - ect.

I mean Internally Guard is.... well pretty much scions or Conscripts

no one really bothers with the other infantry options as Scions are super points efficient for special deep striking weapons while conscripts are points efferent for bodies on the board and auramancy.

(though scions are not imperial guard right?)

i figure it would be simple enough to just reduce conscript sizes to 20 max. it takes up more slots and gains less from orders.

I've seen it put forth that there should be a limit to how much can be spent on detachments of other faction in soup lists this could also work no? In tandem with tournament organisers doing stuff to limit detachments.

Edit
If GW did limit detachments for matched play they can always say you and your opponent may choose to use the standard detachment (or whatever) or pick and build any that you want within the existing rules. This way GW provides an answer but allows the players to pick what they want as usual. It wouldn't upset the current users of the system who use it more casually and it would enable tournaments to use the standard ones if they so chose.

 Gamgee wrote:
I've seen it put forth that there should be a limit to how much can be spent on detachments of other faction in soup lists this could also work no? In tandem with tournament organisers doing stuff to limit detachments.

It wont work unless there was a limitation on the largest keyword.

IMPERIUM covers a LOT of stuff.

In that case we need to brainstorm how.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.

Should have used battle cannon

Saving 18 points for a weaker gun doesnt solve the problem of the tank not living past turn 2. Why would I spend 12-15% of my points on a unit that MIGHT get to shoot twice?

The tank wont live past 2 turn if you expose it to enemy fire to get in range to fire demolisher cannon. Battle cannon has the range of the board and las cannon hull mount is more than adequate range to sit back and only tank dedicated anti tank fire. Just take heavy bolter sponsons and use them to cover your front line. Much cheaper and will probably live all game if you place it right. If I'm taking a demolisher cannon - I am taking it on a vindicator. Cheap - tough - and if they shoot at it great - it's the toughest thing in my army.

Honestly, I'd be willing to bet the elysians did more to carry the day than the conscripts did.

120 conscripts organized 4x30 is not all that much in the grand scheme of things. They'd slow things down a bit, but the real stars are the Elysians. Besides shaving 8 points off a scion plasma squad (for worse armor, but hey it's already a suicide unit) I was noticing a lot of full infantry squads with krak grenades as their only upgrade.

I'm betting they were exploiting the unique order that lets them turn their grenades into assault weapons. Of course the need to get within 6" limits it a bit, but once they do, I can see 19 lasgun shots, 10 frags, and 10 kraks (because removing the Grenade type removes the one-grenade rule) and maybe a charge to follow up doing quite a number on just about anything.

The conscripts were just a distraction.

 Gamgee wrote:
In that case we need to brainstorm how.

More stress needs to be put on codex. For example - If I take an ultra marines detachment - I shouldn't be allowed to fill out my elites with vindicate assassins and my fast attacks with scout sentinels. Ultra marines detachment - only ultra marines can be taken in it.

Want to include more than one codex? -1 to your roll to go first for each unique army type.

Want to include a lord of war? -1 to your roll to go first.

I like stuff like this to encourage people to take only 1 army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
Honestly, I'd be willing to bet the elysians did more to carry the day than the conscripts did.

120 conscripts organized 4x30 is not all that much in the grand scheme of things. They'd slow things down a bit, but the real stars are the Elysians. Besides shaving 8 points off a scion plasma squad (for worse armor, but hey it's already a suicide unit) I was noticing a lot of full infantry squads with krak grenades as their only upgrade.

I'm betting they were exploiting the unique order that lets them turn their grenades into assault weapons. Of course the need to get within 6" limits it a bit, but once they do, I can see 19 lasgun shots, 10 frags, and 10 kraks (because removing the Grenade type removes the one-grenade rule) and maybe a charge to follow up doing quite a number on just about anything.

The conscripts were just a distraction.

Orders are just bonkers OP. I've never even heard of that order before.

 Gamgee wrote:
I know, but currently there are too many of them. You can take a vanguard detachment and get as much of that slot as you need for example.

There needs to be only a single detachment and an allied detachment again like in 7th and everyone and every race has to adhere to it for maximum balance.

That was a TOURNAMENT RULE.

You could field as many detachments as you had points for in 7th.

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.

Should have used battle cannon

Saving 18 points for a weaker gun doesnt solve the problem of the tank not living past turn 2. Why would I spend 12-15% of my points on a unit that MIGHT get to shoot twice?

The tank wont live past 2 turn if you expose it to enemy fire to get in range to fire demolisher cannon. Battle cannon has the range of the board and las cannon hull mount is more than adequate range to sit back and only tank dedicated anti tank fire. Just take heavy bolter sponsons and use them to cover your front line. Much cheaper and will probably live all game if you place it right.

*SIGH* I am well aware of the range limitations on a Demolisher cannon. But hey, here's a full list of my tournament games with Pask, you tell me if the Battlecannon would have made the difference (spoilers, it wouldn't)

Game vs Nids - Pask actually lived long enough to do something, killed the hell out of a Harpy, was putting in some good work on the Swarmlord before the game ended from time.

2x Storm Ravens fly over my lines to the back of the board and get vision on Pask who was fully hidden behind a building. Insta-gibbed before Turn 1 started.

3x Doom Scythes fly past my lines to get around the building to get vision on Pask who again, was fully hidden behind a building, Death Rays insta-gibbed him before turn 1 started.

Pask started in the back line on my far board edge, actually got two turns of shooting to engage the Ynnari stuff that hit my line, Dark Eldar Lances got him on turn 3.

This one is just straight bad luck, but the TO rolled a random Battle Zone and we got Night Fight for the entire round. Pask got his face punched in by a Knight that got to walk across the table pretty much undamaged. Pask was on my board edge.

Versus Thousand Sons, Magnus and Belakor flew over my conscript line and killed Pask and his Tank Commander buddy on turn 3. He had managed to kill some Scarab Occult Terminators before dying. Yay? Managed to actually win this one because the Scions killed enough of his rubrics camping the back objectives to give me the win.

Note that in none of these games did I advance Pask towards danger or even forward deploy him and didnt even need to move him into range in the games where he survived the alpha because there was stuff to kill within 24" already.

 Xenomancers wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
Honestly, I'd be willing to bet the elysians did more to carry the day than the conscripts did.

120 conscripts organized 4x30 is not all that much in the grand scheme of things. They'd slow things down a bit, but the real stars are the Elysians. Besides shaving 8 points off a scion plasma squad (for worse armor, but hey it's already a suicide unit) I was noticing a lot of full infantry squads with krak grenades as their only upgrade.

I'm betting they were exploiting the unique order that lets them turn their grenades into assault weapons. Of course the need to get within 6" limits it a bit, but once they do, I can see 19 lasgun shots, 10 frags, and 10 kraks (because removing the Grenade type removes the one-grenade rule) and maybe a charge to follow up doing quite a number on just about anything.

The conscripts were just a distraction.

Orders are just bonkers OP. I've never even heard of that order before.

Woah there Angry Marine, before you go running off with your broad brush, that order is exclusive to Elysians. General Imperial Guard orders don't do anything that other factions can't do, and those other factions are generally getting always-on buff bubbles instead of mutually exclusive single-target buffs.

The vanilla orders are:

Aim!: Re-roll 1s to hit when shooting. (any Space Marine captain and a ton of similar characters can do the same thing as a bubble).

Bring it Down!: re-roll 1s to wound when shooting (Space Marine lieutenants can do the same thing as a bubble)

Forward for the Emperor!: The unit must immediately run (move d6") then shoot. Any assault weapon can do this passively, albeit at -1 to hit. Still, it's only going to get you something like 3" most of the time.

Move Move Move!: The unit gets an extra movement phase, in which it must run. Sisters can do the same thing with an Act of Faith, 'Nids get a better version that also lets them charge.

Fix Bayonets!: The unit gets an extra Fight phase. Sisters can do the same thing with an Act of Faith, Zerkers have it passively. It's a lot less impressive on a S3 A1 WS5+/4+ model.

First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!: The one everyone knows an loves, lasguns can shoot twice. Easily the strongest for units that can use it, kept in check by the fact that category consists of "lasguns".

The Elysians' special order (Move and Fire!) is a replacement for "Forward for the Emperor!", which basically does the same thing except M&F has a -1 penalty to hit. However, FW either didn't realize how strong it would be to include the grenades, or didn't want to exclude the grenades because without them it would be strictly worse than FftE in every way. (of course the simplest solution would have been to just keep FftE).

RogueApiary wrote:
Versus Thousand Sons, Magnus and Belakor flew over my conscript line and killed Pask and his Tank Commander buddy on turn 3. He had managed to kill some Scarab Occult Terminators before dying. Yay? Managed to actually win this one because the Scions killed enough of his rubrics camping the back objectives to give me the win.

Your fault for leaving him with plenty of room to drop a colossal figure next to him while still remaining 1" away. You can literally wrap the conscripts around him to serve as a defense shield made of your own men.

So what's wrong with my suggestion of commissioners granting ld 10 instead of instant pass for fixing the conscripts issue? Keep them the same otherwise. I mean I don't see the problem being with the conscripts as much as with the commissioner making them too "stead fast".

I would make a good bet that something is going to change in the codex release to make them more fair for all. The only question I see is it going to be with the commish or with the scripts...

Azuza001 wrote:
So what's wrong with my suggestion of commissioners granting ld 10 instead of instant pass for fixing the conscripts issue? Keep them the same otherwise. I mean I don't see the problem being with the conscripts as much as with the commissioner making them too "stead fast".

I would make a good bet that something is going to change in the codex release to make them more fair for all. The only question I see is it going to be with the commish or with the scripts...

Well its ether that or he kills of multiple people.

The problem with conscripts is that for the points they gain FAR more from orders and aura buffs than a bunch of 10 man or 5 man squads

so the options you have are lower the unit cap or restrict bonuses in some way.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
In that case we need to brainstorm how.

More stress needs to be put on codex. For example - If I take an ultra marines detachment - I shouldn't be allowed to fill out my elites with vindicate assassins and my fast attacks with scout sentinels. Ultra marines detachment - only ultra marines can be taken in it.

Want to include more than one codex? -1 to your roll to go first for each unique army type.

Want to include a lord of war? -1 to your roll to go first.

I like stuff like this to encourage people to take only 1 army.

But limiting people to one codex or LoW is a rather arbitrary throwback to perceived halcyon days. A lot of armies simply can't function without allies. Just look at Custodes, Sisters of Silence and Assassins literally can't be fielded without it and Inquisition can't be fielded effectively. Plus, there's a fair number of us who just like the concept.

Ships sailed on LoW. GW and players at large seem to love selling/using them from the amount seen. Plus Imperial Knights are a faction of nothing but and fairly popular.

 Arkaine wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
Versus Thousand Sons, Magnus and Belakor flew over my conscript line and killed Pask and his Tank Commander buddy on turn 3. He had managed to kill some Scarab Occult Terminators before dying. Yay? Managed to actually win this one because the Scions killed enough of his rubrics camping the back objectives to give me the win.

Your fault for leaving him with plenty of room to drop a colossal figure next to him while still remaining 1" away. You can literally wrap the conscripts around him to serve as a defense shield made of your own men.

At which point I wouldn't have been able to move onto objectives. You're basically telling me to add more conscripts, because clearly 60 conscripts plus 40 infantry wasn't enough to do both.

Audustum wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
In that case we need to brainstorm how.

More stress needs to be put on codex. For example - If I take an ultra marines detachment - I shouldn't be allowed to fill out my elites with vindicate assassins and my fast attacks with scout sentinels. Ultra marines detachment - only ultra marines can be taken in it.

Want to include more than one codex? -1 to your roll to go first for each unique army type.

Want to include a lord of war? -1 to your roll to go first.

I like stuff like this to encourage people to take only 1 army.

But limiting people to one codex or LoW is a rather arbitrary throwback to perceived halcyon days. A lot of armies simply can't function without allies. Just look at Custodes, Sisters of Silence and Assassins literally can't be fielded without it and Inquisition can't be fielded effectively. Plus, there's a fair number of us who just like the concept.

Ships sailed on LoW. GW and players at large seem to love selling/using them from the amount seen. Plus Imperial Knights are a faction of nothing but and fairly popular.

Personally i dont think custods or sos or assassins or even inquisition is a real army. those are often flavor enhancers for fluff players. because why on earth is a custodes outside of terra. did they finally install a text to speech device on the emperor?

 Desubot wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
In that case we need to brainstorm how.

More stress needs to be put on codex. For example - If I take an ultra marines detachment - I shouldn't be allowed to fill out my elites with vindicate assassins and my fast attacks with scout sentinels. Ultra marines detachment - only ultra marines can be taken in it.

Want to include more than one codex? -1 to your roll to go first for each unique army type.

Want to include a lord of war? -1 to your roll to go first.

I like stuff like this to encourage people to take only 1 army.

But limiting people to one codex or LoW is a rather arbitrary throwback to perceived halcyon days. A lot of armies simply can't function without allies. Just look at Custodes, Sisters of Silence and Assassins literally can't be fielded without it and Inquisition can't be fielded effectively. Plus, there's a fair number of us who just like the concept.

Ships sailed on LoW. GW and players at large seem to love selling/using them from the amount seen. Plus Imperial Knights are a faction of nothing but and fairly popular.

Personally i dont think custods or sos or assassins or even inquisition is a real army. those are often flavor enhancers for fluff players. because why on earth is a custodes outside of terra. did they finally install a text to speech device on the emperor?

I could be wrong but I think Robot Gulliver ordered those golden boys to get off their asses and actually be useful.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:


I could be wrong but I think Robot Gulliver ordered those golden boys to get off their asses and actually be useful.

Did he? i have not been keeping up with girlyman as he does not interest me.

 Desubot wrote:

 Vitali Advenil wrote:


I could be wrong but I think Robot Gulliver ordered those golden boys to get off their asses and actually be useful.

Did he? i have not been keeping up with girlyman as he does not interest me.

I completely agree- Rowbooty Gilbert is probably the least interesting Primarch, but my 40k group talks a lot of lore so I hear things. Funnily enough, only one of us plays guard, and he's tank heavy, so this is the first I've seen of the conscript issue.

 Desubot wrote:

 Vitali Advenil wrote:


I could be wrong but I think Robot Gulliver ordered those golden boys to get off their asses and actually be useful.

Did he? i have not been keeping up with girlyman as he does not interest me.

That's my understanding too. He basically told them to stop sulking and get moving again.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
Versus Thousand Sons, Magnus and Belakor flew over my conscript line and killed Pask and his Tank Commander buddy on turn 3. He had managed to kill some Scarab Occult Terminators before dying. Yay? Managed to actually win this one because the Scions killed enough of his rubrics camping the back objectives to give me the win.

Your fault for leaving him with plenty of room to drop a colossal figure next to him while still remaining 1" away. You can literally wrap the conscripts around him to serve as a defense shield made of your own men.

At which point I wouldn't have been able to move onto objectives. You're basically telling me to add more conscripts, because clearly 60 conscripts plus 40 infantry wasn't enough to do both.

Sure you can. Bring Pask with you.

Just let Guard be low to mid tier, they wont complain about us then.

Audustum wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
In that case we need to brainstorm how.

More stress needs to be put on codex. For example - If I take an ultra marines detachment - I shouldn't be allowed to fill out my elites with vindicate assassins and my fast attacks with scout sentinels. Ultra marines detachment - only ultra marines can be taken in it.

Want to include more than one codex? -1 to your roll to go first for each unique army type.

Want to include a lord of war? -1 to your roll to go first.

I like stuff like this to encourage people to take only 1 army.

But limiting people to one codex or LoW is a rather arbitrary throwback to perceived halcyon days. A lot of armies simply can't function without allies. Just look at Custodes, Sisters of Silence and Assassins literally can't be fielded without it and Inquisition can't be fielded effectively. Plus, there's a fair number of us who just like the concept.

Ships sailed on LoW. GW and players at large seem to love selling/using them from the amount seen. Plus Imperial Knights are a faction of nothing but and fairly popular.

it's just a penalty...its not like you cant do it. You aren't palying custodies because you want to win tournys. Even if you were trying to win -1 to go first roll is hardly the end of the world.

Actually, some at at NOVA were. There were at least 3 there. They're a fantastic troop for an Imperial Soup.

Audustum wrote:
Actually, some of us at NOVA were. They're a fantastic troop for an Imperial Soup.

Custodes do amazing things.a bit pricy but more work than say melee terminators

and assasins are fricking annoying to no end.

that 4+ remove command points was the most aggravating thing i had to face.

Audustum wrote:
Actually, some at at NOVA were. There were at least 3 there. They're a fantastic troop for an Imperial Soup.

Not saying they are bad - they just don't deserve special consideration when it comes to allies.

Love the -1 per LoW idea. Getting tabled for 3 games in a weekend because I lost the first turn was so enjoyable I want to encourage it to happen more. That sweet sweet -3.

I dunno an assassin army was fun to play against. Totally a different type of play style you have to use. Super frickin close game.

 vipoid wrote:

- Make them a non-FoC choice. Instead of being troops, you can take one unit of Conscripts for every 2 Infantry Squads you take (the Conscripts don't take up a FoC space). This would make them less efficient, would prevent them being taken to fulfil min troop choices in a Battalion/Brigade and means that they can't get Objective Secured.

This is my favorite suggestion in any Conscript discussion thus far.

So I have used Conscripts a lot in 7th edition and almost every game in 8th and I think for what they are they are too strong for staying power not at all for fire power. I took it upon my self to tweak the AM and I think I have found a pretty good balance for them.

1 Conscripts stay the same points capped at 30 men per squad. Can only be brought in a platoon style formation. So two infantry squads to one Conscript (stays the same points dose not get objective secure)

Conscripts can take every order but "Get back in the fight". I think that would take some hardened discipline and the White shields, while very well drilled, would not be able to mount a effective base of fire after being chewed up in close combat.

2) Tempestus are 55- 60 points base

3) can only bring on Taurox prime per one Tempestus unit (hq, body guard, squad.) Taurox Prime is 80 points with out main gun.


3 plasma gun 10 points. Pistols are fine in my opinion

This has worked pretty well for me and my friends around me. So I thought I would share it.

I have not looked into adding points for the commissars mainly because if someone dose not bring at least one character killing unit that is on them. When I play space marines I always bring a sniper squad with Camo , sniper rifles and a missile launcher. always take them out first and cripple the AM advance then win on objectives.

Legio_xx wrote:
So I have used Conscripts a lot in 7th edition and almost every game in 8th and I think for what they are they are too strong for staying power not at all for fire power. I took it upon my self to tweak the AM and I think I have found a pretty good balance for them.

1 Conscripts stay the same points capped at 30 men per squad. Can only be brought in a platoon style formation. So two infantry squads to one Conscript (stays the same points dose not get objective secure)

Conscripts can take every order but "Get back in the fight". I think that would take some hardened discipline and the White shields, while very well drilled, would not be able to mount a effective base of fire after being chewed up in close combat.

2) Tempestus are 55- 60 points base

3) can only bring on Taurox prime per one Tempestus unit (hq, body guard, squad.) Taurox Prime is 80 points with out main gun.


3 plasma gun 10 points. Pistols are fine in my opinion

This has worked pretty well for me and my friends around me. So I thought I would share it.

I have not looked into adding points for the commissars mainly because if someone dose not bring at least one character killing unit that is on them. When I play space marines I always bring a sniper squad with Camo , sniper rifles and a missile launcher. always take them out first and cripple the AM advance then win on objectives.

This actually sounds sensible.

I agree with the point about staying power versus fire power. I regularly get into shootouts with them versus Noise Marines, where I will have 60 conscripts shooting at 10 Noise Marines. Most often, the Noise Marines win, but it takes a couple turns.

That said, the hardest thing with CSMs is killing characters. When the conscripts have orders, that's when things break down for me.

RogueApiary wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Conscripts should be the worst infantry in the book. They are conscripts! They should be there to be bullet shields and should not be overshadowing the rest of the army, who are the trained guardsmen.
I like the suggestion above that the Commissar kills a conscript to use his leadership. I also like the other ideas of double morale losses for them and they in no way should be able to receive orders.
As long as they are better guardsmen than the Guardsman are, there is an issue. The orders should be one of those things that define the discipline as well as something for morale. Rabble won't stay around long no matter if you shoot one or not if things go too far sideways.

Have you actually played against/with conscripts? You regularly lose 15+ in a turn. Against a Cawl ball, you lose 30+. Making them Ld 8 after killing a conscript as you suggest still causes you to lose 23 in the latter scenario and 8 in the former BEFORE you even roll the D6 during the morale phase. Now if we stack your double morale losses suggestion onto that, there'd be no point bringing Conscripts except in blocks of 50, and even that would be questionable.

Ok, fair enough. I don't usually beat them in morale, I kill them in melee so your point is well received. Perhaps the best fix for them is smaller units then. They should be on par with chaos cultists pretty much but currently they can't really be shifted unless you kill them all, which takes a disproportionate amount of points worth of offense to accomplish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Legio_xx wrote:


I have not looked into adding points for the commissars mainly because if someone dose not bring at least one character killing unit that is on them. When I play space marines I always bring a sniper squad with Camo , sniper rifles and a missile launcher. always take them out first and cripple the AM advance then win on objectives.

The problem here is that not all armies have a way to snipe characters out of huge mobs. They just do not have the tools available.

That is my mistake guys my comment was mostly for people who can use them. With the exception Tau Sniper drones. Only work in mass..and even then they are not all that effective that I have seen.

For me Conscripts are units that you are not suppose to kill turn one. I personally think GW is going to fix the problem.. its strange but I actually think they are doing a good job with updates.

 Gamgee wrote:
Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

There are limits. You can only take 3 Detachments at 2000 points.

And there's another limiting factor - If I'd spam my IG full of Tempestus and Conscripts, I'd be hard pressed to get a +9 detachment. If I want to get that detachment, I'll at least have to bring 3 FA and 3 HS along, too. Sure, IG can just use Mortar HWTs and Scout Sentinels, but it's still a few hundred points. Other armies , eg Space Marines, have to invest much more to get the extra CPs.
Right now an IG player doesn't really care since IG doesn't have their own Strategems yet, but that's going to change until the end of the year, and then you'll want as many CP as you can get.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Love the -1 per LoW idea. Getting tabled for 3 games in a weekend because I lost the first turn was so enjoyable I want to encourage it to happen more. That sweet sweet -3.

Maybe a -1 per detachment that includes a lord of war would be less taxing. For you with 3-4 units you'd be getting a +1 to your roll anyways - this would make it a flat roll off.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.

Should have used battle cannon

Saving 18 points for a weaker gun doesnt solve the problem of the tank not living past turn 2. Why would I spend 12-15% of my points on a unit that MIGHT get to shoot twice?

The tank wont live past 2 turn if you expose it to enemy fire to get in range to fire demolisher cannon. Battle cannon has the range of the board and las cannon hull mount is more than adequate range to sit back and only tank dedicated anti tank fire. Just take heavy bolter sponsons and use them to cover your front line. Much cheaper and will probably live all game if you place it right.

*SIGH* I am well aware of the range limitations on a Demolisher cannon. But hey, here's a full list of my tournament games with Pask, you tell me if the Battlecannon would have made the difference (spoilers, it wouldn't)

Game vs Nids - Pask actually lived long enough to do something, killed the hell out of a Harpy, was putting in some good work on the Swarmlord before the game ended from time.

2x Storm Ravens fly over my lines to the back of the board and get vision on Pask who was fully hidden behind a building. Insta-gibbed before Turn 1 started.

3x Doom Scythes fly past my lines to get around the building to get vision on Pask who again, was fully hidden behind a building, Death Rays insta-gibbed him before turn 1 started.

Pask started in the back line on my far board edge, actually got two turns of shooting to engage the Ynnari stuff that hit my line, Dark Eldar Lances got him on turn 3.

This one is just straight bad luck, but the TO rolled a random Battle Zone and we got Night Fight for the entire round. Pask got his face punched in by a Knight that got to walk across the table pretty much undamaged. Pask was on my board edge.

Versus Thousand Sons, Magnus and Belakor flew over my conscript line and killed Pask and his Tank Commander buddy on turn 3. He had managed to kill some Scarab Occult Terminators before dying. Yay? Managed to actually win this one because the Scions killed enough of his rubrics camping the back objectives to give me the win.

Note that in none of these games did I advance Pask towards danger or even forward deploy him and didnt even need to move him into range in the games where he survived the alpha because there was stuff to kill within 24" already.

You went last every game - with new chapter approved you'll be at worst 40% to go first - going second against storm ravens is always tough - vs gaurd though they should be really limited in what they can do. How do storm ravens "fly over 50 conscripts" if deployed correctly he should not be able to fly over your lines - because there is no where to put his model. He really shouldn't be able to get within 24" of your back line if you place right. In any case - 700 points of storm ravens can deal with 240 points of just about anything. Lets reverse the situation and pask and his buddy russ get to go first. They both have battle cannons and las cannon hull mount - if they both shoot a storm raven. It's going to get hurt real bad if not destroyed depending on your damage rolls - while demo cannons wont be shooting storm ravens very often at all. It's also worth noting that a russ is much hard to kill than other tanks for a raven. MM wounds of 4+ missles wound on 4+ and bolters on 6's. If you are in cover (which you should be at the start of the game) you are even getting decent 4+ and 5+ saves vs the las cannons and storm strikes - it could really go ether way on that.

 Gamgee wrote:
Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

The issue with the one detachment for all approach is that it would only work as a balance if all armies had equally useful units in all slots. For instance if say the Battalion became the stock detachment, it is a big buff to any army that has really good troops, but a downgrade if they have their army strength in fast attack or heavy support (the fewest slots) or need buffing HQ units. It would also (given how 8th is constructed) would be a huge buff for HQ units that give you extra CP as everyone else would be stuck at 6 CP.

I will say the current environment is really only limited by points because with detachments you can essentially take as much as you want of a specific slot at 2k points.

I think any fix would require a re-write about how armies were built. Maybe something like using the patrol as the only detachment but allowing up to 3 detachments +1 CP for each detachment, +1 CP for filling out your troops slots in a detachment, +1 CP for filling out your HQ slots in a detachment, +1 CP for each detachment completely filled out (make flyer slot and dedicated transports optional), allow a LOW auxiliary detachment to replace any detachment no CP bonuses for this detachment. Then maybe give some sort of CP bonus if your army has no repeated non-troop units in it.

Beyond some total re-write like that the current system is better than arbitrarily confining all armies to a single detachment type.

I feel like making conditions such as 'can only take 1 conscript squad per 2 infantry squads' aren't the way to fix them. It just seems so arbitrary, and I can't think of any other armies off the top of my head that do things in a similar way (but I might be completely wrong about that).

Capping their numbers feels like a better solution. But honestly, this is why I've gone off conscripts. They just create problems.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I feel like making conditions such as 'can only take 1 conscript squad per 2 infantry squads' aren't the way to fix them. It just seems so arbitrary, and I can't think of any other armies off the top of my head that do things in a similar way (but I might be completely wrong about that).

Capping their numbers feels like a better solution. But honestly, this is why I've gone off conscripts. They just create problems.

Command squads would be the closest thing which are 1 per commander.

I guess you could limit them to 1 per commissar.

Honestly that would be a better solution 1 per 2 infantry squads just makes buy larger conscript squads and pay 20 points more for 20 of your bodies. So right now if you were taking 4 x 30 conscripts for 260 points, you could just as easily take 4 infantry squads (160 points), and 2 x 40 conscripts (240 points) for 400 points. So it is an increase of 40 points for the same number of bodies, but not a huge issue, whereas 1 per commissar (assuming you are not taking 1 commissar per blob now) would mean taking fewer squads or a bunch of redundant characters.

But neither seems to really fix the issue with conscripts.

The core issue with conscripts is they are 3 point wounds with 5+ saves and are better than many 4 and even 5 point units. The First solution HAS TO include a point increase. Second issue is access to ignore morale on such a large and cheap unit this needs to be addressed also - probably best to reduce their max size to 30. This would also come with a point increase for literally ever guard infantry unit because they are all under priced.

Even Veterans? They're 50% more expensive than standard guardsmen but only 33% more killy (only in shooting at that) and not one bit more survivable.

Sure you can load them down with three specials a heavy and a HF, but that just puts an even bigger "shoot me!" sign on those fragile t3 models.

And all of that together is way off into "it'll never touch a board again" territory. A 33-67% price hike, 40% squad size reduction, AND stripping their ability to recieve morale resistance? That's ridiculous.

I don't mind their price or number, its the morale immunity that I think makes them over the top. They should not be overshadowing the proper IG units. It's an IG army, not a conscripted force book.
I think conscripts should be mass, low to hit shooting, meant to die in retaliation for next to no cost.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
It's an IG army, not a conscripted force book.

This! This right here! This is why I've gone off conscripts completely. The IG are supposed to be a professional army drawn from the PDFs of imperial worlds. I don't think conscripts would make it that far.

When I look at the other troops that are similar to conscripts (chaos cultists and genestealer neophyte hybrids) I see they have guard level stat lines. Do we really need conscripts? Couldn't we just get rid of them and let proper IG infantry do their job instead?

 Xenomancers wrote:
The core issue with conscripts is they are 3 point wounds with 5+ saves and are better than many 4 and even 5 point units. The First solution HAS TO include a point increase. Second issue is access to ignore morale on such a large and cheap unit this needs to be addressed also - probably best to reduce their max size to 30. This would also come with a point increase for literally ever guard infantry unit because they are all under priced.

Honestly I feel that a points increase is one of the worst ways to fix the issue. At the price point they are at any change will end up either being too little (making them 4 points, is fairly trivial 120 points matters but it is not a make or break amount of points for 120 wounds), or too much (making them say 5 points might make them costed into never getting used, and risks other guard infantry being too expensive.). I think the morale issue needs fixing the most, but if they are too good for 3 points I would rather see their stats addressed (drop their strength/toughness to 2, this halves their durability against S4 and 5 shooting, and or switch them to a 6+ save.)

Doing either of these is a better solution than a 1 point bump in cost. If you dropped their T and save to be in line with gretchin (same points cost, better BS, worse gun, worse support), 20 bolter shots kills 9.25 Conscripts vs 5.93 (now). So the unit of Noise Marines mentioned earlier would do 14 wounds (un-buffed) to the unit. This would make it far more likely that with a reasonable amount of shooting/assault the squad would be wiped out in a single turn. 650 points of Marines with Bolters could essentially wipe a squad of 50 conscripts(150 points) if they are in rapid fire range. At that point they probably don't need to fix the morale issue. It seems reasonable to me that ~4 times the amount of points focus firing at peak efficiency should be able to wipe out a unit. and this holds true for most balanced options in the game (this holds true for Ork boyz by the way 4 times the points of a boyz squad will wipe the unit out in 1 turn of shooting with bolters.

 Purifier wrote:

Basically everyone has been calling conscripts op since the first index leaks...

Not me!!!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I did!!!

 Gamgee wrote:
Anyone who doesn't think conscripts are OP like Gulliman needs their 40k competitive license torn up.

Guilliman isn't that good though. . .


Also, inclusion in a winning list does not automatically make something OP. Still waaaay to early to be claiming any "proof". Like some others, I'm more suspicious of the Scions and Elysians here.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Also, inclusion in a winning list does not automatically make something OP. Still waaaay to early to be claiming any "proof". Like some others, I'm more suspicious of the Scions and Elysians here.

Deflect Deflect

List alone arent a good metric of what is OP or not.

They may not kill a lot of things but there are too god damn many bodies on the table for any normal army to mulch through. and you cant really force them to take moral even though you are deleting half a unit of them a turn which is another point of contention.

 Desubot wrote:
for any normal army to mulch through

Maybe it's time to re-think what a "normal army" is then.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
for any normal army to mulch through

Maybe it's time to re-think what a "normal army" is then.

Maybe dont use one army build to hold a standard for literally everyone else.

Breng77 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The core issue with conscripts is they are 3 point wounds with 5+ saves and are better than many 4 and even 5 point units. The First solution HAS TO include a point increase. Second issue is access to ignore morale on such a large and cheap unit this needs to be addressed also - probably best to reduce their max size to 30. This would also come with a point increase for literally ever guard infantry unit because they are all under priced.

Honestly I feel that a points increase is one of the worst ways to fix the issue. At the price point they are at any change will end up either being too little (making them 4 points, is fairly trivial 120 points matters but it is not a make or break amount of points for 120 wounds), or too much (making them say 5 points might make them costed into never getting used, and risks other guard infantry being too expensive.). I think the morale issue needs fixing the most, but if they are too good for 3 points I would rather see their stats addressed (drop their strength/toughness to 2, this halves their durability against S4 and 5 shooting, and or switch them to a 6+ save.)

Doing either of these is a better solution than a 1 point bump in cost. If you dropped their T and save to be in line with gretchin (same points cost, better BS, worse gun, worse support), 20 bolter shots kills 9.25 Conscripts vs 5.93 (now). So the unit of Noise Marines mentioned earlier would do 14 wounds (un-buffed) to the unit. This would make it far more likely that with a reasonable amount of shooting/assault the squad would be wiped out in a single turn. 650 points of Marines with Bolters could essentially wipe a squad of 50 conscripts(150 points) if they are in rapid fire range. At that point they probably don't need to fix the morale issue. It seems reasonable to me that ~4 times the amount of points focus firing at peak efficiency should be able to wipe out a unit. and this holds true for most balanced options in the game (this holds true for Ork boyz by the way 4 times the points of a boyz squad will wipe the unit out in 1 turn of shooting with bolters.

I see your point there. it would accomplish the same thing as increasing their point cost though. Durability per point would go down - and it really needs to. Honestly - just remove their save and reduce them to t2 and they can stay 3 points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The core issue with conscripts is they are 3 point wounds with 5+ saves and are better than many 4 and even 5 point units. The First solution HAS TO include a point increase. Second issue is access to ignore morale on such a large and cheap unit this needs to be addressed also - probably best to reduce their max size to 30. This would also come with a point increase for literally ever guard infantry unit because they are all under priced.

Honestly I feel that a points increase is one of the worst ways to fix the issue. At the price point they are at any change will end up either being too little (making them 4 points, is fairly trivial 120 points matters but it is not a make or break amount of points for 120 wounds), or too much (making them say 5 points might make them costed into never getting used, and risks other guard infantry being too expensive.). I think the morale issue needs fixing the most, but if they are too good for 3 points I would rather see their stats addressed (drop their strength/toughness to 2, this halves their durability against S4 and 5 shooting, and or switch them to a 6+ save.)

Doing either of these is a better solution than a 1 point bump in cost. If you dropped their T and save to be in line with gretchin (same points cost, better BS, worse gun, worse support), 20 bolter shots kills 9.25 Conscripts vs 5.93 (now). So the unit of Noise Marines mentioned earlier would do 14 wounds (un-buffed) to the unit. This would make it far more likely that with a reasonable amount of shooting/assault the squad would be wiped out in a single turn. 650 points of Marines with Bolters could essentially wipe a squad of 50 conscripts(150 points) if they are in rapid fire range. At that point they probably don't need to fix the morale issue. It seems reasonable to me that ~4 times the amount of points focus firing at peak efficiency should be able to wipe out a unit. and this holds true for most balanced options in the game (this holds true for Ork boyz by the way 4 times the points of a boyz squad will wipe the unit out in 1 turn of shooting with bolters.

I see your point there. it would accomplish the same thing as increasing their point cost though. Durability per point would go down - and it really needs to. Honestly - just remove their save and reduce them to t2 and they can stay 3 points.

No save at T2 would be too much, they should just be T2 6+, like gretchin. But it is not exactly the same as changing their points cost, because of how cheap they are each point different is a big change in the unit, at 4 points per model. 50 conscripts would be 200 points. At their current durability It would take 85 marines on average to take them down in a single turn or just shy of ~1100 points, 5.5x their cost. So if we go by my reduction they would need to be 5 points each to have it such that ~4 times their cost could kill them in a single turn. I think at that level people would consider them too expensive, especially if other infantry squads don't go up. Which we would assume they would need to go up to 6 points per model. Which I don't think is the right cost for a guardsman. at 5 ppm conscripts are in a similar place as say ork boyz, while being decidedly worse. (the only advantage they have is their save, they are worse offensively, similar defensively).

3ppm seems the right price for what are supposed to be chaff infantry. The issue is that they need to die like chaff infantry.

T2 on guards make no sense unless you were throwing children into battle.

I'm telling ya, get rid of them.

 Desubot wrote:
T2 on guards make no sense unless you were throwing children into battle.

It makes sense from a balance standpoint. Also the idea that all standard humans are equally tough is strange anyway. Maybe they have worse equipment (marine equipment changes their T) But if you think making them 5 points each is a better solution by all means. I think if balance is the concern though that worrying about "it makes no sense for some guard to be lower toughness for than others." Things like that especially on the limited point scale 40k works with really limits the design space.

 Desubot wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
for any normal army to mulch through

Maybe it's time to re-think what a "normal army" is then.

Maybe dont use one army build to hold a standard for literally everyone else.

It's not a standard. But clearly in a competitive setting it's something you'll have to face. People who competed in 7th knew they would have to have an answer to Wraithknights, and adjusted appropriately. Adjusting "normalcy" to face against competitive builds isn't a new thing. 8th is a paradigm that has boosted horde infantry, and Conscripts are perhaps the horde with the most utility, point for point. Sooo, new expectations, new normal.

Breng77 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
T2 on guards make no sense unless you were throwing children into battle.

It makes sense from a balance standpoint. Also the idea that all standard humans are equally tough is strange anyway. Maybe they have worse equipment (marine equipment changes their T) But if you think making them 5 points each is a better solution by all means. I think if balance is the concern though that worrying about "it makes no sense for some guard to be lower toughness for than others." Things like that especially on the limited point scale 40k works with really limits the design space.

I wasn't really talking about it in a balancing stand point though in game its also kinda odd in the sense that traditionally Humans are T3. Super humans are T4. Gross Humans are T5. and baby grots are T2. its the base line of how things work across the game.

It makes sense to keep it that way as you know what you get when facing a many different armies and army composition.

 Desubot wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
T2 on guards make no sense unless you were throwing children into battle.

It makes sense from a balance standpoint. Also the idea that all standard humans are equally tough is strange anyway. Maybe they have worse equipment (marine equipment changes their T) But if you think making them 5 points each is a better solution by all means. I think if balance is the concern though that worrying about "it makes no sense for some guard to be lower toughness for than others." Things like that especially on the limited point scale 40k works with really limits the design space.

I wasn't really talking about it in a balancing stand point though in game its also kinda odd in the sense that traditionally Humans are T3. Super humans are T4. Gross Humans are T5. and baby grots are T2. its the base line of how things work across the game.

It makes sense to keep it that way as you know what you get when facing a many different armies and army composition.

but sticking to a standard army composition is flawed and other units have their stats changed from edition to edition or codex to codex, so it is not uncommon for units in one book to be a different statline. But just my suggestion that I think is better than a points increase which IMO will either be so little as not to matter or way too much. I suppose you could leave them a T3 with a 7+ save if you really wanted to as that results in about the same durability as T2 with a 6+ save.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, inclusion in a winning list does not automatically make something OP. Still waaaay to early to be claiming any "proof". Like some others, I'm more suspicious of the Scions and Elysians here.

Conscripts appear just as consistently in top-placing lists as Elysians (top 2 at BAO had ~100 conscripts each, all three AM players in the top 5 at Nova Open had ~100 conscripts, a large percentage of high placing armies include conscripts). The logic behind their inclusion is sound, just listen to what the BAO winner had to say about their role in his army in the FLG post-event podcast. The mathhammer backs it up.

It is hardly coincidence that so many experienced tournament players have decided to include this many conscripts and that these lists are placing very well in GTs.

Conscripts have considerably higher cost-efficiency than the average unit in the same role across the different armies and the role that conscripts fill is important in competitive play. That is pretty much the definition of overpowered. To achieve balance the best unit should only have a minimal cost-efficiency advantage compared to other units.

Breng77 wrote:


but sticking to a standard army composition is flawed and other units have their stats changed from edition to edition or codex to codex, so it is not uncommon for units in one book to be a different statline. But just my suggestion that I think is better than a points increase which IMO will either be so little as not to matter or way too much. I suppose you could leave them a T3 with a 7+ save if you really wanted to as that results in about the same durability as T2 with a 6+ save.

I think that would probably be better.

a fresh batch of conscripts would probably be running around in their shirts rather than being decked out in gear from the get go. maybe a helemt and a rifle or las pack.

sossen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, inclusion in a winning list does not automatically make something OP. Still waaaay to early to be claiming any "proof". Like some others, I'm more suspicious of the Scions and Elysians here.

Conscripts appear just as consistently in top-placing lists as Elysians (top 2 at BAO had ~100 conscripts each, all three AM players in the top 5 at Nova Open had ~100 conscripts, a large percentage of high placing armies include conscripts). The logic behind their inclusion is sound, just listen to what the BAO winner had to say about their role in his army in the FLG post-event podcast. The mathhammer backs it up.

It is hardly coincidence that so many experienced tournament players have decided to include this many conscripts and that these lists are placing very well in GTs.

Conscripts have considerably higher cost-efficiency than the average unit in the same role across the different armies and the role that conscripts fill is important in competitive play. That is pretty much the definition of overpowered. To achieve balance the best unit should only have a minimal cost-efficiency advantage compared to other units.

Yeah it baffles me people are still fighting this. Screening is a really simple role that depends almost entirely on raw durability, which we can show conscripts have in excess of other similar units. It's not a particularly abstract role that's hard to quantify and it's common across virtually any half decent list in the game.

Conscripts are too durable for their price compared to almost every other equivalent unit in the game. I don't even know how anyone can begin to argue this point.

Taking away Summary Execution solves the conscript problem very nicely and cleanly, nothing else needed to fix them.

valdier wrote:
Taking away Summary Execution solves the conscript problem very nicely and cleanly, nothing else needed to fix them.

But that's a major part of the fluff regarding commissars. That would be like taking ATSKNF away from marines.

I'm not against nerfing conscripts a bit, but there is lot's other unit's that need's nerf too. Nerf Guilliman so only infanrty and cavalry are effected by his aura. Marine flyer's are underpriced for their firepower and survivability, limit Predators lascannons max 2.

Here couple prime examples, but sure there is more "overpowered" unit's.