"Conscripts have seen some changes in the new Astra Militarum codex, designed to make them fit their background more appropriately. If you’ve got loads of these guys on hand, don’t worry! They’re still a very handy unit (particularly in the Valhallan army). Firstly, Conscripts can only be taken in units of 20-30, reducing the effectiveness of stacking orders on a block of 50. Secondly, orders only work on Conscripts on a 4+, and, should they fail, no more orders will work on the unit for the rest of the turn.
Conscripts are still very useful, and in a Valhallan army, we’d recommend using yours to hold enemy units in place before using Fire On My Command, the new Valhallan Order, to shoot into the combat. In this way, you can neutralise an enemy unit’s shooting without any loss of effectiveness for your own!"
Commissars still work it looks like, order on a 4+ is interesting.
Unit size nerf was the best way to deal whit it but personly i would like to see it reduced to max 20.
Commisar orders on a 4+ realy wont have any effect whit all the rerolls this game offers or way around the loophole that powergamers will eventualy find, so that situation wont change.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Well a block of 20-30 is a lot easier to delete than a block of 50, even if you have to do it one bullet at a time.
And at least now they won't BLAM a warlord titan out of existence simply because they got ordered.
Still though I feel like the 4+ should have been applied to the commissar too.
With that next wave stratagem conscripts will be interesting for Valhallans at least. This size nerf and orders on a 4+ seems pretty good for a change imo.
This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
Purifier wrote: This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat.
I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
Not too bad overall, I would have preferred to only see one of those rather than both, but at least they didn't go with any of the insane mega-nerfs some people have been suggesting.
Those stratagems in the preview though. SITNW works on ANY (non-character, not-combined) infantry unit? Awesome. Which also, of course, means combined squads is confirmed as a stratagem!
Crush Them is a hilarious stratagem too. Use that on a Baneblade, 9 attacks hitting on 2+ with good S and AP. Crunch.
Purifier wrote: This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat.
I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
Conscripts points cost may have also gone up too, but we won't know until the codex is out.
It's something, I suppose. Still, 2 groups of 25 v 1 group of 50 has more or less the same effect, especially if you can still spam commissars and cheap commanders.
Hell, last game I played against IG they had like 12 orders they could issue a turn, so having one or two more squads to order isn't really an issue.
As long as commisars provide the entire army with more-or-less immunity to morale, IG massed infantry is still going to be a problem, unless you happen to have tanks that get ~50 shots a turn (like guard do now).
Well, it is worth pointing out that in terms of defense, Brimstone horrors in 2 30-blobs backed up by the changeling is a far more effective defensive screen than conscripts (2 wounds apiece, 4++, -1 to hit)
Given that those aren't generally seen dominating competitive play, it would be reasonable to suspect that the real issue with conscripts was the fact that you could give them easy access to orders and rerolls to give them many times the offensive power of the brimstones. This is a nerf to their offensive reliability, which is right where they should have been hit.
I'm fine with conscripts being a viable screen choice for an AM army in competitive play. What is more problematic is them being just the best troop choice taken in a soup list alongside Guilliman with super-reliable orders from a 30 point character. Post-codex, conscripts taken like that will have greatly reduced reliability, and no access to the doctrines or unique orders unless they're in their own detachment, which defeats one of their purposes - i.e. allowing an imperial player to not have to take less efficient troop choices for their CPs.
I'm also fine with all these melee-focused stratagems and orders being introduced here. Allowing the Gunline army to have something to do to respond to an assault means they won't be just playing in the shooting phase. Ultimately, even if they need some adjustments to the power levels of their shooting elements, that will put them in a spot where they won't encounter the problem they did in 7th - not doing enough damage before melee happened because after that they'll just be useless.
I really hope we get similar stratagems and doctrines for Tau as well. A shooting army that can't do ANYTHING in melee will either have enough firepower to table an opponent before they get there (7th ed Tau) and they'll be unbeatable or they won't (7th ed Guard) and they'll be useless. Stratagems are a great way to close that gap.
2 groups of 25 is not the same as 1 group of 50, affects the logistics chain further down the line. You end up needing more officers (they ain't free you know), more commissars (also not free) and have to execute twice as many models.
I'd say it's easily enough nerfing, unless the goal is annihilation rather than balance.
Kap'n Krump wrote: It's something, I suppose. Still, 2 groups of 25 v 1 group of 50 has more or less the same effect, especially if you can still spam commissars and cheap commanders.
Hell, last game I played against IG they had like 12 orders they could issue a turn, so having one or two more squads to order isn't really an issue.
As long as commisars provide the entire army with more-or-less immunity to morale, IG massed infantry is still going to be a problem, unless you happen to have tanks that get ~50 shots a turn (like guard do now).
A tank like a Dakka repulsor with rerolls? I'm gonna be relying on those.
the_scotsman wrote: Well, it is worth pointing out that in terms of defense, Brimstone horrors in 2 30-blobs backed up by the changeling is a far more effective defensive screen than conscripts (2 wounds apiece, 4++, -1 to hit)
Horrors are kept in check by morale. You know, the way horde units are supposed to work.
To properly balance the unit it was always going to be one of the two major aspects that were going to get nerfed - Orders efficiency and efficacy or morale synergy with Commissars.
This way they pretty heftily reduce the attractiveness of Conscripts and Orders:
50% chance before re-rolls to lose/waste the order on a Conscript unit - at 20pts an order, will become more attractive to use them elsewhere.
Reduced unit size reduces order efficiency and efficacy - with the 'standard' favorite unit-size per-Codex being 40-man Conscript Squads to get the same effect you'll either see more separate Conscript squads or more Orders being expended to get the same effect.
Also provides a sideline nerf to their synergy with Commissars:
Every morale check will cause 1 Conscript to get blapped for every unit of 20-30 - not every unit of 50. Means four units of 30 Conscripts rather than three units of 40 - to use the last GT winner's list as a comparator.
Not a huge change morale-wise, but to nerf all of it would have rendered Conscripts completely pointless. And as much as people like to equate never seeing a formerly 'OP' unit used ever again post-nerf as 'balance', it is good to see GW is ignoring that perspective.
I'll quote myself from the IG news and rumors thread.
And, something to think about the Conscripts nerfs. We hare accustomed to the GW swinging balance-bat. When the only balancing change you do is one every 4-5 years, you go big or go home. Thats why many times, very good units become unplayable because they over-nerfed them.
With this new FAQ's, living document, etc... mentality, I'm glad to see that GW is trying a more humble approach. They want to balance Conscripts, not make them totally useless. So even if those changes don't are enough to make them balanced and they are still more powerfull than they should, I think GW will eventually with Chapter Approved, FAQ's, etc... balance them with small nerfs-buffs.
If the only change is orders and squad size, that doesn't do enough, but whatever. I mean people weren't using conscripts because they did damage. That was just icing on an already fantastic cake.
Kap'n Krump wrote: It's something, I suppose. Still, 2 groups of 25 v 1 group of 50 has more or less the same effect, especially if you can still spam commissars and cheap commanders.
Hell, last game I played against IG they had like 12 orders they could issue a turn, so having one or two more squads to order isn't really an issue.
As long as commisars provide the entire army with more-or-less immunity to morale, IG massed infantry is still going to be a problem, unless you happen to have tanks that get ~50 shots a turn (like guard do now).
The big difference is the orders. You only have so many orders you can give in a turn and giving something like 'First Rank Second Rank' on a blob of 50 is much more devastating than on a blob of 30. If you want to also give it to another blob of 30, that's another order, and there's a 50/50 chance that it'll fail on conscripts each time they're ordered.
It's a step in the right direction. They won't be made totally useless, at least, but this is a noticeable nerf.
Marmatag wrote: If the only change is orders and squad size, that doesn't do enough, but whatever. I mean people weren't using conscripts because they did damage. That was just icing on an already fantastic cake.
For me the bigger problem of Conscripts wheren't conscripts. It was how they where used to protect Guilliman+Parking Lot, or a Plasma Scion spam. Balance those two things, and then conscripts aren't that good, because they are protecting a balanced force, not making inmortal a totally OP force.
the_scotsman wrote: Well, it is worth pointing out that in terms of defense, Brimstone horrors in 2 30-blobs backed up by the changeling is a far more effective defensive screen than conscripts (2 wounds apiece, 4++, -1 to hit)
Brimstones only have 1 wound (they used to have 2 in 7th, but in 8th they only have 1).
2 30 blob Brimstones + Changeling is also more expensive than 2x 30 Conscripts and a Commissar, and has less of a damage output (as marginal of a point that is for a screening unit).
I mean, it's pretty obvious that Ld4 is the kind of stat where if you actually have to roll against it, you know you're about to lose. You're obviously supposed to cover it up with a commissar, and as an opponent you're obviously supposed to neutralize the commissar to expose it.
Asking for the commissar to be removed from the equation is basically asking for your win condition to be handed to you on a silver platter.
'tis why many of the more sane people (such as myself) have looked at it as the Commissar scaling worse on larger units, rather than always forcing only 1 model to die.
If a Conscript squad was able to haemorrhage 5 models from an attack that wiped out 1/3 of the squad, I feel most would be somewhat satisfied.
Also I really wouldn't call having the ability to murder conscripts at least somewhat efficiently a 'win handed on a silver platter'...
You're creating a false dilemma. It doesn't have to be "commissar works to the full capacity it does now" or "remove the commissar altogether".
Summary Execution being changed from "remove 1 model, ignore all other losses" to "roll a d6, reduce the models lost by the result" would have made conscripts susceptible to morale in a fair manner while still giving commissars a function.
And, something to think about the Conscripts nerfs. We hare accustomed to the GW swinging balance-bat. When the only balancing change you do is one every 4-5 years, you go big or go home. Thats why many times, very good units become unplayable because they over-nerfed them.
I agree on this. I was expecting to see them unplayable.
I am a bit worried for this codex, still. And mind it I have A LOT of guard on the other side of the ocean, if needed.
Also, I have the feeling that the "fix" to the russes (less OP than it seems IMHO) is the demonstration that convert 5" templates to d6 shots was conceptually wrong, especially because of the BS adjustment.
Same with the rules that allow to move and do not take the -1 to hit (like the DG hellbrute).
Certain units needed this regardless and the removal of SOME general rule seems detrimental and put the game in the condition of needing specific rules as a fix for many, many units.
Also provides a sideline nerf to their synergy with Commissars:
Every morale check will cause 1 Conscript to get blapped for every unit of 20-30 - not every unit of 50. Means four units of 30 Conscripts rather than three units of 40 - to use the last GT winner's list as a comparator.
So after receiving a huge and devastating wave of attacks, the conscripts would lose 12 points of models instead of 9 points of models to morale. Pretty much a totally irrelevant change, and still makes conscripts way tougher to get rid of than they should be. Commissar ability should be changed to D6 models being shot in the face - way more realistic and fluffy, while still being better than not having the commissar at all. Especially as it still lets you reroll the dice, so you can burn CP's to drop the average losses (in this example) from 12 down to like 8.
Still only a minor nerf, and still makes them better than similar units like brims, but doesn't keep them indestructable.
Anyway, doesn't matter now as it seems unlikely that they've made any such change, will just have to see how the new unit plays out. I suspect they'll continue being used exactly the same as before, but with some shuffling of detachment to maximise CPs and traits/doctrines.
I think people would probably be happier and healthier if we all just waited like three days, when we'll have pretty much all of the actual rules, to start fighting about whether GW did enough about Conscripts.
fresus wrote: They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat.
I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
At 4 ppm model they'd be the second most effective screening unit in the game, and even with these nerfs would have way better offensive potential than the best screening unit (brimstones).
The unit size reduction already reduces the scaling, commissars are now only about half as effective. Changing them to a d6 would make them useless for anything other than conscripts, and would make conscripts with a commissar potentially less durable than unsupported guardsmen.
And of course, unsupported conscripts are already less durable than Veterans, who aren't exactly considered a screening unit in the first place.
ross-128 wrote: The unit size reduction already reduces the scaling, commissars are now only about half as effective. Changing them to a d6 would make them useless for anything other than conscripts, and would make conscripts with a commissar potentially less durable than unsupported guardsmen.
And of course, unsupported conscripts are already less durable than Veterans, who aren't exactly considered a screening unit in the first place.
The size reduction does not effect the way the scale with commissars, not notably. You just alter the way you rank the conscripts slightly. It's barely anything. It helps with orders but those weren't the main issue.
When you consider how much the Valhallan's trait benefits conscripts who have their commissar sniped, which is one of the only effective ways to deal with the unit, the change becomes even more trivial by comparison. Conscripts may actually be stronger post codex if these are their only changes.
Basically in 3 days I learn if i need to buy 60 or 90 conscripts, and a commissar. Based on this change these guys are still absolutely mandatory for every single Imperium army.
BlaxicanX wrote: You're creating a false dilemma. It doesn't have to be "commissar works to the full capacity it does now" or "remove the commissar altogether".
Summary Execution being changed from "remove 1 model, ignore all other losses" to "roll a d6, reduce the models lost by the result" would have made conscripts susceptible to morale in a fair manner while still giving commissars a function.
Exactly. My idea was "kill one model, unit now has Ld10 for the morale check" but the idea is the same. We're not saying Commissars need to be removed, but their effectiveness is INSANELY over the top when he does basically the same as a 2CP stratagem, for everyone within his range. Can you really not see how over the top that is? ~2CP worth of effectiveness every round out of a super cheap character. (I say 2CP but he can obviously happen to not be close to a unit that's going down or he can be close enough to two separate groups and be worth 4CP in a single round. But even when he does nothing for a round, he's still asserting pressure as to where it makes sense to put your bullets.)
You should try shooting the conscripts...a lot. I've heard that reduces their strength. Or maybe changing the conscripts from troops to elites might be the better nerf here. Oh the irony
Also provides a sideline nerf to their synergy with Commissars:
Every morale check will cause 1 Conscript to get blapped for every unit of 20-30 - not every unit of 50. Means four units of 30 Conscripts rather than three units of 40 - to use the last GT winner's list as a comparator.
So after receiving a huge and devastating wave of attacks, the conscripts would lose 12 points of models instead of 9 points of models to morale. Pretty much a totally irrelevant change, and still makes conscripts way tougher to get rid of than they should be. Commissar ability should be changed to D6 models being shot in the face - way more realistic and fluffy, while still being better than not having the commissar at all. Especially as it still lets you reroll the dice, so you can burn CP's to drop the average losses (in this example) from 12 down to like 8.
Still only a minor nerf, and still makes them better than similar units like brims, but doesn't keep them indestructable.
Anyway, doesn't matter now as it seems unlikely that they've made any such change, will just have to see how the new unit plays out. I suspect they'll continue being used exactly the same as before, but with some shuffling of detachment to maximise CPs and traits/doctrines.
Hence why I highlighted it as only a 'sideline nerf' - and that mostly to just highlight that the reduced unit size does have some spillover into their synergy with Commissars and morale. But sure, cherry pick posts I guess.
I've suggested their morale synergy w/Commissars was what should have been adjusted in pretty much every Conscript-discussion quagmire that I've bothered with. I still hold that it would have been better to give them a special rule that makes it so Commissars only reduce their (as in Conscripts-only) morale losses by 50% rounding up rather than a strict D6 or only one - that way it scales pretty well with the casualties caused.
Still, feel that it's become irrelevant - they teased a Stratagem that lets IG combine squads. Why bother with Conscripts and wasting CPs on order re-rolls (or morale ones, even, if some kind of "D6 instead of only one" rule were imposed) when I can combine 3-4 Infantry squads to greater effect? Better WS, BS, no loss in Orders efficiency, can take special weapons... for probably only 1ppm more. Amused that those foaming at the mouth over Conscripts haven't crapped themselves a kitten over it yet.
ross-128 wrote: You end up needing more officers (they ain't free you know), more commissars (also not free) and have to execute twice as many models.
.
Well, lets look up what 'not free' constitutes.
Oh, shucks. 31 points for 6" bubble of immunity to morale. Warbossess are more than double that, at their very, VERY cheapest, and do D3 wounds instead of 1.
And commanders are 30 points for 2 orders.
At the very worst, one could argue they made it so that you have to bring an extra commander to have a similar (granted, only 50/50 odds) effect on 2x conscript squads, so they added 30 points. That's almost the price of one power klaw. Technically, not free, but it's not exactly expensive, either.
ross-128 wrote: The unit size reduction already reduces the scaling, commissars are now only about half as effective. Changing them to a d6 would make them useless for anything other than conscripts, and would make conscripts with a commissar potentially less durable than unsupported guardsmen.
And of course, unsupported conscripts are already less durable than Veterans, who aren't exactly considered a screening unit in the first place.
The size reduction does not effect the way the scale with commissars, not notably. You just alter the way you rank the conscripts slightly. It's barely anything. It helps with orders but those weren't the main issue.
When you consider how much the Valhallan's trait benefits conscripts who have their commissar sniped, which is one of the only effective ways to deal with the unit, the change becomes even more trivial by comparison. Conscripts may actually be stronger post codex if these are their only changes.
How is needing twice as many commissars (assuming you were bringing more than two squads in the first place) who proceed to execute twice as many models "no effect"?
And so what if the Valhallans have a faction specific buff to conscripts? If we nerf them to the point that even Valhallans are reluctant to take them, what do you think that will do to all the other regiments?
GhostRecon wrote: Still, feel that it's become irrelevant - they teased a Stratagem that lets IG combine squads. Why bother with Conscripts and wasting CPs on order re-rolls (or morale ones, even, if some kind of "D6 instead of only one" rule were imposed) when I can combine 3-4 Infantry squads to greater effect? Better WS, BS, no loss in Orders efficiency, can take special weapons... for probably only 1ppm more. Amused that those foaming at the mouth over Conscripts haven't crapped themselves a kitten over it yet.
Because burning CP to increase order efficiency is balanced and the entire issue was and is conscripts absurd durability. how many times do we need to say the durability is the issue, one not nearly as present in the infantry which cost 33% more for the same defensive statline.
Twoshoes23 wrote: You should try shooting the conscripts...a lot. I've heard that reduces their strength. Or maybe changing the conscripts from troops to elites might be the better nerf here. Oh the irony
Now that you mention it, conscripts should be <Shoddy Troop> choices. Don't count towards troop choices, don't give objective secured but also no upper limit on how many units you can take. Just an extra choice you can place in any AM detachment. That would go a long way towards balancing them.
ross-128 wrote: How is needing twice as many commissars (assuming you were bringing more than two squads in the first place) who proceed to execute twice as many models "no effect"?
And so what if the Valhallans have a faction specific buff to conscripts? If we nerf them to the point that even Valhallans are reluctant to take them, what do you think that will do to all the other regiments?
What does "balanced" even look like to you?
4ppm is what balanced conscripts look like. Still far tougher than almost any other infantry unit at the cost of offensive power. Then guard infantry can be 5ppm so they aren't literally better than all other 4ppm infantry for no apparent reason.
Also, explain to me how me how this forces more commissars? If you had 50 or 100 conscripts in a single area, you can still have them in a single area, and easily arrange them so that each unit has a member in 6" of the commissar. It doesn't change things except in cases where people were abusing long tails of single conscripts leading back to the commissar. It slightly helps with that, not much though.
Conscripts are a major problem for armies like Orks... We have so simple way of killing of their characters to start affecting them in moral! While a good IG player will sit with a sniper or two in the back and chip away all our buffs! Remember! The Conscripts cost the same as a Grot! Therefore, if I put 30 conscripts against 30 grots the conscripts would win hands down!
Twoshoes23 wrote: You should try shooting the conscripts...a lot. I've heard that reduces their strength. Or maybe changing the conscripts from troops to elites might be the better nerf here. Oh the irony
Now that you mention it, conscripts should be <Shoddy Troop> choices. Don't count towards troop choices, don't give objective secured but also no upper limit on how many units you can take. Just an extra choice you can place in any AM detachment. That would go a long way towards balancing them.
Actually this is a solid suggestion.
Special rule: Not really soldiers. Conscripts do not occupy a force organization slot. You can have one squad of conscripts per troop choice present in your list.
It seems more like you've just latched on to the points hike because it's easier to repeat a number ad nauseam than to actually think through what effects a change will have.
It also seems like you just miss how 7th ed guard were pushovers, and somehow got it into your head that that's "balanced", considering how you always end up extending your nerfs far beyond conscripts and try to nerf the entire codex into the ground instead.
Twoshoes23 wrote: You should try shooting the conscripts...a lot. I've heard that reduces their strength. Or maybe changing the conscripts from troops to elites might be the better nerf here. Oh the irony
Now that you mention it, conscripts should be <Shoddy Troop> choices. Don't count towards troop choices, don't give objective secured but also no upper limit on how many units you can take. Just an extra choice you can place in any AM detachment. That would go a long way towards balancing them.
Actually this is a solid suggestion.
Special rule: Not really soldiers. Conscripts do not occupy a force organization slot. You can have one squad of conscripts per troop choice present in your list.
That sounds pretty good. The whole thing would also remove the way it is now where conscripts are competing with regular guardsmen for the troop choice slots. One of them will always be better than the other, since they're close to identical, but with this you'll need to bring guardsmen to get conscripts. A considerably more healthy way to balance things.
the_scotsman wrote: Well, it is worth pointing out that in terms of defense, Brimstone horrors in 2 30-blobs backed up by the changeling is a far more effective defensive screen than conscripts (2 wounds apiece, 4++, -1 to hit)
Horrors are kept in check by morale. You know, the way horde units are supposed to work.
In concept, yes, in practice...
Horrors are taken in 10 man squads to maximise smites and minimise morale. To kill a 10-man squad and have morale finish them off at Ld7 you generally want 6-7 dead. Lets say youre feeling lucky and you go for six (unfortunately that's a 2/3 chance that the single blue survives to smite another day.
To kill six horrors you need 6*2(wounds)*2(4++)*(3/2)(S4 vs T3)*2(BS3+ -1 from Changeling) = 72 BS3+ bolter shots.
To have a decent chance at removing 10.
Those 72 shots kill 72 *.666(hits)*.666(wounds)*.666(saves) = 21+1 for morale 22 conscripts.
if conscripts' defense was really that much of a problem, then horrors would be twice as much of a problem, would they not? Heck, Changeling doesn't even add that much - if you're not running him alongside magnus/alphabet soupmonster you might as well leave him out in favor of 30 more horrors.
Are Horrors not a problem? They strike me as pretty crazy still, depending on your list. Chaos may not be as good at putting together a gunline as the Imperium, but they still seem like the obvious choice for holding objectives and advancing forward while hiding characters. And certainly if Imperium had access to Horrors they'd be stupidly broken since they're impossibly good screening units and Imperium armies can have great gunlines.
NenkotaMoon wrote: But doesn't that just make Regular Inf. and vetrans worse for points?
There was an FLG battle report posted yesterday or the day before using the new rules. We know that Leman Russes and Heavy Weapon Teams have changed in cost (Russes are 125 and HWTs are 5) because the original list they posted had these values before they were censored. The list also had Veterans, still at 6 points. So Veterans are probably safe. I think it's more likely than not that regular Infantry are now 5 (the change to HWTs is very suggestive). Obviously this does make them worse for points, but they were quite good before and now they have doctrines so I'm not sure it's too much.
the_scotsman wrote: Well, it is worth pointing out that in terms of defense, Brimstone horrors in 2 30-blobs backed up by the changeling is a far more effective defensive screen than conscripts (2 wounds apiece, 4++, -1 to hit)
Horrors are kept in check by morale. You know, the way horde units are supposed to work.
In concept, yes, in practice...
Horrors are taken in 10 man squads to maximise smites and minimise morale. To kill a 10-man squad and have morale finish them off at Ld7 you generally want 6-7 dead. Lets say youre feeling lucky and you go for six (unfortunately that's a 2/3 chance that the single blue survives to smite another day.
To kill six horrors you need 6*2(wounds)*2(4++)*(3/2)(S4 vs T3)*2(BS3+ -1 from Changeling) = 72 BS3+ bolter shots.
To have a decent chance at removing 10.
Those 72 shots kill 72 *.666(hits)*.666(wounds)*.666(saves) = 21+1 for morale 22 conscripts.
if conscripts' defense was really that much of a problem, then horrors would be twice as much of a problem, would they not? Heck, Changeling doesn't even add that much - if you're not running him alongside magnus/alphabet soupmonster you might as well leave him out in favor of 30 more horrors.
But... but....
Horrors and conscripts are not an apples to apples comparison because of the different offensive output. Part of defense is eliminating potential threats.
Also, remind me about the part where Chaos Daemons get access to cheap armor, like Basilisk Earthshakers? Horrors may make an excellent defensive screen, but they appear in assault oriented armies. Conscripts are part of armies that tend to shoot big guns.
It's not fair to look at them in a silo. Those 4ppm go a lot farther in one army than another.
Horrors and conscripts are not an apples to apples comparison because of the different offensive output. Part of defense is eliminating potential threats.
Also, remind me about the part where Chaos Daemons get access to cheap armor, like Basilisk Earthshakers? Horrors may make an excellent defensive screen, but they appear in assault oriented armies. Conscripts are part of armies that tend to shoot big guns.
It's not fair to look at them in a silo. Those 4ppm go a lot farther in one army than another.
This is actually possible with Renegades and Heretics. You can bring Horrors and Earthshaker Batteries in the same detachment.
ross-128 wrote: You end up needing more officers (they ain't free you know), more commissars (also not free) and have to execute twice as many models.
.
Well, lets look up what 'not free' constitutes.
Oh, shucks. 31 points for 6" bubble of immunity to morale. Warbossess are more than double that, at their very, VERY cheapest, and do D3 wounds instead of 1.
And commanders are 30 points for 2 orders.
At the very worst, one could argue they made it so that you have to bring an extra commander to have a similar (granted, only 50/50 odds) effect on 2x conscript squads, so they added 30 points. That's almost the price of one power klaw. Technically, not free, but it's not exactly expensive, either.
The better comparison is the Runt Herd, an elite choice (like the commissar), only helps with Morale on Gretchin (same cost as Conscripts, worse unit), does not buff their LD, and kills D3 models. Costs 5 points less than the commissar.
As for everyone saying "well Brims..." so another unit being too good means no balance for conscripts is ok. Just clarifying that is what you are saying?
As for everyone saying "well Brims..." so another unit being too good means no balance for conscripts is ok. Just clarifying that is what you are saying?
"Ok, so let's deal with brims balance then"
"well Conscripts..."
Purifier wrote: This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
I only skimmed the rest but this is what is the problem with them (though never really had a prob with them in competitive lists... every other list((e.g my fun actually want to play lists) has been lets say less fun)). The output of orders has never been the issue with them its the cheap screen with 2 coms out of los in range of 2 units of conscripts (both coms in range). the reduction to 30 should make a change but not that much.
We try to minimse large terrain at my local (so snipers are valid) but i pitty the fluffy player at a local that has a gak tonne of terrain and comes against it.
The biggest difference between Conscripts and Brimstones is this:
"I killed half your Brimstone unit, the other half poofs out of existence. I don't have to worry about that unit next turn" "I killed half your Conscript unit....and only 1 more dies. I now have to spend another turn and more resources on that unit"
The changes we have seen will not really change this...at all. If, however, Conscipts are more points, or Commissars are less effective *specifically to Conscripts*, than we have balance. Maybe Summary Execution stays as it is, with the caveat that Conscripts take D6 more casualties instead of just 1?
Galef wrote: The biggest difference between Conscripts and Brimstones is this:
"I killed half your Brimstone unit, the other half poofs out of existence. I don't have to worry about that unit next turn"
"I killed half your Conscript unit....and only 1 more dies. I now have to spend another turn and more resources on that unit"
The changes we have seen will not really change this...at all. If, however, Conscipts are more points, or Commissars are less effective *specifically to Conscripts*, than we have balance.
Maybe Summary Execution stays as it is, with the caveat that Conscripts take D6 more casualties instead of just 1?
I said before in other threads that a roll to see if orders passed would be the worst balance they could do.
Well GW well played, you proved me right. You could have just made it so certain orders don't work so players could actually use strategy as they would know what to expect. You could have nerfed the actually OP part of conscripts, their insane efficent resiliency by reducing their armor save to a 6+. Nope, more random rolls. Hey Daemon players how did you feel about random rolls in 6th and 7th?
Their points cost won't change, Conscripts will still be the backbone of Imperial Soup. Just better now with regiment rules.
perilsensitive wrote: Why is this so awful but Chaos Cultists + Iron Warriors character (auto-pass morale) not? Is it just the cost (Cultists are 5 ppm?)
Chaos can also use Mutant Rabble + Enforcer from the R&H list to do approximately the same thing (4ppm for Rabble, Enforcer does d3 instead of 1).
All that said, I would have no problems with limiting Conscripts to 1 unit per troop choice, and no Obj. Sec.
The former is a 4ppm unit with a 6+ save and a requires a warlord trait, so one bubble per army. Cultists went down to 4 ppm in the codex just fyi.
The latter is a 4ppm with a 6+ save and slightly inferior commissar that deals d3 morale losses. It can get toughness 4 1/3rd of the time, or lose models during deployment.
Conscripts are a 3ppm squad with a 5+. Even if they got bumped up to 4ppm, they'd still have the superior save, making them slightly better. That's a big gulf between units.
And here I am still just giggling because I'd never have imagined, through my many years of playing this game, that Imperial Guard conscripts would be such a big meta issue and power unit
Admittedly I think the big issue is super pals lists where you can slap just anything from anywhere together, and slap something like Guilleman in there behind a giant screen of weenie dudes in literally every game as long as you have the points.
Dont really have anything against the changed themselves though aside from the fact that limiting conscripts to 30 is an odd move given that theyve been able to be run in that size for many years and multiple editions, but doesnt bother me all that much.
Im just hoping that Russ tanks, Chimeras, and basic Infantry platoon units will be more functional.
Purifier wrote: This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
I agree, the Commissar really is the issue. You could probably even put down 50 if they could not ignore morale for -1 guy. Lets see if they change the commissar or change the points
Vaktathi wrote: And here I am still just giggling because I'd never have imagined, through my many years of playing this game, that Imperial Guard conscripts would be such a big meta issue and power unit
Admittedly I think the big issue is super pals lists where you can slap just anything from anywhere together, and slap something like Guilleman in there behind a giant screen of weenie dudes in literally every game as long as you have the points.
People keep saying this, and you know what's funny? Guilliman isn't the thing all those soup lists have in common. They don't all use plasma scions, they don't all use Celestine, or SoB, or SM, or really any single power unit across every list.
The connecting thread is conscripts. Because all those power units have equivalents in other armies, but conscripts are unique.
Because BS4+, a usable Ld score, and the ability to take heavy weapons mean nothing apparently. Cultists are knockoff guardsmen, not conscripts. They just trade -1 armor for a larger squad size and stronger sergeant model. Which is why they share their cost with guardsmen, not conscripts.
As far as trying to balance IG using grots as the yardstick, are grots even worth 3 points in the first place? Why should we base our whole army on a unit everyone considers overcosted anyway, that would just make us overcosted as a faction.
Vaktathi wrote: And here I am still just giggling because I'd never have imagined, through my many years of playing this game, that Imperial Guard conscripts would be such a big meta issue and power unit
Admittedly I think the big issue is super pals lists where you can slap just anything from anywhere together, and slap something like Guilleman in there behind a giant screen of weenie dudes in literally every game as long as you have the points.
People keep saying this, and you know what's funny? Guilliman isn't the thing all those soup lists have in common. They don't all use plasma scions, they don't all use Celestine, or SoB, or SM, or really any single power unit across every list.
The connecting thread is conscripts. Because all those power units have equivalents in other armies, but conscripts are unique.
Within just the IG army itself however, conscripts dont present the same issue. Youre right, they dont all use Guilliman (hence why I said "something like" when referring to him), however theyre generally multifaction armies centered around some sort of supporting unit from another faction, at least, thats been my perception.
The armies and units within them are all still basically designed and balanced as self contained forces, with multifaction synergy possibilities being an afterthought. This issue will plague GW for as long as they continue to design armies in that manner while allowing lists that combine many factions to function as a single army. It was a major problem in 7E, and still appears to be an issue in 8E.
How is needing twice as many commissars (assuming you were bringing more than two squads in the first place) who proceed to execute twice as many models "no effect"?
And so what if the Valhallans have a faction specific buff to conscripts? If we nerf them to the point that even Valhallans are reluctant to take them, what do you think that will do to all the other regiments?
What does "balanced" even look like to you?
Twice as many commissars would be a worthwhile tax, if commissars weren't dirt cheap compared to options in any other army.
Twice as many executed models would also be a good change, if the original number wasn't "1".
Commissars and conscripts make for very cheap bubblewrap units that protect all the stuff that you want to keep alive, while also being capable of outputting a surprising amount of damage. This isn't even that bad in itself for Imperial Guard armies, but the issue gets worse because they're available to all Imperium armies. Which means an elite army of grey knight, with expensive powerful models, can spend a pittance in points to screen their elite units with a few conscripts.
Balance, to me, looks like the following:
Imperium player: Hmm, I need some troops units. What do I need them to do? If A, I'll get some A. If B, I'll get some B. All are good choices in different situations, and in fact I could just use C because I like them, they'll still do the job.
What the game looks like right now:
Imperium Player: Hmm, I need some troop units. I'll get a bunch of conscripts. They protect everything and cost nothing. I don't even play imperial guard.
AGAIN this wouldn't be an issue, if the other armies in the game had the same option. But they don't. Eldar are an elite army (so, like space marines and grey knight etc), that would seriously benefit from a cheap bubblewrap unit to protect their units and fill detachment slots for CP. Do they have one? Nope, not even close, their cheapest option is super expensive and actually overpriced.
They *used to* have a good bubblewrap option, but it got nerfed into the group because of imperial crybabies (the irony) and now is expensive and totally unusable on the table.
Much the same story for all the Xenos. And so this is why everyone cries for conscript nerfs. They're all tired of imperium getting all the good toys.
Serious answer as to what I would find balanced, is basically what I said in the jokey example above. Conscripts should be a good, usable option. But it shouldn't be the ONLY option. A space marine player should be able to go "hmm, I could get some scouts, or I could go IG and get some conscripts. Both choices will work, with different pros and cons, so I will pick the one I would prefer to paint and play with".
Why are Space Marine players deciding between scouts and conscripts? They perform vastly different roles. It's like comparing a Rhino to a Basilisk and complaining that the Rhino has insufficient firepower.
I personally think the Commissar/Conscript combination is fine, but if a change is absolutely needed, what if it was 1 model shot for every 5 in the unit left?
I said before in other threads that a roll to see if orders passed would be the worst balance they could do.
Well GW well played, you proved me right. You could have just made it so certain orders don't work so players could actually use strategy as they would know what to expect. You could have nerfed the actually OP part of conscripts, their insane efficent resiliency by reducing their armor save to a 6+. Nope, more random rolls. Hey Daemon players how did you feel about random rolls in 6th and 7th?
Their points cost won't change, Conscripts will still be the backbone of Imperial Soup. Just better now with regiment rules.
...Which they can't get in imperial soup lists. Unless you're not getting the benefit of Conscripts being your army's troop choices.
fresus wrote: They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat.
I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
At 4 ppm model they'd be the second most effective screening unit in the game, and even with these nerfs would have way better offensive potential than the best screening unit (brimstones).
Well, third best. Blue Horrors probably edge them out, the only reason you dont' see them is because Brims are so good and like, if you've got one, you might as well have the other instead...
You've also got poxwalkers plus Typhus, Plaguebearers, Ork Boyz, Renegade Mutant Rabble...it's not that hard to get something about the durability of a conscript (or better) for about the same cost.
I said before in other threads that a roll to see if orders passed would be the worst balance they could do.
Well GW well played, you proved me right. You could have just made it so certain orders don't work so players could actually use strategy as they would know what to expect. You could have nerfed the actually OP part of conscripts, their insane efficent resiliency by reducing their armor save to a 6+. Nope, more random rolls. Hey Daemon players how did you feel about random rolls in 6th and 7th?
Their points cost won't change, Conscripts will still be the backbone of Imperial Soup. Just better now with regiment rules.
...Which they can't get in imperial soup lists. Unless you're not getting the benefit of Conscripts being your army's troop choices.
Yes they can? The idea detachments make it difficult to mix and match is silly. Take a battalion of IG and you still have two full detachments to fill out as needed.
I don't think any existing list will struggle with this.
ross-128 wrote: You end up needing more officers (they ain't free you know), more commissars (also not free) and have to execute twice as many models.
.
Well, lets look up what 'not free' constitutes.
Oh, shucks. 31 points for 6" bubble of immunity to morale. Warbossess are more than double that, at their very, VERY cheapest, and do D3 wounds instead of 1.
And commanders are 30 points for 2 orders.
At the very worst, one could argue they made it so that you have to bring an extra commander to have a similar (granted, only 50/50 odds) effect on 2x conscript squads, so they added 30 points. That's almost the price of one power klaw. Technically, not free, but it's not exactly expensive, either.
The better comparison is the Runt Herd, an elite choice (like the commissar), only helps with Morale on Gretchin (same cost as Conscripts, worse unit), does not buff their LD, and kills D3 models. Costs 5 points less than the commissar.
As for everyone saying "well Brims..." so another unit being too good means no balance for conscripts is ok. Just clarifying that is what you are saying?
No, I'm saying they're in a pretty good spot after the nerf. They're solid, useful screen units that are often taken because the thing that buffs them also buffs the actual problematic units in the army (Magnus and AlphabetSoup) but you don't see them sweeping tournaments.
They have over double the defenses of conscripts for about half the offense (1/3 of a chance of dealing a mortal) - before orders. Conscripts with orders get FOUR times the offense of brims, making them super powerful. Hence the offense nerf.
perilsensitive wrote: Why is this so awful but Chaos Cultists + Iron Warriors character (auto-pass morale) not? Is it just the cost (Cultists are 5 ppm?)
Chaos can also use Mutant Rabble + Enforcer from the R&H list to do approximately the same thing (4ppm for Rabble, Enforcer does d3 instead of 1).
All that said, I would have no problems with limiting Conscripts to 1 unit per troop choice, and no Obj. Sec.
As was stated for Cultists, they are worse models (75% as durable, at 25% more cost), They are slightly more potent offensively if you don't include orders, but when you consider points a squad of (at current costs Cultists deal 0.028 more hits per point). Cultists can take some very poor heavy weapons, but almost never do because the options are fairly terrible. Further morale buff characters are less plentiful, cost quite a bit more, and they don't buff the LD of the unit as well.
the_scotsman wrote: Well, third best. Blue Horrors probably edge them out, the only reason you dont' see them is because Brims are so good and like, if you've got one, you might as well have the other instead...
You've also got poxwalkers plus Typhus, Plaguebearers, Ork Boyz, Renegade Mutant Rabble...it's not that hard to get something about the durability of a conscript (or better) for about the same cost.
Blue horrors are less durable than conscripts, particularly against AP 0, as the point cost increase and lack of morale rules outweighs the better save. Even at 4ppm for conscripts it'd be a tie, conscripts doing worse vs AP and blues doing worse against AP 0.
Lmao, you just said poxwalkers and typhus. Oh yeah, the 170 point model devoted to buffing my cheap chaff. That's sure to be point efficient.
You listed off a bunch of things that don't come close to conscripts in durability currently, and would be inferior to 4ppm conscripts. Units that are being outperformed even when the original unit is given a hypothetical 33% point hike aren't close. Everything you mentioned is garbage compared to current conscripts. Lmfao.
Don't forget unless AM has some wierd new rules a commissar can't join a regiment without losing all the buffs.
Regardless these changes along with buffed combined squad infantry will limit conscript spam considerably. I can't see anyone taking more then 4 squads of conscripts which is just over the size of 2 squads prenerf. Smaller conscript squads does a lot to limit Congo lines and unit buff spreading along with less buff efficiency.
ross-128 wrote: Because BS4+, a usable Ld score, and the ability to take heavy weapons mean nothing apparently. Cultists are knockoff guardsmen, not conscripts. They just trade -1 armor for a larger squad size and stronger sergeant model. Which is why they share their cost with guardsmen, not conscripts.
As far as trying to balance IG using grots as the yardstick, are grots even worth 3 points in the first place? Why should we base our whole army on a unit everyone considers overcosted anyway, that would just make us overcosted as a faction.
Except they have (and always have) functioned more like knock of conscripts, no options for special/heavy weapons beyond a heavy stubber or flamer, hardly similar to guardsmen as far as options.
As for grots they might not be worth 3 points, in reality though that is probably right for them and most other things are slightly undercosted. It is a problem when you get down to that level of points. At 2 points Grots feel almost too good, because they would be super cheap for their wounds (30 wounds for 60 points, 86 points with their morale buff character, seems a bit much) That would mean you could fill a brigade of troops for 360 points for 180 wounds worth of models, and then buff them with a couple characters to have 5++/6+++, and D3 morale losses. Now orks have very little worth screening compared to guard, but it would still be a ton of models to chew through.
At low points level every point in one direction is a huge shift, which is why points changes as a fix are hard to do. I'm not sure grots are overcosted, they just are when you compare them to the other 3 point models in the game (Conscripts and Brimstones). It is one of the reason I think fixing conscripts never should have involved a points increase, but instead a change to things like their save.
IMO just make conscripts only available to all guard armies. Conscripts are not an issue imperial soup is. I really wish there was a heavy tax for combining imperium forces. you can always find a broken combo when taking the very best units from multiple books.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Why are Space Marine players deciding between scouts and conscripts? They perform vastly different roles. It's like comparing a Rhino to a Basilisk and complaining that the Rhino has insufficient firepower.
Wow. Talk about cherry picking.
Clearly, obviously, I was just taking a random example. I could have said "Troops Choice A" vs "Troops Choice B" but I decided to say scouts, because space marines have scouts. My post was crystal clear that it was simply a theoretical example, not a direct comparison.
Though you're right about them doing different roles. I guess I should have said Tactical Squads, as they're probably the closest thing space marines have, but then you would say "but tactical squads are expensive garbage". Which would be making my point for me. Space marine players should have the option of NOT picking conscripts, and still be competitive.
OR all the other armies in the game should be given the option of a unit that is similar in price and ability to conscripts. So that balance happens. Chaos already has this to a degree, if they take daemon allies, but noone else does.
Edit: Eldar used to, but GW nerfed the option by -doubling- the points cost of the unit.
Well, I guess we'll see. In my eyes, I hate to see something beaten down to uselessness because people are sick of seeing it(Wraithknights, Riptides) and I hate to see something already problematic not touched or even made stronger when it couldve had a balance pass (Guilliman, Cawl, Kastelans).
Hit them with a nerf, see how tournament results pan out, then adjust points in Chapter Approved if need be. That's the way it should be.
Conscripts will likely still be solid in all-guard lists because there are plenty of gunlines for them to screen for, and the gunline is strong enough to warrant being the core of a list. Other screening units, like Termagants or Brims or what have you, might not be seen as much because they don't play in a static gunline style. If you define "useful chaff unit" as ONLY something that must stand in front of a gunline and ONLY something taken in 20+ man squads and ONLY high model count and not multi-wound, oh and you'll only consider one unit with its common buffs alongside it and you will only compare it with other units in an absolute vacuum...then yep, you're going to be able to move those goalposts to wherever you like and arrive at the conclusion you want.
I think the smart thing to do is realize that if an argument on the internet goes on for more than 1 or 2 replies, the people arguing are probably talking past each other and it's not going to get anything useful done. So, have fun boys.
Niiru, this is in reply to you, but I am not going to quote your post because I actually generally agree with you about Marines not having crappy choices. They do need good choices. Also, this is a general contribution to the thread.
Anyways, I think part of the reason conscripts are so good is the absolutely essential need for screens in this edition. They're not so good offensively (they aren't bad either, but they're no Manticore), and they're rather slow and ungainly. BUT with 1st Turn Charges and crazy pin-point superweapon deepstrikes, screening went from "something gunlines did" to "something EVERYONE has to do."
So armies that traditionally had no screening units (e.g. Marines) could play around them in earlier editions: ensure firepower was concentrated enough to stop enemy armies, be durable enough to endure what few deepstrikers could arrive on a turn (most I've seen I think was 4 drop-pods worth of marines), or simply strike first.
Now, however, deepstrike is 100% accurate, 100% predictable, and 100% of it can happen on the first turn. Also, you no longer have the guarantee of being able to shoot your opponent before they punch your face in. Therefore, the only way to ensure the survival of your important units is to physically interdict enemy deep-strikers or assaulters.
Armies with screening units can do this alright, but armies without them have to look elsewhere.
Throughout the history of Warhammer 40k, the quintessential screening unit was conscripts. Now, in the age of "screening units are an absolute necessity", I am not surprised they're OP compared to units which are not the quintessential screening units.
Just look at the comparison to Grots, I think that's a fair comparison - they're both their army's "signature screening unit". I think the Grots are overpriced, and perhaps should drop to 2.5 per model (25 pts for 10) or even 2.
the_scotsman wrote: Well, I guess we'll see. In my eyes, I hate to see something beaten down to uselessness because people are sick of seeing it(Wraithknights, Riptides) and I hate to see something already problematic not touched or even made stronger when it couldve had a balance pass (Guilliman, Cawl, Kastelans).
Oh yeah, we know how badly Cawl and kastalens are dominating the tournament scene. Heh.
But really, beaten down to uselessness is not the same as put on literally the same level as almost every compareable unit, in fact remaining slightly superior to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: Don't forget unless AM has some wierd new rules a commissar can't join a regiment without losing all the buffs.
Regardless these changes along with buffed combined squad infantry will limit conscript spam considerably. I can't see anyone taking more then 4 squads of conscripts which is just over the size of 2 squads prenerf. Smaller conscript squads does a lot to limit Congo lines and unit buff spreading along with less buff efficiency.
????
It'll probably be worded such that only one <regiment> per detachment to gain the benefits, and everything has to have the astra militarum keyword.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Niiru, this is in reply to you, but I am not going to quote your post because I actually generally agree with you about Marines not having crappy choices. They do need good choices. Also, this is a general contribution to the thread.
Anyways, I think part of the reason conscripts are so good is the absolutely essential need for screens in this edition. They're not so good offensively (they aren't bad either, but they're no Manticore), and they're rather slow and ungainly. BUT with 1st Turn Charges and crazy pin-point superweapon deepstrikes, screening went from "something gunlines did" to "something EVERYONE has to do."
So armies that traditionally had no screening units (e.g. Marines) could play around them in earlier editions: ensure firepower was concentrated enough to stop enemy armies, be durable enough to endure what few deepstrikers could arrive on a turn (most I've seen I think was 4 drop-pods worth of marines), or simply strike first.
Now, however, deepstrike is 100% accurate, 100% predictable, and 100% of it can happen on the first turn. Also, you no longer have the guarantee of being able to shoot your opponent before they punch your face in. Therefore, the only way to ensure the survival of your important units is to physically interdict enemy deep-strikers or assaulters.
Armies with screening units can do this alright, but armies without them have to look elsewhere.
Throughout the history of Warhammer 40k, the quintessential screening unit was conscripts. Now, in the age of "screening units are an absolute necessity", I am not surprised they're OP compared to units which are not the quintessential screening units.
Just look at the comparison to Grots, I think that's a fair comparison - they're both their army's "signature screening unit". I think the Grots are overpriced, and perhaps should drop to 2.5 per model (25 pts for 10) or even 2.
This post deserves permalink.
Also, albeit I like a lot of it, I do wonder if this edition has some very basic design flaw.
fresus wrote: They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat.
I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
At 4 ppm model they'd be the second most effective screening unit in the game, and even with these nerfs would have way better offensive potential than the best screening unit (brimstones).
Well, third best. Blue Horrors probably edge them out, the only reason you dont' see them is because Brims are so good and like, if you've got one, you might as well have the other instead...
You've also got poxwalkers plus Typhus, Plaguebearers, Ork Boyz, Renegade Mutant Rabble...it's not that hard to get something about the durability of a conscript (or better) for about the same cost.
None of these things come close to Conscripts in durability Point for point,
Ork boyz per model are slightly more durable (2.4 bolter hits kills a boy, 2.25 kills a conscript), but taking points into account if you pay 120 point for both squads, it will take 48 hits to kill those 20 boyz, and 67.5 to kill those 30 conscripts (at 4ppm). So conscripts per point at 4 points would be 40% more durable than boyz.
For Blue horrors, they would be slightly better for durability. The 4++ save makes a big difference in durability (it is the major issue with brims)
Pox walkers unless you include typhus (which is a lot of cost) have essentially identical durability to conscripts at twice the cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Niiru, this is in reply to you, but I am not going to quote your post because I actually generally agree with you about Marines not having crappy choices. They do need good choices. Also, this is a general contribution to the thread.
Anyways, I think part of the reason conscripts are so good is the absolutely essential need for screens in this edition. They're not so good offensively (they aren't bad either, but they're no Manticore), and they're rather slow and ungainly. BUT with 1st Turn Charges and crazy pin-point superweapon deepstrikes, screening went from "something gunlines did" to "something EVERYONE has to do."
So armies that traditionally had no screening units (e.g. Marines) could play around them in earlier editions: ensure firepower was concentrated enough to stop enemy armies, be durable enough to endure what few deepstrikers could arrive on a turn (most I've seen I think was 4 drop-pods worth of marines), or simply strike first.
Now, however, deepstrike is 100% accurate, 100% predictable, and 100% of it can happen on the first turn. Also, you no longer have the guarantee of being able to shoot your opponent before they punch your face in. Therefore, the only way to ensure the survival of your important units is to physically interdict enemy deep-strikers or assaulters.
Armies with screening units can do this alright, but armies without them have to look elsewhere.
Throughout the history of Warhammer 40k, the quintessential screening unit was conscripts. Now, in the age of "screening units are an absolute necessity", I am not surprised they're OP compared to units which are not the quintessential screening units.
Just look at the comparison to Grots, I think that's a fair comparison - they're both their army's "signature screening unit". I think the Grots are overpriced, and perhaps should drop to 2.5 per model (25 pts for 10) or even 2.
I agree with a lot of this, my only issue is that I feel like to some extent screening units should not last multiple turns against dedicated assault units (the size reduction for conscripts helps here). Especially with the fall back mechanic, needing to charge the same unit multiple times while eating fire in between makes screening a bit too strong for many units. I also think some of it is a soup issue, if marines were using tacticals/scouts as their screens/speed bumps things would be a bit better, as unlike IG they have decent counter charge units.
Breng77 wrote: I agree with a lot of this, my only issue is that I feel like to some extent screening units should not last multiple turns against dedicated assault units (the size reduction for conscripts helps here). Especially with the fall back mechanic, needing to charge the same unit multiple times while eating fire in between makes screening a bit too strong for many units. I also think some of it is a soup issue, if marines were using tacticals/scouts as their screens/speed bumps things would be a bit better, as unlike IG they have decent counter charge units.
I don't think they will anymore. 30 conscripts (the max unit size) will evaporate much more quickly than 50 (the former max unit size). So you'll no longer have to worry about destroying the screening unit you hit.
ross-128 wrote: Because BS4+, a usable Ld score, and the ability to take heavy weapons mean nothing apparently. Cultists are knockoff guardsmen, not conscripts. They just trade -1 armor for a larger squad size and stronger sergeant model. Which is why they share their cost with guardsmen, not conscripts.
As far as trying to balance IG using grots as the yardstick, are grots even worth 3 points in the first place? Why should we base our whole army on a unit everyone considers overcosted anyway, that would just make us overcosted as a faction.
Except they have (and always have) functioned more like knock of conscripts, no options for special/heavy weapons beyond a heavy stubber or flamer, hardly similar to guardsmen as far as options.
As for grots they might not be worth 3 points, in reality though that is probably right for them and most other things are slightly undercosted. It is a problem when you get down to that level of points. At 2 points Grots feel almost too good, because they would be super cheap for their wounds (30 wounds for 60 points, 86 points with their morale buff character, seems a bit much) That would mean you could fill a brigade of troops for 360 points for 180 wounds worth of models, and then buff them with a couple characters to have 5++/6+++, and D3 morale losses. Now orks have very little worth screening compared to guard, but it would still be a ton of models to chew through.
At low points level every point in one direction is a huge shift, which is why points changes as a fix are hard to do. I'm not sure grots are overcosted, they just are when you compare them to the other 3 point models in the game (Conscripts and Brimstones). It is one of the reason I think fixing conscripts never should have involved a points increase, but instead a change to things like their save.
If that's the stance you're taking on grots then you're looking at a much bigger project than nerfing conscripts. You're looking at overhauling the entire cost structure across all of 40k to make room for grots.
Or if you're lazy, only doing it to IG while leaving everyone else undercosted relative to the grotified guardsmen. Also known as "making IG suck".
Breng77 wrote: I agree with a lot of this, my only issue is that I feel like to some extent screening units should not last multiple turns against dedicated assault units (the size reduction for conscripts helps here). Especially with the fall back mechanic, needing to charge the same unit multiple times while eating fire in between makes screening a bit too strong for many units. I also think some of it is a soup issue, if marines were using tacticals/scouts as their screens/speed bumps things would be a bit better, as unlike IG they have decent counter charge units.
I don't think they will anymore. 30 conscripts (the max unit size) will evaporate much more quickly than 50 (the former max unit size). So you'll no longer have to worry about destroying the screening unit you hit.
That is likely true, I think the unreliable orders will help some as well given that the fall back and act normally order may or may not happen.
ross-128 wrote: Because BS4+, a usable Ld score, and the ability to take heavy weapons mean nothing apparently. Cultists are knockoff guardsmen, not conscripts. They just trade -1 armor for a larger squad size and stronger sergeant model. Which is why they share their cost with guardsmen, not conscripts.
As far as trying to balance IG using grots as the yardstick, are grots even worth 3 points in the first place? Why should we base our whole army on a unit everyone considers overcosted anyway, that would just make us overcosted as a faction.
Except they have (and always have) functioned more like knock of conscripts, no options for special/heavy weapons beyond a heavy stubber or flamer, hardly similar to guardsmen as far as options.
As for grots they might not be worth 3 points, in reality though that is probably right for them and most other things are slightly undercosted. It is a problem when you get down to that level of points. At 2 points Grots feel almost too good, because they would be super cheap for their wounds (30 wounds for 60 points, 86 points with their morale buff character, seems a bit much) That would mean you could fill a brigade of troops for 360 points for 180 wounds worth of models, and then buff them with a couple characters to have 5++/6+++, and D3 morale losses. Now orks have very little worth screening compared to guard, but it would still be a ton of models to chew through.
At low points level every point in one direction is a huge shift, which is why points changes as a fix are hard to do. I'm not sure grots are overcosted, they just are when you compare them to the other 3 point models in the game (Conscripts and Brimstones). It is one of the reason I think fixing conscripts never should have involved a points increase, but instead a change to things like their save.
If that's the stance you're taking on grots then you're looking at a much bigger project than nerfing conscripts. You're looking at overhauling the entire cost structure across all of 40k to make room for grots.
Or if you're lazy, only doing it to IG while leaving everyone else undercosted relative to the grotified guardsmen. Also known as "making IG suck".
Yes 40k in general would benefit from being repointed at a more granular point system to differentiate between similar units. That said, in this general case I have previously said I think dropping Concscripts to a 6+ save fixes them quite a bit, and making horrors not have a 4++ (5++ for both brims and blues) and making Brims T2. would help them as well.
The problem with reducing conscript durability is you still need them to stick around.
Deepstrikers will still be at full strength on turn 2 or turn 3, so if all they need to do to invalidate your screen is evaporate it turn one, then you essentially might as well have not brought a screen at all. All you did was buy yourself a turn before everything important gets deleted from orbit with no recourse (or tied up in assault and either dead or useless).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Niiru, this is in reply to you, but I am not going to quote your post because I actually generally agree with you about Marines not having crappy choices. They do need good choices. Also, this is a general contribution to the thread.
Anyways, I think part of the reason conscripts are so good is the absolutely essential need for screens in this edition. They're not so good offensively (they aren't bad either, but they're no Manticore), and they're rather slow and ungainly. BUT with 1st Turn Charges and crazy pin-point superweapon deepstrikes, screening went from "something gunlines did" to "something EVERYONE has to do."
So armies that traditionally had no screening units (e.g. Marines) could play around them in earlier editions: ensure firepower was concentrated enough to stop enemy armies, be durable enough to endure what few deepstrikers could arrive on a turn (most I've seen I think was 4 drop-pods worth of marines), or simply strike first.
Now, however, deepstrike is 100% accurate, 100% predictable, and 100% of it can happen on the first turn. Also, you no longer have the guarantee of being able to shoot your opponent before they punch your face in. Therefore, the only way to ensure the survival of your important units is to physically interdict enemy deep-strikers or assaulters.
Armies with screening units can do this alright, but armies without them have to look elsewhere.
Throughout the history of Warhammer 40k, the quintessential screening unit was conscripts. Now, in the age of "screening units are an absolute necessity", I am not surprised they're OP compared to units which are not the quintessential screening units.
Just look at the comparison to Grots, I think that's a fair comparison - they're both their army's "signature screening unit". I think the Grots are overpriced, and perhaps should drop to 2.5 per model (25 pts for 10) or even 2.
I appreciate the opening, it's nice that some people on here have a good discussion head on their shoulders!
And I agree with what you're saying, I think it's basically the same as what I was trying to say but from the other direction. I have no problem with conscripts staying the way they are now, if all the other armies gained buffs to their potential screening units so that they become equivalent (or at least in the same ballpark).
Grots should be dirt cheap. They're awful. If grots only lost 1 model when fleeing, and could fire twice each turn, then they would be worth their points. Right now they do none of these things, and so should be cheaper than conscripts. They're easily half as good, but for the same points. It's ridiculous. And thats in the Ork army, where most units are at least 50% overpriced anyway.
So yeh, nerf conscripts, or buff grots. But if you buff grots, you'd also need to buff... guardians, I guess. And kabalites. No idea what necrons get, scarabs maybe? Kroot.
From a game design perspective, it is probably easier to nerf one unit (conscripts) and see how the game balances out, than buffing 6 different units in different armies, as all that change could end up having knock-on effects an causing other synergies that leads to overpowered units elsewhere.
And noone wants to see a Xenos army overpowered. Salt as far as the eye can see.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Niiru, this is in reply to you, but I am not going to quote your post because I actually generally agree with you about Marines not having crappy choices. They do need good choices. Also, this is a general contribution to the thread.
Anyways, I think part of the reason conscripts are so good is the absolutely essential need for screens in this edition. They're not so good offensively (they aren't bad either, but they're no Manticore), and they're rather slow and ungainly. BUT with 1st Turn Charges and crazy pin-point superweapon deepstrikes, screening went from "something gunlines did" to "something EVERYONE has to do."
So armies that traditionally had no screening units (e.g. Marines) could play around them in earlier editions: ensure firepower was concentrated enough to stop enemy armies, be durable enough to endure what few deepstrikers could arrive on a turn (most I've seen I think was 4 drop-pods worth of marines), or simply strike first.
Now, however, deepstrike is 100% accurate, 100% predictable, and 100% of it can happen on the first turn. Also, you no longer have the guarantee of being able to shoot your opponent before they punch your face in. Therefore, the only way to ensure the survival of your important units is to physically interdict enemy deep-strikers or assaulters.
Armies with screening units can do this alright, but armies without them have to look elsewhere.
Throughout the history of Warhammer 40k, the quintessential screening unit was conscripts. Now, in the age of "screening units are an absolute necessity", I am not surprised they're OP compared to units which are not the quintessential screening units.
Just look at the comparison to Grots, I think that's a fair comparison - they're both their army's "signature screening unit". I think the Grots are overpriced, and perhaps should drop to 2.5 per model (25 pts for 10) or even 2.
I appreciate the opening, it's nice that some people on here have a good discussion head on their shoulders!
And I agree with what you're saying, I think it's basically the same as what I was trying to say but from the other direction. I have no problem with conscripts staying the way they are now, if all the other armies gained buffs to their potential screening units so that they become equivalent (or at least in the same ballpark).
Grots should be dirt cheap. They're awful. If grots only lost 1 model when fleeing, and could fire twice each turn, then they would be worth their points. Right now they do none of these things, and so should be cheaper than conscripts. They're easily half as good, but for the same points. It's ridiculous. And thats in the Ork army, where most units are at least 50% overpriced anyway.
So yeh, nerf conscripts, or buff grots. But if you buff grots, you'd also need to buff... guardians, I guess. And kabalites. No idea what necrons get, scarabs maybe? Kroot.
From a game design perspective, it is probably easier to nerf one unit (conscripts) and see how the game balances out, than buffing 6 different units in different armies, as all that change could end up having knock-on effects an causing other synergies that leads to overpowered units elsewhere.
And noone wants to see a Xenos army overpowered. Salt as far as the eye can see.
The problem is that those other screening units aren't doing their job though, not that conscripts are. I am of the opinion that a unit performing its "role" is a positive thing, and so the goal would be to make other units perform their role as well.
You would absolutely not have to buff guardians or kabalites; those aren't screening units. They're more similar to IG line infantry. A screening unit is a unit designed to be thrown away to no other purpose. The current screening units are:
Gaunts (though they're flexible and can buy upgrades to become a force in their own right, making them a bit too expensive for the role). Grots (Arguably overpriced; I think they are). Conscripts (Actually good at screening) Kroot (Garbage)
No other armies have screening units that I can think of. This is a designed flaw (deliberate or otherwise) of those armies.
So, now that I've made my own little opinionated definition of a screening unit, I can see the problem. The problem is not that conscripts are over-performing as a screening unit; I think it's that their offensive firepower is out of whack. This tells me that a nerf to orders (not sure the 4+ is enough TBQH, would have been happier if they lost orders entirely) is a good solution.
The other half of the problem is Grots, Gaunts, and Kroot are underperforming in their task as screening units, though this is mitigated somewhat in the case of Grots and Gaunts because screening is less important for their armies. This means that, rather than crippling everyone's ability to screen by nerfing the ones doing their job, one should at least allow the armies who the designers intended to have screens to actually have those screens, which means buffing the relevant units. (Grots and Gaunts need a slight adjustment; Tau Kroot are just awful).
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with reducing conscript durability is you still need them to stick around.
Deepstrikers will still be at full strength on turn 2 or turn 3, so if all they need to do to invalidate your screen is evaporate it turn one, then you essentially might as well have not brought a screen at all. All you did was buy yourself a turn before everything important gets deleted from orbit with no recourse (or tied up in assault and either dead or useless).
Reducing their durability means you need to bring more points of screening units to make up the difference so that they will stick around, which means you have less firepower to otherwise destroy your opponent. Part of the issue is having a screen so cheap you give up very little offense (which is also relatively cheap in IG). It is also important to note that for assault deepstrike is that it is very risky as there is a 50% chance that even the best deepstrike units will fail their charge entirely. At this point I'm willing to see how smaller squads works, though it seems that 30 was the average size many top lists were running anyway, so I'm not convinced that it will be entirely effective. I will also note, some of this would be less of an issue for me if IG were also not the largest user of LOS ignoring weaponry, so their bubble wrap is effective at denying any way at all to deal with their damage dealing units.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with reducing conscript durability is you still need them to stick around.
Deepstrikers will still be at full strength on turn 2 or turn 3, so if all they need to do to invalidate your screen is evaporate it turn one, then you essentially might as well have not brought a screen at all. All you did was buy yourself a turn before everything important gets deleted from orbit with no recourse (or tied up in assault and either dead or useless).
Reducing their durability means you need to bring more points of screening units to make up the difference so that they will stick around, which means you have less firepower to otherwise destroy your opponent. Part of the issue is having a screen so cheap you give up very little offense (which is also relatively cheap in IG). It is also important to note that for assault deepstrike is that it is very risky as there is a 50% chance that even the best deepstrike units will fail their charge entirely. At this point I'm willing to see how smaller squads works, though it seems that 30 was the average size many top lists were running anyway, so I'm not convinced that it will be entirely effective. I will also note, some of this would be less of an issue for me if IG were also not the largest user of LOS ignoring weaponry, so their bubble wrap is effective at denying any way at all to deal with their damage dealing units.
The problem I forsee with forcing people to bring more screens is that's more models in the battlespace which is slower in time and more unwieldy in space. There is, quite literally, an upper limit to the amount and thickness of screens one can deploy (the size of one's DZ). If you start saying "well, just bring more models!" then you start cramping and cramping DZs more and more until you've essentially won just by turning the game into "can the Leman Russes navigate the sea of conscripts enough to actually do anything" and that doesn't sound like an improved game to me.
If you halve conscript durability, you make them take double the units. But that means they take double the boardspace. Which means you end up with conscripts essentially all over the place, literally tripping over eachother and gumming up the works of the actual ARMY part of the army.
A screen should be a screen - like a picket line, not like an ocean in which the rest of the units wallow like 17th century warships trying to maneuver.
Vaktathi wrote: And here I am still just giggling because I'd never have imagined, through my many years of playing this game, that Imperial Guard conscripts would be such a big meta issue and power unit
You know, when you put it that way, it does seem a bit silly, doesn't it?
Vaktathi wrote: And here I am still just giggling because I'd never have imagined, through my many years of playing this game, that Imperial Guard conscripts would be such a big meta issue and power unit
You know, when you put it that way, it does seem a bit silly, doesn't it?
You know what's silly? Suddenly every army is filled with not a single experienced guardsman, every soldier fresh off the factory floor... And Guilliman.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And what's really messed up is, if you were to delete conscripts from the game today... Guardsmen are still an INCREDIBLE screening unit, yet they're getting outperformed by their greener brothers, just because bodycount is the real winner.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with reducing conscript durability is you still need them to stick around.
Deepstrikers will still be at full strength on turn 2 or turn 3, so if all they need to do to invalidate your screen is evaporate it turn one, then you essentially might as well have not brought a screen at all. All you did was buy yourself a turn before everything important gets deleted from orbit with no recourse (or tied up in assault and either dead or useless).
Reducing their durability means you need to bring more points of screening units to make up the difference so that they will stick around, which means you have less firepower to otherwise destroy your opponent. Part of the issue is having a screen so cheap you give up very little offense (which is also relatively cheap in IG). It is also important to note that for assault deepstrike is that it is very risky as there is a 50% chance that even the best deepstrike units will fail their charge entirely. At this point I'm willing to see how smaller squads works, though it seems that 30 was the average size many top lists were running anyway, so I'm not convinced that it will be entirely effective. I will also note, some of this would be less of an issue for me if IG were also not the largest user of LOS ignoring weaponry, so their bubble wrap is effective at denying any way at all to deal with their damage dealing units.
The problem I forsee with forcing people to bring more screens is that's more models in the battlespace which is slower in time and more unwieldy in space. There is, quite literally, an upper limit to the amount and thickness of screens one can deploy (the size of one's DZ). If you start saying "well, just bring more models!" then you start cramping and cramping DZs more and more until you've essentially won just by turning the game into "can the Leman Russes navigate the sea of conscripts enough to actually do anything" and that doesn't sound like an improved game to me.
If you halve conscript durability, you make them take double the units. But that means they take double the boardspace. Which means you end up with conscripts essentially all over the place, literally tripping over eachother and gumming up the works of the actual ARMY part of the army.
A screen should be a screen - like a picket line, not like an ocean in which the rest of the units wallow like 17th century warships trying to maneuver.
I would love screening troops to be more like light infantry/skirmishers. Troops more geared to harass and stop movement rather than a mass of bodies but I don't know if that could work in 40k.
Asmodios wrote: IMO just make conscripts only available to all guard armies. Conscripts are not an issue imperial soup is. I really wish there was a heavy tax for combining imperium forces. you can always find a broken combo when taking the very best units from multiple books.
This cannot be more accurate, so far I've only faced single faction battle forged armies. This has to do with the gamers at my club, our not uber competitive nature, and a relatively large number of new players who own single faction collections. I'm still shocked that Army doctrines are tied to the detachment and will be interested in seeing that play in person vice on a battle report. If doctrines (etc) were tied to the key word the Army was battle forged on then Imperial soup would get the nerfing that many claim it needs. I could also see multi faction Armies paying a CP tax to get a doctrine for a detachment: example
Ultra Marine Battalion, AM Battalion, and Admech Patrol... battleforged under imperium (maybe there is an Imperium doctrine they could get for free?) and if the player wanted, pay a CP to get the Ultra marines their Doctrine and/or pay a CP to get the AM/AdMech theirs, now instead of 9 CPs they start with 6-8... or like the artifact stratagem 1CP gets you one doctrine, 3CPs get you 2...
Or you can play an Army battleforged on something like Catachan and get the Doctrine for free because the organization's commander doesn't need to spend time/thoughts on organizing a force they are used too.
Vaktathi wrote: And here I am still just giggling because I'd never have imagined, through my many years of playing this game, that Imperial Guard conscripts would be such a big meta issue and power unit
You know, when you put it that way, it does seem a bit silly, doesn't it?
You know what's silly? Suddenly every army is filled with not a single experienced guardsman, every soldier fresh off the factory floor... And Guilliman.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And what's really messed up is, if you were to delete conscripts from the game today... Guardsmen are still an INCREDIBLE screening unit, yet they're getting outperformed by their greener brothers, just because bodycount is the real winner.
I agree totally. They should put a 2 regular squad tax per single conscript unit taken. I guess something like that could be in the dex. It was like that in 7th, so I don't see why they wouldn't do it again. I'd never run my guard with all conscripts because it friggin stupid.
Vaktathi wrote: And here I am still just giggling because I'd never have imagined, through my many years of playing this game, that Imperial Guard conscripts would be such a big meta issue and power unit
You know, when you put it that way, it does seem a bit silly, doesn't it?
You know what's silly? Suddenly every army is filled with not a single experienced guardsman, every soldier fresh off the factory floor... And Guilliman.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And what's really messed up is, if you were to delete conscripts from the game today... Guardsmen are still an INCREDIBLE screening unit, yet they're getting outperformed by their greener brothers, just because bodycount is the real winner.
Or even a 1x conscript per detachment... also addresses imperial soup and spamming conscripts means you are loosing faction doctrine buffs unless you are all Guard.
I agree totally. They should put a 2 regular squad tax per single conscript unit taken. I guess something like that could be in the dex. It was like that in 7th, so I don't see why they wouldn't do it again. I'd never run my guard with all conscripts because it friggin stupid.
The problem is that those other screening units aren't doing their job though, not that conscripts are. I am of the opinion that a unit performing its "role" is a positive thing, and so the goal would be to make other units perform their role as well.
You would absolutely not have to buff guardians or kabalites; those aren't screening units. They're more similar to IG line infantry. A screening unit is a unit designed to be thrown away to no other purpose. The current screening units are:
Gaunts (though they're flexible and can buy upgrades to become a force in their own right, making them a bit too expensive for the role).
Grots (Arguably overpriced; I think they are).
Conscripts (Actually good at screening)
Kroot (Garbage)
No other armies have screening units that I can think of. This is a designed flaw (deliberate or otherwise) of those armies.
So, now that I've made my own little opinionated definition of a screening unit, I can see the problem. The problem is not that conscripts are over-performing as a screening unit; I think it's that their offensive firepower is out of whack. This tells me that a nerf to orders (not sure the 4+ is enough TBQH, would have been happier if they lost orders entirely) is a good solution.
The other half of the problem is Grots, Gaunts, and Kroot are underperforming in their task as screening units, though this is mitigated somewhat in the case of Grots and Gaunts because screening is less important for their armies. This means that, rather than crippling everyone's ability to screen by nerfing the ones doing their job, one should at least allow the armies who the designers intended to have screens to actually have those screens, which means buffing the relevant units. (Grots and Gaunts need a slight adjustment; Tau Kroot are just awful).
I've mentioned this briefly before, but Eldar did also have access to a decent screening option in the Dark Eldar Razorwing Flocks. 7 points a model, for a T2 W4 model that was basically useless for anything but absorbing fire and blocking deepstrikes for a turn, with a small chance of doing some damage in return with a bunch of extremely weak melee attacks. Basically, ideal screener unit.
Problem is, because it was the only screener that Eldar had access to (all eldar, including dark eldar, harlies, ect), it began to be used in decent numbers. And because the games workshop model is stupidly expensive, people bought the model from other sources for cheaper, or converted their own.
And so GW doubled the points cost, making them now 14 points for 4 wounds, making them less efficient per wound than conscripts, while being only T2 and no armour save and no gun and no orders. So they went from being appropriately priced for what they were, to being more worthless per point than grots. And left three Eldar armies without any means of cheap screening unit.
This, and the state of grots and kroot, and necrons total lack of an option, is why everyone dislikes conscripts right now. Really, it's just jealousy. But it's understandable jealousy.
The problem is that those other screening units aren't doing their job though, not that conscripts are. I am of the opinion that a unit performing its "role" is a positive thing, and so the goal would be to make other units perform their role as well.
You would absolutely not have to buff guardians or kabalites; those aren't screening units. They're more similar to IG line infantry. A screening unit is a unit designed to be thrown away to no other purpose. The current screening units are:
Gaunts (though they're flexible and can buy upgrades to become a force in their own right, making them a bit too expensive for the role).
Grots (Arguably overpriced; I think they are).
Conscripts (Actually good at screening)
Kroot (Garbage)
No other armies have screening units that I can think of. This is a designed flaw (deliberate or otherwise) of those armies.
So, now that I've made my own little opinionated definition of a screening unit, I can see the problem. The problem is not that conscripts are over-performing as a screening unit; I think it's that their offensive firepower is out of whack. This tells me that a nerf to orders (not sure the 4+ is enough TBQH, would have been happier if they lost orders entirely) is a good solution.
The other half of the problem is Grots, Gaunts, and Kroot are underperforming in their task as screening units, though this is mitigated somewhat in the case of Grots and Gaunts because screening is less important for their armies. This means that, rather than crippling everyone's ability to screen by nerfing the ones doing their job, one should at least allow the armies who the designers intended to have screens to actually have those screens, which means buffing the relevant units. (Grots and Gaunts need a slight adjustment; Tau Kroot are just awful).
I've mentioned this briefly before, but Eldar did also have access to a decent screening option in the Dark Eldar Razorwing Flocks. 7 points a model, for a T2 W4 model that was basically useless for anything but absorbing fire and blocking deepstrikes for a turn, with a small chance of doing some damage in return with a bunch of extremely weak melee attacks. Basically, ideal screener unit.
Problem is, because it was the only screener that Eldar had access to (all eldar, including dark eldar, harlies, ect), it began to be used in decent numbers. And because the games workshop model is stupidly expensive, people bought the model from other sources for cheaper, or converted their own.
And so GW doubled the points cost, making them now 14 points for 4 wounds, making them less efficient per wound than conscripts, while being only T2 and no armour save and no gun and no orders. So they went from being appropriately priced for what they were, to being more worthless per point than grots. And left three Eldar armies without any means of cheap screening unit.
This, and the state of grots and kroot, and necrons total lack of an option, is why everyone dislikes conscripts right now. Really, it's just jealousy. But it's understandable jealousy.
Fluff wise I understand why Eldar might not have a screen or fodder unit since they are an elite army from a under populated race. Same with Space Marines and other elite forces. Tau, Orks, Necrons, and Nids (especially the later 3 do to numbers) should have conscript like units.
Fluff wise I understand why Eldar might not have a screen or fodder unit since they are an elite army from a under populated race. Same with Space Marines and other elite forces. Tau, Orks, Necrons, and Nids (especially the later 3 do to numbers) should have conscript like units.
I can totally agree with this, if the other Eldar rules also reflected this.
For instance, they should have the best long range weaponry, and the best armour, as they would want to keep their few surviving soldiers alive. Their weaponry is ok, but their armour is average to poor.
They also shouldn't be strapping their soldiers to the front of their war walkers like some kind of bizarre human shield.
Their elite forces should also be the best of the best, after hundreds of years of practise and access to advanced weaponry.
Mostly though, they're just expensive and easy to kill. Y'know, cos a dying race would obviously put all it's efforts into making its people as fragile as possible.
(Well ok, Dark Eldar should be fragile, they're crazy pirate glass cannons, that's fine and I love 'em. But craftworld eldar should be way better than they are, for their current points costs.)
However, there is at least a slight chance this is all only due to their codex not being out yet, and I'm giving GW a big chance to get it right for the Xenos in november. I think Eldar is going to be the first of the Xenos codices, after giving pretty much all of the Imperium a series of massive boosts to their armies. If they end up nerfing Ynnari, and then not giving anything much to the craftworlds, and just generally doing their old-style half assed job, then it won't bode well for all the Tau/Necron/Ork players out there.
If Eldar don't get a screening unit option, then they should have an alternative. They're all highly trained, with psychic weaponry and armour and all sorts of advancements... give them a better overwatch, or the ability to shoot units that deepstrike within 12" of them. A counter to deepstrikers would pretty much solve it, as it would stop deep striking assault units and scions from popping in without issue and destroying the super-elite and yet defenceless eldar.
I like the nerfs. The commisar nerf is very minor, essentially the commisar will now execute two conscripts in order to pass a morale test. The order nerf is more substantial. Conscripts will now struggle to fall back and shoot, and their considerable shooting damage output has been cut by about a quarter. Now they need to nerf guilliman, mortars and plasma scions and give the le man russ a needed buff.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem I forsee with forcing people to bring more screens is that's more models in the battlespace which is slower in time and more unwieldy in space. There is, quite literally, an upper limit to the amount and thickness of screens one can deploy (the size of one's DZ). If you start saying "well, just bring more models!" then you start cramping and cramping DZs more and more until you've essentially won just by turning the game into "can the Leman Russes navigate the sea of conscripts enough to actually do anything" and that doesn't sound like an improved game to me.
If you halve conscript durability, you make them take double the units. But that means they take double the boardspace. Which means you end up with conscripts essentially all over the place, literally tripping over eachother and gumming up the works of the actual ARMY part of the army.
A screen should be a screen - like a picket line, not like an ocean in which the rest of the units wallow like 17th century warships trying to maneuver.
Forcing guard to bring slightly fewer models than everyone else for the same strength screen is fine. Again, everything you say sounds idiotic when you remember we are literally just making them slightly more durable than almost every other screening unit.
the_scotsman wrote: Well, it is worth pointing out that in terms of defense, Brimstone horrors in 2 30-blobs backed up by the changeling is a far more effective defensive screen than conscripts (2 wounds apiece, 4++, -1 to hit)
Horrors are kept in check by morale. You know, the way horde units are supposed to work.
In concept, yes, in practice...
Horrors are taken in 10 man squads to maximise smites and minimise morale. To kill a 10-man squad and have morale finish them off at Ld7 you generally want 6-7 dead. Lets say youre feeling lucky and you go for six (unfortunately that's a 2/3 chance that the single blue survives to smite another day.
To kill six horrors you need 6*2(wounds)*2(4++)*(3/2)(S4 vs T3)*2(BS3+ -1 from Changeling) = 72 BS3+ bolter shots.
To have a decent chance at removing 10.
Those 72 shots kill 72 *.666(hits)*.666(wounds)*.666(saves) = 21+1 for morale 22 conscripts.
if conscripts' defense was really that much of a problem, then horrors would be twice as much of a problem, would they not? Heck, Changeling doesn't even add that much - if you're not running him alongside magnus/alphabet soupmonster you might as well leave him out in favor of 30 more horrors.
Again, Brimstones only have 1 Wound each, so its only 36 bolter shots.
Why do you keep ignoring this?
Probably irrelevant now with the Codex coming, but my Conscript changes/suggestions would've been:
Same Stat-line (from Index)
Reduction to 20-30 Squad size. Still 3ppm.
Shoddy Lasrifle Heavy 2 24" S3 AP0 DM1
Get back in line you rabble! (GBILYR)
Any time a Commissar or Lord Commissar uses Summary Execution on this unit, reduce its casualties from the failed morale check by 50% rounding up instead of only one (if the unit is part of a Valhallan regiment and has the Grim Determination rule, the casualties are reduced by 75% rounding up instead of only one). These casualties can never be reduced below 1.
Why the 'shoddy lasrifle'? It's an easier way to reduce Conscript efficacy without adding random dice rolls for Orders. Lets them use certain Orders, but FRFSRF is no longer an option; moving them aggressively becomes problematic too thanks to the -1 to hit from 'Heavy' penalty but keeps the threat/flavor of the crapload of shots they can put out if they stand still (but now less than the Rapid Fire 2 that FRFSRF gives them under 12").
GBILYR? Scales with casualties - rather than an arbitrary D6 for every failed morale check. This way it rewards players for dedicating a good amount of shooting while still allowing the Commissar to mitigate quite a bit of morale shock damage. In an earlier example someone had an instance where some ~21 Conscripts die in a shooting phase. With the current system, the morale shock is 1; under the D6 idea the average is 3.5 (leaving ~6); under GBILYR it would be almost ~8 - rewarding your opponent for dedicating a lot of firepower at your screen. By contrast, lets say only 10 of 30 are killed. You go from only 1, the D6's 3.5, to GBILYR's 2.25. Lower, say only 5 Conscripts? 1, 3.5, GBILYR: 1. It scales more effectively than the D6 method and lessens some of the frustration of feeling as if you've 'wasted' shots on the Conscripts while preserving their durability - you have to give them a bit of focus to get morale shock to help degrade them. This lets them serve their purpose while still remaining more vulnerable to morale shock caused by focused fire.
Preserving some benefit of the Valhallan regimental doctrine was to help force options to remain open. Do you want Vostroyan Conscripts to stand and pepper things w/30" fire and screen your gunline? Maybe Catachan ones that can be a more aggressive CC unit - but then their shooting suffers and their durability won't be improved as much as it could be. Etc.
About the same 2 cents I lob every Conscript discussion so far, anyway.
Good god can we wait to see the full rules before crying foul.
We dont know:
1) if commissars have been nerfed
2) if Commissars are more points
3) if officers have been nerfed
4) if officers have increased in points
5) if Conscripts are nerfed points wise/ force org wise
I am sorry that Imperial Soup has ruined things for the other players out there and that conscripts are currently ridiculous if abused. But can we try to all calm down and rationalize the situation. We don't know yet what the final rules will entail.
Now that said I will admit most of what I have seen on this thread is fair Ideas, like taking them out of obsec and the force org. Personally I would prefer a squad per 1000k cap. We don't need to smash the army into the ground with nerfs. Other than sisters, I believe all of the armies out there have had way over the top units in terms of power to point ratio, looking at you Eldar . And for those of you who had those units made unplayable, didn't it feel like garbage. Especially if they were one of your favorite units. We all want balance, I have loved commissars more than any other unit in the game. They are really more 40k than any other unit out there when you think of it. They are Grim dark made manifest. Combined with the conscripts is exactly what guard is, Brutal faith being used to prop up the masses against overwhelming odds.
I love the whole concept of conscript and how in the army who we are most supposed to identify with, our good guys we have some of the most evil gak out there. Send in the next wave and shooting into combat because we don't care about our men when even chaos doesn't do that is Amazing. It is this bleak darkness that we love about 40k. I always laugh when chaos players would say that it is boring to play the good guys, because compared to the guard, they are playing the good guys.
Besides off all of you calling for blood, how many of you have actually played against armies that abused the Chaos out of them? This feels like rage over the idea of them.
Hopefully GW will take a nice Conservative approach to all units that need some re balancing.
Edit: Not to pick on you but I really dislike the shoddy las rifle rule. Las guns are a reliable staple of the imperial guard and no Admech worth his salt would allow his forge to produce such inferior product.
Hopefully GW will take a nice Conservative approach to all units that need some re balancing.
I think the problem a lot of players have, and the reason why Xenos players especially are getting angry even though the codex isn't totally revealed yet, is that this does look so far like a very mild nerf. A conservative approach, that may in a few months time lead to another minor change in a chapter approved.
It annoys them because the Imperium is getting minor/conservative changes to units causing major problems, while Xenos players got huge blanket knee-jerk nerfs that made units totally unplayable, with little or no justification.
If GW only took a conservative approach to all armies, then it would be good. It's the best way to balance. But instead they listen to the imperium crybabies, nerf the naughty aliens into the ground, and then eventually give token non-changes to the imperium units that are clearly causing problems.
It's annoying, and disheartening.
Saying all that, I hope the knee-jerk nerfs were a reaction to the indexes, and so such problems will be fixed (especially for xenos) as their codices are released. Otherwise 8th edition is going to be the Horus Heresy - Big Humans vs Smaller Humans vs Angry Humans, all day long.
Hopefully GW will take a nice Conservative approach to all units that need some re balancing.
I think the problem a lot of players have, and the reason why Xenos players especially are getting angry even though the codex isn't totally revealed yet, is that this does look so far like a very mild nerf. A conservative approach, that may in a few months time lead to another minor change in a chapter approved.
It annoys them because the Imperium is getting minor/conservative changes to units causing major problems, while Xenos players got huge blanket knee-jerk nerfs that made units totally unplayable, with little or no justification.
If GW only took a conservative approach to all armies, then it would be good. It's the best way to balance. But instead they listen to the imperium crybabies, nerf the naughty aliens into the ground, and then eventually give token non-changes to the imperium units that are clearly causing problems.
It's annoying, and disheartening.
Saying all that, I hope the knee-jerk nerfs were a reaction to the indexes, and so such problems will be fixed (especially for xenos) as their codices are released. Otherwise 8th edition is going to be the Horus Heresy - Big Humans vs Smaller Humans vs Angry Humans, all day long.
lol you think only Xenos players are getting angry?
Hopefully GW will take a nice Conservative approach to all units that need some re balancing.
I think the problem a lot of players have, and the reason why Xenos players especially are getting angry even though the codex isn't totally revealed yet, is that this does look so far like a very mild nerf. A conservative approach, that may in a few months time lead to another minor change in a chapter approved.
It annoys them because the Imperium is getting minor/conservative changes to units causing major problems, while Xenos players got huge blanket knee-jerk nerfs that made units totally unplayable, with little or no justification.
If GW only took a conservative approach to all armies, then it would be good. It's the best way to balance. But instead they listen to the imperium crybabies, nerf the naughty aliens into the ground, and then eventually give token non-changes to the imperium units that are clearly causing problems.
It's annoying, and disheartening.
Saying all that, I hope the knee-jerk nerfs were a reaction to the indexes, and so such problems will be fixed (especially for xenos) as their codices are released. Otherwise 8th edition is going to be the Horus Heresy - Big Humans vs Smaller Humans vs Angry Humans, all day long.
Thank you for this. 8th edition balancing is bigger hypocritical gak than 7th now. In 7th the newest was the strongest giving a weird level of balance out to everyone. Here it's imps all day every day and sometimes chaos too. This balance change is so one sided it's making me pack up and move on from 8th. Despite now being able to play I now don't want to touch 30k 2.0 with a ten foot pole. Guilliman is super overpowered and no one ever complains.
Imp players = wehraboos who destroyed company of heroes 1+2 balance. Never trust wehraboos for balancing. Most biased fans in existence.
Hopefully GW will take a nice Conservative approach to all units that need some re balancing.
I think the problem a lot of players have, and the reason why Xenos players especially are getting angry even though the codex isn't totally revealed yet, is that this does look so far like a very mild nerf. A conservative approach, that may in a few months time lead to another minor change in a chapter approved.
It annoys them because the Imperium is getting minor/conservative changes to units causing major problems, while Xenos players got huge blanket knee-jerk nerfs that made units totally unplayable, with little or no justification.
If GW only took a conservative approach to all armies, then it would be good. It's the best way to balance. But instead they listen to the imperium crybabies, nerf the naughty aliens into the ground, and then eventually give token non-changes to the imperium units that are clearly causing problems.
It's annoying, and disheartening.
Saying all that, I hope the knee-jerk nerfs were a reaction to the indexes, and so such problems will be fixed (especially for xenos) as their codices are released. Otherwise 8th edition is going to be the Horus Heresy - Big Humans vs Smaller Humans vs Angry Humans, all day long.
Thank you for this. 8th edition balancing is bigger hypocritical gak than 7th now. In 7th the newest was the strongest giving a weird level of balance out to everyone. Here it's imps all day every day and sometimes chaos too. This balance change is so one sided it's making me pack up and move on from 8th. Despite now being able to play I now don't want to touch 30k 2.0 with a ten foot pole. Guilliman is super overpowered and no one ever complains.
Imp players = wehraboos who destroyed company of heroes 1+2 balance. Never trust wehraboos for balancing. Most biased fans in existence.
Now, in fairness, we are being a little early on this. I know I just wrote that big rant, but it's in part because of the nature of this game having a slow rollout of rules. These things happen.
So far though, each codex released has solved problems for the army concerned. In particular the recent AdMech codex solved a few of their major issues, and seems to have given them a lot more opportunity for variety than they had before. Cawl+Bots will still be a major player, but that's more a problem with their limited variety of units than anything else. The codex definitly seemed to be the right moves in the right directions though.
The problem is that all the codex releases so far have been for the Imperium, in one form or another. Ok, sure, there was Chaos and Death Guard, but they're still basically space marines so many of the alterations were just copy/pasted. Admech was the first codex for an army a bit outside the usual mold, and it seemed to do a decent job (for a small codex subfaction type book, anyway). So far, GW have pretty much been doing what they promised - constant and relatively quick codex releases, along with updates and balancing where needed. Obviously so far, a lot of this "balance as needed" has been done in the codex releases, which is fair enough (though a bit slower than many would like).
The next few releases though will be the biggest signpost as to the kind of job GW plan to do with 8th as a whole.
- Imperial Guard codex needs to be done well, in order to fix the Imperial Soup problems that are the major issue right now.
- Eldar codex needs to be done well, in order to give xenos players hope for next year. (Actually I realise Tyranids is also coming out at around the same time, and personally I think that's equally important. Whichever comes first.)
- Chapter Approved needs to be well thought out, giving all players an idea of how GW plan to keep updating 8th on an ongoing basis.
Right now, it actually is too early to really judge. GW have been doing as they promised, and they haven't done a *bad* job at it. They just haven't done a great job at fixing the mistakes, or at least they've been slow with doing it.
Within 2 months though, we will know for sure, one way or another. Here's hoping!
ps. Only just realised Tyranids were queued up at a similar timeframe as the Eldar codex. Eldar, Tyranids and Orks are the holy trinity of Xenos armies (in my opinion), and all three really need to be done well. Currently, I think Orks need the most work, as they are currently completely broken as an army. Eldar need a lot of things fixed, but it's more tweaks than huge changes. And Tyranids I think are in the best place, relative to the other Xenos armies, so maybe only tweaks on some units? I am out of date on Tyranids though so I may be missing some big issues, I've only read through the codex not researched online. Still, GW doing 2 of those armies by the end of this year is a good sign, I wasn't expecting tyranids until next year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Des702 wrote: Wow the nazi card... please don't contribute if you cannot be respectful of other gamers.
Also it is not the imperial guard players that make the rules, we mostly agree on wanting balance.
We all want balance, I am sure your army at one point had some crazy powerful units that frustrated other gamers.
Who said Nazi? Is wehraboos some kind of slang for nazi? I just thought he was mis-spelling anime fan...
A wehraboo is not a nazi. There is a big difference. They are fans of the German Wehrmacht and show excessive fanboyism and irrationality in debates about their historical effectiveness.
Edit
I would say Dark Eldar are in a good spot too. Maybe some small tweaks and buffs but otherwise good. The big issue they have is holding objectives.
Ok maybe I jumped the gun a bit on that one. I just think labeling all of the imp players one way is a bad Idea on how to move a discussion forward.
From you Sig I assume you play Tau. Weren't you annoyed when everyone was out for their, and to a lesser extent your blood.
Do you really want guard to go the way of the Tau right now?
I honestly want to see the Tau get a proper codex that puts them in line with everyone else. Nothing worse than winning because of dex strength alone.
Conscripts can be great without overpowering. Honestly if they removed imperial soup I think that would solve so many problems.Just remove all special chapter/forgeworld/regiment rules along with Auras if you want to soup up major armies. Exceptions for Assassins and the like.
Like I said. Lets see the full extent of what GW can manage. So far they have done way better this edition than they have in the past 5 editions.
I know IG is the Codex to rag on right now, but I really have no sympathy for someone that is defending the merit of Conscripts in a Codex full of fantastic options to put out firepower or add bodies to the table.
Conscripts were OP, plain and simple. Do I think this nerf is enough? No. I really don't think Commissars should effect them at all, or that if he does shoot one for a rally, it should be for a re-roll on the morale check for Conscripts, not an instant rally.
Well what has changed to make them go from crap (as they were in 7th) to OP, Templates. What about something that makes them take more hits from weapons that do d* amount of hits. to represent large squad size.
Also I am not defending their power as I have stated 3ish times, I want them balanced, but nerfing them to tau like proportions doesn't solve anything and can set a bad president for other armies.
The brimstone vs conscript screening comparison is kind of facetious simply because of the army function: Chaos has a lot of units that do their damage inside of 24", and are going to be sending Magnus/daemon princes/berzerkers through that screen in many cases. AM is built around units with 48"+ range, and keeping melta and CC away from their manticores and mortar teams is how they win. Without killing the conscripts, you will take punishing damage turn after turn until you shoot or chop your way through a sea of 3 ppm units, only to reach the tanks with 25% of your army left to face the remaining 75% of theirs.
And as I stated earlier, removing the commissar entirely would make them worse at screening than veterans because at ld4 basically any casualties will be 2x+1d6. Which means the conscripts would be effectively paying 6 points per wound.
That's complete overkill, if you think an effective cost of 6 points per conscript is balanced then you don't even know what balance looks like.
I think what GW did is entirely sufficient. Most of the proposals made here by the people not satisfied with it are nuke-it-from-orbit knee jerking, especially when they want that *in addition to* what was already done.
I dont think it's templates that has caused the issue. It's just that they can be spammed for next to no cost, and the leaders they use are also cheap and spammable.
If they just put a limit on it, like "only 1 conscript squad per detachment" then they wouldn't need to make any other changes at all. Instead they seem determined to keep them cheap and spammable, and make loads of other minor alterations instead to make them more balanced... none of which (so far revealed) have really made any change to the problem. Because the main problem is that they are cheap and spammable.
The change to orders, and their unit size, is fine for the minor issues conscripts had of being too durable and shooty for their points cost. But they can still tarpit an enemy force for next to no cost at all.
In order for Eldar to do a similar job, for the same points cost, they would have half as many wounds and put out half as many shots. So for the same points, they would get half as much of a return, with zero benefits.
For Orks, to do a similar job, they can spend the same points.. and get grots. Grots. Weaker, more fragile, less armoured, slower. Same points.
Grots.
And Grots have a character, the runtherd, that is designed to stop them running away. But that kills D3 grots, instead of 1 like the commissar. So is worse in every way. And costs 26 POINTS for the privilege, only 4 less than the commissar.
Makes me so angry.
Templates changes are fine, no change needed. It won't actually affect the problem that needs fixing. Conscripts are fine as they are, as far as stats and abilities go. They just need to be limited to 1 per detachment, or something. Let people spam infantry squads instead.
Ok, then back to the 1 conscript squad per 1000pts. I liked that option too. with d3 removals from Commissars on top of the current nerfs without any points change. Does that seem fair? You could even do 1 per 1000 pts or part. So 1-1000= 1 Squad and 1001 to 2000=2.
Hopefully GW will take a nice Conservative approach to all units that need some re balancing.
I think the problem a lot of players have, and the reason why Xenos players especially are getting angry even though the codex isn't totally revealed yet, is that this does look so far like a very mild nerf. A conservative approach, that may in a few months time lead to another minor change in a chapter approved.
It annoys them because the Imperium is getting minor/conservative changes to units causing major problems, while Xenos players got huge blanket knee-jerk nerfs that made units totally unplayable, with little or no justification.
If GW only took a conservative approach to all armies, then it would be good. It's the best way to balance. But instead they listen to the imperium crybabies, nerf the naughty aliens into the ground, and then eventually give token non-changes to the imperium units that are clearly causing problems.
It's annoying, and disheartening.
Saying all that, I hope the knee-jerk nerfs were a reaction to the indexes, and so such problems will be fixed (especially for xenos) as their codices are released. Otherwise 8th edition is going to be the Horus Heresy - Big Humans vs Smaller Humans vs Angry Humans, all day long.
Thank you for this. 8th edition balancing is bigger hypocritical gak than 7th now. In 7th the newest was the strongest giving a weird level of balance out to everyone. Here it's imps all day every day and sometimes chaos too. This balance change is so one sided it's making me pack up and move on from 8th. Despite now being able to play I now don't want to touch 30k 2.0 with a ten foot pole. Guilliman is super overpowered and no one ever complains.
Imp players = wehraboos who destroyed company of heroes 1+2 balance. Never trust wehraboos for balancing. Most biased fans in existence.
Now, in fairness, we are being a little early on this. I know I just wrote that big rant, but it's in part because of the nature of this game having a slow rollout of rules. These things happen.
So far though, each codex released has solved problems for the army concerned. In particular the recent AdMech codex solved a few of their major issues, and seems to have given them a lot more opportunity for variety than they had before. Cawl+Bots will still be a major player, but that's more a problem with their limited variety of units than anything else. The codex definitly seemed to be the right moves in the right directions though.
The problem is that all the codex releases so far have been for the Imperium, in one form or another. Ok, sure, there was Chaos and Death Guard, but they're still basically space marines so many of the alterations were just copy/pasted. Admech was the first codex for an army a bit outside the usual mold, and it seemed to do a decent job (for a small codex subfaction type book, anyway). So far, GW have pretty much been doing what they promised - constant and relatively quick codex releases, along with updates and balancing where needed. Obviously so far, a lot of this "balance as needed" has been done in the codex releases, which is fair enough (though a bit slower than many would like).
The next few releases though will be the biggest signpost as to the kind of job GW plan to do with 8th as a whole.
- Imperial Guard codex needs to be done well, in order to fix the Imperial Soup problems that are the major issue right now.
- Eldar codex needs to be done well, in order to give xenos players hope for next year. (Actually I realise Tyranids is also coming out at around the same time, and personally I think that's equally important. Whichever comes first.)
- Chapter Approved needs to be well thought out, giving all players an idea of how GW plan to keep updating 8th on an ongoing basis.
Right now, it actually is too early to really judge. GW have been doing as they promised, and they haven't done a *bad* job at it. They just haven't done a great job at fixing the mistakes, or at least they've been slow with doing it.
Within 2 months though, we will know for sure, one way or another. Here's hoping!
ps. Only just realised Tyranids were queued up at a similar timeframe as the Eldar codex. Eldar, Tyranids and Orks are the holy trinity of Xenos armies (in my opinion), and all three really need to be done well. Currently, I think Orks need the most work, as they are currently completely broken as an army. Eldar need a lot of things fixed, but it's more tweaks than huge changes. And Tyranids I think are in the best place, relative to the other Xenos armies, so maybe only tweaks on some units? I am out of date on Tyranids though so I may be missing some big issues, I've only read through the codex not researched online. Still, GW doing 2 of those armies by the end of this year is a good sign, I wasn't expecting tyranids until next year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Des702 wrote: Wow the nazi card... please don't contribute if you cannot be respectful of other gamers.
Also it is not the imperial guard players that make the rules, we mostly agree on wanting balance.
We all want balance, I am sure your army at one point had some crazy powerful units that frustrated other gamers.
Who said Nazi? Is wehraboos some kind of slang for nazi? I just thought he was mis-spelling anime fan...
Not true, the Grey Knight codex failed to address the fact we are crippled by the basic design of 8th. We lack the CP in any measure to access the strategems that help our psychic phase. But that's for another thread.
Des702 wrote: Ok maybe I jumped the gun a bit on that one. I just think labeling all of the imp players one way is a bad Idea on how to move a discussion forward.
From you Sig I assume you play Tau. Weren't you annoyed when everyone was out for their, and to a lesser extent your blood.
Do you really want guard to go the way of the Tau right now?
I honestly want to see the Tau get a proper codex that puts them in line with everyone else. Nothing worse than winning because of dex strength alone.
Conscripts can be great without overpowering. Honestly if they removed imperial soup I think that would solve so many problems.Just remove all special chapter/forgeworld/regiment rules along with Auras if you want to soup up major armies. Exceptions for Assassins and the like.
Like I said. Lets see the full extent of what GW can manage. So far they have done way better this edition than they have in the past 5 editions.
Truth be told after all the bs that I faced here I kind of do. I'm not really in the helpful mood right now. Nerf ig and imp soup. Sick of this meta already. Everything they got is op. Conscripts and ig stuff needs points increasecaccross the board. I wanted the other weak factions of 7th to be balanced and the Tau brought down a tad like they needed. Same with Eldar. The worst offenders were imperial death stars and space marines for pure opness. Oh look which faction is still doing great -_- .
Where was everyone when I needed help trying to convince the community Tau were not super op devils? Where are they now when the Tau need buffs? I've been battling for ever faction. And no one the Tau.
Des702 wrote: Ok maybe I jumped the gun a bit on that one. I just think labeling all of the imp players one way is a bad Idea on how to move a discussion forward.
From you Sig I assume you play Tau. Weren't you annoyed when everyone was out for their, and to a lesser extent your blood.
Do you really want guard to go the way of the Tau right now?
I honestly want to see the Tau get a proper codex that puts them in line with everyone else. Nothing worse than winning because of dex strength alone.
Conscripts can be great without overpowering. Honestly if they removed imperial soup I think that would solve so many problems.Just remove all special chapter/forgeworld/regiment rules along with Auras if you want to soup up major armies. Exceptions for Assassins and the like.
Like I said. Lets see the full extent of what GW can manage. So far they have done way better this edition than they have in the past 5 editions.
Truth be told after all the bs that I faced here I kind of do. I'm not really in the helpful mood right now. Nerf ig and imp soup. Sick of this meta already. Everything they got is op. Conscripts and ig stuff needs points increasecaccross the board. I wanted the other weak factions of 7th to be balanced and the Tau brought down a tad like they needed. Same with Eldar. The worst offenders were imperial death stars and space marines for pure opness.
Where was everyone when I needed help trying to convince the community Tau were not super op devils? Where are they now when the Tau need buffs? I've been battling for ever faction. And no one the Tau.
In all seriousness, i appreciate that. I really do. All i ever wanted when i played the game was a good balanced ruleset. And i'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way, even if they disagree over specific implementations. The thing is, its GW. "Things will be different this time" gets trotted out with every new version. Things are never different. Based on what the new general's handbook delivered, i think people have seriously over-estimated what 'balance' chapter approved will deliver in a year's time. This is the game, and has always been the game.
its easier to kill 30 than 40 or 50,
Orders now have less effect per model,
and you are not even sure if your order will go off.
Seriously, this is a god nerf, how can no one see this?
Far fewer "grossly op" outliers out there, and most factions and within them most units are at least a viable consideration
Not perfect, but better.
As for the conscript nerf, it's probably enough. As mentioned, brimes cost the same, are harder to kill, and are not nearly as troublesome.
It's the durability combined with the potential killiness, and thus guts the killiness hard
Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.
Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...
Gamgee wrote: Guilliman is super overpowered and no one ever complains.
What alternate dimension are you living in, and welcome to ours. Every other thread complains about guilli. Absolutely justified, but saying nno one ever complains blows my mind. He has, besides conscripts, been the №1 complaint since index release...
hotsauceman1 wrote: its easier to kill 30 than 40 or 50,
Orders now have less effect per model,
and you are not even sure if your order will go off.
Seriously, this is a god nerf, how can no one see this?
My opinion, as someone who has been writing lists to see if he can get motivated to get back into the game?
I don't look at the conscripts for offensive power, or orders. I look at them for bubblewrap. Whether it's 1 unit of 50 with a commissar or 2 units of 25 with a commissar, conscripts are damn good bubblewrap. I made a list where i included a cheap IG brigade just for good bubblewrap for my main 'theme', and nothing has changed. So i need to double the amount of troop choices i take? Brigade doesn't care. And if i just stick with my 3 squads at reduced cap? I've saved 180 points which can go into my main 'theme' list.
A lot of other people have said this, and i'm inclined to agree. The commissar is what makes the conscripts. Orders are nice and all, but bubblewrap is the gift that keeps on giving.
There is a fundamental flaw in 8th edition conception. The fact that detachment slots are basically unlimited (you can get 18 Troop slots) means that someone could bring 500 Conscripts to a game and basically just sit on objectives and win without throwing a single die (it takes 1687 bolter shots to kill them all. No army has this kind of firepower).
Unfortunately, these 500 Conscripts are not helpless. They fight back... And as it's been pointed out, Conscripts are just better than anything else in the game. Their 5+ save and moral immunity makes them incredibly resilient for their cost.
Warhammer needs a "population limit" like the one you find in RTS games. Without it, the game is basically unplayable.
Des702 wrote: Ok maybe I jumped the gun a bit on that one. I just think labeling all of the imp players one way is a bad Idea on how to move a discussion forward.
From you Sig I assume you play Tau. Weren't you annoyed when everyone was out for their, and to a lesser extent your blood.
Do you really want guard to go the way of the Tau right now?
I honestly want to see the Tau get a proper codex that puts them in line with everyone else. Nothing worse than winning because of dex strength alone.
Conscripts can be great without overpowering. Honestly if they removed imperial soup I think that would solve so many problems.Just remove all special chapter/forgeworld/regiment rules along with Auras if you want to soup up major armies. Exceptions for Assassins and the like.
Like I said. Lets see the full extent of what GW can manage. So far they have done way better this edition than they have in the past 5 editions.
Truth be told after all the bs that I faced here I kind of do. I'm not really in the helpful mood right now. Nerf ig and imp soup. Sick of this meta already. Everything they got is op. Conscripts and ig stuff needs points increasecaccross the board. I wanted the other weak factions of 7th to be balanced and the Tau brought down a tad like they needed. Same with Eldar. The worst offenders were imperial death stars and space marines for pure opness. Oh look which faction is still doing great -_- .
Where was everyone when I needed help trying to convince the community Tau were not super op devils? Where are they now when the Tau need buffs? I've been battling for ever faction. And no one the Tau.
Well I have said my peace. This is the internet after all par for the course, being called something sympathetic to Nazis for having around 4 powerful units for ~6 months after having turd codex's for 4ish editions (around 10 years I think) by players who have had strong to OP codex's almost their entire existence (10ish years).
Edit for the last post: All theoreticals, why do we focus on the maybes of the you could paint 500 guys. Realistically if you actually face these guys don't play them, and if your in a tourney then you should expect cheese no matter what edition it just shifts around every tournament.
As someone who plays Ultramarines, after being outshined by White Scars and Red Scorpions for the past forever, its kind of nice to be near the top of the marine heap with the Raven Guard.
Dont let Gamgee get you down, Des! Especially if you arent the Imperial Soup player, but an actual Guard player!
Though, Guard did have it good back in 5th, lets be fair, here...
That's true, if you played leaf blower, otherwise it wasn't too bad. My experience of that time might be a little tainted because my group fell apart around that time and I didn't get many games in till around 6th
Lets see 3rd was meh, 3.5 was fantastic, 4 was awful, 5 was pretty good and 6th which lasted until 8th was..... well it ... I mean they didn't nerf the wyvern and the Vendettas were op. So yes 5 was good.
Yeah? Well 3rd through 6th was HORRIBLE for us admech players. We didn't have a single choice of unit that couldn't be done better by any other army. Worst army deal in the history of army deals. Sad.
It seems to me that whether or not this is sufficient to stop Conscripts being silly is going to depend on what else has happened in the related rules (Commissars, officers, points/power levels of everything). Without all the information available, it's probably a bit early to be getting too worked up over a partial reveal of the rules changes.
Personally, I'd like to see Summary Execution be changed so you can only apply it to one unit per turn. Allow everyone to benefit from the Commissar's Ld, but it seems a bit odd for him to be able to keep order by killing a single member of multiple different units all at once.
Purifier wrote: Yeah? Well 3rd through 6th was HORRIBLE for us admech players. We didn't have a single choice of unit that couldn't be done better by any other army. Worst army deal in the history of army deals. Sad.
Purifier wrote: Yeah? Well 3rd through 6th was HORRIBLE for us admech players. We didn't have a single choice of unit that couldn't be done better by any other army. Worst army deal in the history of army deals. Sad.
Wow, even for a Conscript thread this one took a turn...
...guess I should be glad the suggestion I flagellate only drew a comment about 'shoddy lasguns' - could easily rename it to 'Fethton of lasgun shots' or 'Poorly aimed lasgun fire'. Was the rules suggestion that mattered, but bullet dodged apparently
Des702 wrote: Good god can we wait to see the full rules before crying foul.
We dont know:
1) if commissars have been nerfed
2) if Commissars are more points
3) if officers have been nerfed
4) if officers have increased in points
5) if Conscripts are nerfed points wise/ force org wise
This. But as usual the warhammer community previews always send the interwebs/dakkites into a tizzy of hyperbolic speculation. GW could easily - and with options has shown a willingness to - use the FAQs to adjust further. Could well be if they see Conscripts are still a problem or worse they'll address in a FAQ or December's Chapter Approved.
As for complaints about Tau, Orks, and the like - it's pretty blatant you can't compare an Index army to one with a Codex. So how about we hold off on the ranting until we get a clearer sense of what's coming for armies without one? Chapter approved could tweak things heavily... it could bring changes to how Soup lists work... or it could do nothing and leave us waiting to see what the rest of the Codices bring. Just looking at how the Codices fill out an army with relics, stratagems, etc., makes clear the Indices are just a stop-gap band-aid to get us into 8th ed.
It's what? 5 months since 8th came out? And we've already gotten 5 Codices and are getting 3 more this month? Give it a little time. Could be worse, easily. Under GW's previous publishing speed we'd have what? A crap ton of badly ported/duct-taped previous edition Codices and maybe one Codex release for six months to a year?
As a Tau player, I'm willing to wait - we should start seeing our Codex early quarter next year if it isn't one of the unannounced entries for later this year. Even 'early quarter next year' is only 2-3 months away.
Des702 wrote: Good god can we wait to see the full rules before crying foul.
We dont know:
1) if commissars have been nerfed
2) if Commissars are more points
3) if officers have been nerfed
4) if officers have increased in points
5) if Conscripts are nerfed points wise/ force org wise
This. But as usual the warhammer community previews always send the interwebs/dakkites into a tizzy of hyperbolic speculation.
No it doesn't. It sends it into speculation, which is completely intentional. That's what teasers are for. It's their whole point. Hyperbolic? Not really. Almost everyone in this thread has prefaced their points with "assuming X and Y are the same..."
Including yours. Your suggestion and speculation is no less "hyperbolic" than everyone else's. And then there's a handful of "OH MY GOD WHY ARE YOU SPECULATING!"-posts like this. Well, because this is a forum and the teasers are made specifically for us to speculate about it. Get off your high horses, White Knight brigade.
Crazyterran wrote: Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.
Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...
I missed this, but i feel it needs addressing. The nazis were bad news (although this is cultural, some people/cultures deny the holocaust existed). But not all germans (like the military) actually liked the nazis. They just followed orders, and got dragged off at 3am in the morning if they didn't. Comparisons to the german airforce don't equate to the nazis. The wehrmacht existed before the nazis, as did most of the symbols and regalia that are now associated with the nazis. As for the "we haven't seen the whole book yet", yeah yeah i've heard that one before.
Crazyterran wrote: Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.
Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...
I missed this, but i feel it needs addressing. The nazis were bad news (although this is cultural, some people/cultures deny the holocaust existed). But not all germans (like the military) actually liked the nazis. They just followed orders, and got dragged off at 3am in the morning if they didn't. Comparisons to the german airforce don't equate to the nazis. The wehrmacht existed before the nazis, as did most of the symbols and regalia that are now associated with the nazis. As for the "we haven't seen the whole book yet", yeah yeah i've heard that one before.
Im perfectly aware, i typically play Germany if i get the choice in those types of games (mostly because someone has to play the bad guy, partially because the Uniforms are cool). The higher ups that were not Nazis are typically ones that are well respected even after the war, like Rommel. The majority were Nazis, and while yes, their symbols and choice of mustaches were common and popular pre-Nazism, they now stand for one of the most vile regimes in Human history.
In the context in it was used, Conscript/Imperial players were being called Nazis without saying the actual word. Dont lecture us when you are cherry picking the context to get on a soap box about how not all Germans were Nazis. Anyone whos taken a cursory glance at a history book would know that.
Purifier wrote: Well, because this is a forum and the teasers are made specifically for us to speculate about it. Get off your high horses, White Knight brigade.
You're right, a speculative discussion is one where labels like 'wehraboo' and 'white knight brigade' are used, the latter in response to comments pointing out the unknowns that are being overlooked/taken for granted/made into assumptions. How silly of me. I always thought a speculative discussion would involve identification of the facts, the unknowns, the assumptions, and that any assessments/suggestions would tacitly acknowledge these while addressing the poster's concerns. Perhaps something greater than 'omg nothing changes' to 'despite nobody actually saying they don't want Conscripts to be nerfed, but just disagree on what form and how deep those balance adjustments should be they're obviously just trying to keep IGOP' to 'IG players are wehraboos'. Thank you for the clarification.
Purifier wrote: Well, because this is a forum and the teasers are made specifically for us to speculate about it. Get off your high horses, White Knight brigade.
You're right, a speculative discussion is one where labels like 'wehraboo' and 'white knight brigade' are used, the latter in response to comments pointing out the unknowns that are being overlooked/taken for granted/made into assumptions. How silly of me. I always thought a speculative discussion would involve identification of the facts, the unknowns, the assumptions, and that any assessments/suggestions would tacitly acknowledge these while addressing the poster's concerns. Perhaps something greater than 'omg nothing changes' to 'despite nobody actually saying they don't want Conscripts to be nerfed, but just disagree on what form and how deep those balance adjustments should be they're obviously just trying to keep IGOP' to 'IG players are wehraboos'. Thank you for the clarification.
Nope, that's not even close to what's happening here. People are OVER AND OVER clarifying that what they're saying is with certain assumptions and if for example Commissars are nerfed too, then it's a different story, and you are labeling that as "hyperbolic speculation" in an attempt to invalidate anything said and wave away any discussion, because clearly you're superior to this "hyperbolic speculation."
It's speculation, and no one is denying that. You start brushing it away as pointless chatter, why are you even in the discussion? What you're saying is the equivalent of "you are all probably wrong, maybe, we don't know, so why are you even talking instead of just shutting up?"
Crazyterran wrote: Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.
Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...
I missed this, but i feel it needs addressing. The nazis were bad news (although this is cultural, some people/cultures deny the holocaust existed). But not all germans (like the military) actually liked the nazis. They just followed orders, and got dragged off at 3am in the morning if they didn't. Comparisons to the german airforce don't equate to the nazis. The wehrmacht existed before the nazis, as did most of the symbols and regalia that are now associated with the nazis. As for the "we haven't seen the whole book yet", yeah yeah i've heard that one before.
Im perfectly aware, i typically play Germany if i get the choice in those types of games (mostly because someone has to play the bad guy, partially because the Uniforms are cool). The higher ups that were not Nazis are typically ones that are well respected even after the war, like Rommel. The majority were Nazis, and while yes, their symbols and choice of mustaches were common and popular pre-Nazism, they now stand for one of the most vile regimes in Human history.
In the context in it was used, Conscript/Imperial players were being called Nazis without saying the actual word. Dont lecture us when you are cherry picking the context to get on a soap box about how not all Germans were Nazis. Anyone whos taken a cursory glance at a history book would know that.
I'm no font of knowledge, but i know a little about nazis. Cursory glance at a history book is more than a lot of people do these days. Not intended as a lecture, but godwinning a thread involves specific mention of nazis. German military during nazi rule isn't the same thing. People are complex, you can have people who were fans of the wehrmact during nazi rule without being fans of the nazis themselves. Judge people on what they say, not what you imply. The context was simple - people assumed/implied nazis and that was never spoken.
Purifier wrote: Well, because this is a forum and the teasers are made specifically for us to speculate about it. Get off your high horses, White Knight brigade.
You're right, a speculative discussion is one where labels like 'wehraboo' and 'white knight brigade' are used, the latter in response to comments pointing out the unknowns that are being overlooked/taken for granted/made into assumptions. How silly of me. I always thought a speculative discussion would involve identification of the facts, the unknowns, the assumptions, and that any assessments/suggestions would tacitly acknowledge these while addressing the poster's concerns. Perhaps something greater than 'omg nothing changes' to 'despite nobody actually saying they don't want Conscripts to be nerfed, but just disagree on what form and how deep those balance adjustments should be they're obviously just trying to keep IGOP' to 'IG players are wehraboos'. Thank you for the clarification.
Nope, that's not even close to what's happening here. People are OVER AND OVER clarifying that what they're saying is with certain assumptions and if for example Commissars are nerfed too, then it's a different story, and you are labeling that as "hyperbolic speculation" in an attempt to invalidate anything said and wave away any discussion, because clearly you're superior to this "hyperbolic speculation."
It's speculation, and no one is denying that. You start brushing it away as pointless chatter, why are you even in the discussion? What you're saying is the equivalent of "you are all probably wrong, maybe, we don't know, so why are you even talking instead of just shutting up?"
Still generalizing what I'm saying... or even who I was addressing the initial comments I made that even sparked this tangent. There are absolutely posters who are participating in a helpful speculative discussion, yes, but that is often derailed by unhelpful 'hyperbolic speculation' and other unhelpful comments - which is what my 'white knight brigade' post was mostly aimed at addressing, and was mostly aimed at a handful of posters. Things such as:
Barely a nerf. Good to see favouritism alive and well. Strongest army gets stronger and a token nerf that does almost nothing. Okay then.
And my comments were to comments like this. To say, basically, 'I get it, but look at what more we need to have before we can truly talk balance.' Comparing Indicies to Codices, for example, and using them as the basis of balanced/unbalanced. Yes, they're what we have, but by now it is patently obvious just how much 'filling out' the Indicies need - and get - out of their Codex.
Crazyterran wrote: Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.
Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...
Oh get over yourself, he wasn't calling anyone Nazi's he was comparing IG players to COH2 Germany faction Wehrmacht players; who are and remain notoriously toxic about the balance of their tanks. Heavily armored to the point that they frequently trade for 2 Allied Forces tanks, with shells bouncing off anything short of a rear armor shot. There was only one way to counter them for the longest time, which was literally win the game faster than they can get tanks out.
Anyone saying Gamgee called someone a Nazi is dumb and intentionally trying to dismiss him.
Nowadays the OP gak is ironically penal legions... or otherwise known as conscripts...
Crazyterran wrote: Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.
Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...
I missed this, but i feel it needs addressing. The nazis were bad news (although this is cultural, some people/cultures deny the holocaust existed). But not all germans (like the military) actually liked the nazis. They just followed orders, and got dragged off at 3am in the morning if they didn't. Comparisons to the german airforce don't equate to the nazis. The wehrmacht existed before the nazis, as did most of the symbols and regalia that are now associated with the nazis. As for the "we haven't seen the whole book yet", yeah yeah i've heard that one before.
Im perfectly aware, i typically play Germany if i get the choice in those types of games (mostly because someone has to play the bad guy, partially because the Uniforms are cool). The higher ups that were not Nazis are typically ones that are well respected even after the war, like Rommel. The majority were Nazis, and while yes, their symbols and choice of mustaches were common and popular pre-Nazism, they now stand for one of the most vile regimes in Human history.
In the context in it was used, Conscript/Imperial players were being called Nazis without saying the actual word. Dont lecture us when you are cherry picking the context to get on a soap box about how not all Germans were Nazis. Anyone whos taken a cursory glance at a history book would know that.
I'm no font of knowledge, but i know a little about nazis. Cursory glance at a history book is more than a lot of people do these days. Not intended as a lecture, but godwinning a thread involves specific mention of nazis. German military during nazi rule isn't the same thing. People are complex, you can have people who were fans of the wehrmact during nazi rule without being fans of the nazis themselves. Judge people on what they say, not what you imply. The context was simple - people assumed/implied nazis and that was never spoken.
He called people Wehraboos, where the definition for Urban dictionary states that Wehraboos specifically mean Nazi Era Wehrmacht fans, and the games he specifically used as an example are the Nazi era Wehrmacht. Considering theres a million other examples he could have used, including fans groups for this very same game (cheese, waac players, timmies, to name a few) the fact he picked wehraboos means it's pretty clear what he was going for.
Crazyterran wrote: Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.
Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...
Oh get over yourself, he wasn't calling anyone Nazi's he was comparing IG players to COH2 Germany faction Wehrmacht players; who are and remain notoriously toxic about the balance of their tanks. Heavily armored to the point that they frequently trade for 2 Allied Forces tanks, with shells bouncing off anything short of a rear armor shot. There was only one way to counter them for the longest time, which was literally win the game faster than they can get tanks out.
Anyone saying Gamgee called someone a Nazi is dumb and intentionally trying to dismiss him.
Nowadays the OP gak is ironically penal legions... or otherwise known as conscripts...
I don't play guard, or Imperial soup, so what do i have to get over?
GhostRecon wrote: And my comments were to comments like this. To say, basically, 'I get it, but look at what more we need to have before we can truly talk balance.' Comparing Indicies to Codices, for example, and using them as the basis of balanced/unbalanced. Yes, they're what we have, but by now it is patently obvious just how much 'filling out' the Indicies need - and get - out of their Codex.
I agree, more info is needed. But the guard started strong and from what we know look to have gotten stronger. The sample size is small, but still quantifiable. Compare guard to grey knights. The positive thing to come out of this, is it's looking like the guard internal balance seems good. Almost feels like a ward dex. We don't know what the future holds for the remaining dexes, so all we have to look upon is past history..... and it isn't good. The history of 40k is flooded with 'but we have to wait and see'. And that's true to some extent, all we can do at this point is look upon past history and the leaks we've received so far.
Even 'IG/AM' being the 'strongest army' is somewhat of a misnomer. Imperial Soup lists are only pulling options out of IG/AM and combining them to min/max their effectiveness. Mortar teams, Scions, Conscripts, Commissars, Officers, Primaris Psykers/Astropaths.
Otherwise, you have Celestine (SoB), Guilliman (SM), Elysians (FW) too - at least to use the last GT winner's list as an example (minus Guilliman, ofc).
How does this list look post-Codex, with Regiment doctrines being a thing? Commissars and Primaris Psykers/Astropaths don't have the <Regiment> keyword - how does this change the min-max meta?
Crazyterran wrote:
He called people Wehraboos, where the definition for Urban dictionary states that Wehraboos specifically mean Nazi Era Wehrmacht fans, and the games he specifically used as an example are the Nazi era Wehrmacht. Considering theres a million other examples he could have used, including fans groups for this very same game (cheese, waac players, timmies, to name a few) the fact he picked wehraboos means it's pretty clear what he was going for.
Quickjager wrote: Oh get over yourself, he wasn't calling anyone Nazi's he was comparing IG players to COH2 Germany faction Wehrmacht players; who are and remain notoriously toxic about the balance of their tanks. Heavily armored to the point that they frequently trade for 2 Allied Forces tanks, with shells bouncing off anything short of a rear armor shot. There was only one way to counter them for the longest time, which was literally win the game faster than they can get tanks out.
Anyone saying Gamgee called someone a Nazi is dumb and intentionally trying to dismiss him.
Nowadays the OP gak is ironically penal legions... or otherwise known as conscripts...
Honestly dude, have a go at someone for what they say, not what you imply from what they say. You want a dig at gamgee? - ask him about the great eldar boycott. That's how i got into the thread (still boycotting btw.... hold the line, gamgee). But nazis? I'm about as big an donkey-cave as they come, but i'm not going to say he was making nazi comparisons because he wasn't. You can urban dictionary all you want, he didn't say nazis. He didn't come close.
Some semblance of back on topic: errr, thank you gw? If i ever go for the army i've been looking at, i'll be sure to include a guard brigade with conscripts. Yay?
Thank GOOOOD this happened. I don't care how they get nerfed, I don't care if GW sends out a formal statement telling all players to melt their IG models, i'm just glad this is going to be over soon. I don't mind if they are just great. I can deal with great. IG can still be on the top of the pecking order for all I care, as long as I have a high hope to actually take an IG army down. With the current way it is, IG isn't just number 1. It's also number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with everything else falling far behind their power level.
vaklor4 wrote: Thank GOOOOD this happened. I don't care how they get nerfed, I don't care if GW sends out a formal statement telling all players to melt their IG models, i'm just glad this is going to be over soon. I don't mind if they are just great. I can deal with great. IG can still be on the top of the pecking order for all I care, as long as I have a high hope to actually take an IG army down. With the current way it is, IG isn't just number 1. It's also number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with everything else falling far behind their power level.
There seem to be 2 camps of people - those who think this 'nerf' will make a difference, and those who don't.
1. I was referencing the wehraboo coh community. Quickjaeger got it quick.
2. Calling someone a wehraboo is very distinct from nazi. If you call someone a weeb does that make him an imperial army fascist? No. Just an annoying fanboy.
3. I have apologized in the past for my Eldar boycotts in particular a few weeks after the supplement for chapters came to 7th and introduced Death Stars which crushed everything. I then realized GW had a bigger problem. Not that anyone seems to remember this. I've also mentioned it a few times since then. People like to think I'm some horrifying monster I guess.
Gamgee wrote: People like to think I'm some horrifying monster I guess.
No, you just have some kind of huge victimisation complex. The things you claim are nonsensical, like you say no one complains about Guilliman... which is just so ridiculous I have trouble even arguing the point. You claim you've been defending everyone, and that's simply not true. You might have agreed with someone at some point, but you've never not been bashing at some other faction. You claim that now you're under attack by Tau rules, and no one is defending you... no one is arguing that Tau are anything but low tier at the moment.
It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you have just made up this whole victim attitude that doesn't have any anchor in reality at all.
Gamgee wrote: People assumed I was calling everyone nazi's?
A not entirely weird assumption when you use a fringe insult from a different game system's online vocabulary. It's an incredibly small subset of people that will know it and this forum is not the right audience for it.
It also isn't a single one of the things I highlighted.
Gamgee wrote: 3. I have apologized in the past for my Eldar boycotts in particular a few weeks after the supplement for chapters came to 7th and introduced Death Stars which crushed everything. I then realized GW had a bigger problem. Not that anyone seems to remember this. I've also mentioned it a few times since then. People like to think I'm some horrifying monster I guess.
Myself, i don't always read the forums so i probably have missed that. Don't worry about it, it's all in fun. Own it, accept it, and move on. Laugh when it gets brought up, coz if this is the worst thing you've got going for you - you're doing pretty well. I think it's hysterically funny, not horrifying monster, but remember - i used to play 40k. It's so easy to get caught in little circles of this army is better, or those people aren't interested in balance, that you need to step back and appreciate the whole picture. Like i said before, this is the game and likely always will be. You need to find a way to be at peace with that, one way or another.
Hopefully GW will take a nice Conservative approach to all units that need some re balancing.
I think the problem a lot of players have, and the reason why Xenos players especially are getting angry even though the codex isn't totally revealed yet, is that this does look so far like a very mild nerf. A conservative approach, that may in a few months time lead to another minor change in a chapter approved.
It annoys them because the Imperium is getting minor/conservative changes to units causing major problems, while Xenos players got huge blanket knee-jerk nerfs that made units totally unplayable, with little or no justification.
If GW only took a conservative approach to all armies, then it would be good. It's the best way to balance. But instead they listen to the imperium crybabies, nerf the naughty aliens into the ground, and then eventually give token non-changes to the imperium units that are clearly causing problems.
It's annoying, and disheartening.
Saying all that, I hope the knee-jerk nerfs were a reaction to the indexes, and so such problems will be fixed (especially for xenos) as their codices are released. Otherwise 8th edition is going to be the Horus Heresy - Big Humans vs Smaller Humans vs Angry Humans, all day long.
Thank you for this. 8th edition balancing is bigger hypocritical gak than 7th now. In 7th the newest was the strongest giving a weird level of balance out to everyone. Here it's imps all day every day and sometimes chaos too. This balance change is so one sided it's making me pack up and move on from 8th. Despite now being able to play I now don't want to touch 30k 2.0 with a ten foot pole. Guilliman is super overpowered and no one ever complains.
Imp players = wehraboos who destroyed company of heroes 1+2 balance. Never trust wehraboos for balancing. Most biased fans in existence.
Sorry but your idea of 7th is objectively false. The "newest is the strongest" has never, ever been a thing with balance in this game. Allies throw a lot of monkey wrench in the discussion, but there has never been a trend of power creep where the new shiny was on top. More often than not this has not been the case where new releases have been to top. Those releases have been on top generally, when they were Imperial (especially with allies post 6th), Eldar (almost always strong with a new book until the index), Tau (somewhat, though not really near the top), or Daemons. OF the 18 Codices released in 7th, only 7 might have been on the stronger end and books from a year before the edition released (Daemons, Eldar) Dominated most of the edition (with Eldar getting an update).
Codex Release Date Top tier/strongest at the time?
Space Marines Oct-08 maybe Start of 5th
Imperial Guard May-09 Yes
Space Wolves Oct-09 Yes, comparable to IG Tyranids Jan-10 NO
Blood Angels Apr-10 NO
Dark Eldar Nov-10 NO
Grey Knights Apr-11 Yes
Sisters of Battle August-11 NO
Necrons Nov-11 maybe, no where near GK in 5th got better at 6th release
CSM Oct-12 NO Start of 6th
Dark Angels Jan-13 NO
Chaos Daemons Mar-13 Yes, their previous old book was also good at the time of this release with WD additions
Tau Empire Apr-13 Yes
Eldar Jun-13 Yes
Space Marines Sep-13 near the top with allies
Adepta Sororitas Oct-13 NO
Inquisition Nov-13 NO
Tyranids Jan-14 No, only flyrants
Imperial Knights Mar-14 maybe
Legion of Damned Mar-14 NO
Astra Militarum Apr-14 No
Militarum Temp Apr-14 NO
Orks Jun-14 NO Start of 7th
Grey Knights Aug-14 NO
Space Wolves Aug-14 Yes, with allies
Dark Eldar Oct-14 NO
Blood Angels Dec-14 NO
Necrons Jan-15 yes, decurion
Harlequins Feb-15 NO
Khorne Daemonkin Mar-15 NO
Craftworlds Apr-15 Yes
Skitarii Apr-15 NO
Cult Mechanicus May-15 Yes war convo
Imperial Knights May-15 NO
Dark Angels Jun-15 Yes, with allies
Space Marines Jun-15 Yes, with allies
Tau Empire Oct-15 Only Riptides
Deathwatch Aug-16 NO
Genestealer Cults Sep-16 NO
Imperial Agents Dec-16 NO
Either way, I stand by my point that Conscripts are only OP because the game state heavily leans on the utility of screening units, and they are excellent screening units.
I've seen IG played with all artillery or all russes and it doesn't work. People run up, boop them gently in the nose with a wet noodle, and the tanks can no longer shoot ever. It's what made me continue to put the 1st Concordian (my LRBTs) in retirement and continue to use the 2nd Concordian (my superheavies) to scratch my tank itch- because a pure Russ army is gakky.
So guard have excellent firepower and good screens - this combines to make a fairly good, if immobile, army. Back that up with some mobile Imperial Soup options such as Celestine, or other "mobile" options such as Elysians or Scions, and you get a recipe for victory.
You can adjust points however you want, but it's a fine line to walk, because of how 8th is designed.
Screens are part of the game, and they have to be durable screens or everyone is just going to blat them turn 1 and hold their offensive till turn 2.
100% reliable,100% accurate deepstrike with 100% of your reserves at the same time are the reasons conscripts are OP.
Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
Either way, I stand by my point that Conscripts are only OP because the game state heavily leans on the utility of screening units, and they are excellent screening units.
I've seen IG played with all artillery or all russes and it doesn't work. People run up, boop them gently in the nose with a wet noodle, and the tanks can no longer shoot ever. It's what made me continue to put the 1st Concordian (my LRBTs) in retirement and continue to use the 2nd Concordian (my superheavies) to scratch my tank itch- because a pure Russ army is gakky.
So guard have excellent firepower and good screens - this combines to make a fairly good, if immobile, army. Back that up with some mobile Imperial Soup options such as Celestine, or other "mobile" options such as Elysians or Scions, and you get a recipe for victory.
You can adjust points however you want, but it's a fine line to walk, because of how 8th is designed.
Screens are part of the game, and they have to be durable screens or everyone is just going to blat them turn 1 and hold their offensive till turn 2.
100% reliable,100% accurate deepstrike with 100% of your reserves at the same time are the reasons conscripts are OP.
Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
The issue is conscripts as a HARD counter, because by hard countering this type of assault, they also hard counter all other types of assault, combine that with artillery they hard counter a lot of shooting as well. I'd honestly see rather see screens made a bit weaker in this edition and "interceptor" type rules made into more of a thing. I also wish they hadn't given armies 1CP infiltration strategems, as that makes first turn assault far too easy (9" charges are risky, 9" move and charge are trivial).
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.
If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.
Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.
There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.
And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.
Honestly, I wonder how much of this is a combination of invisible deathstar players salty over the loss of their win condition, and assault players who feel like GW trolled them because they got hyped about turn-1 assaults before finding out how chaff works.
"Turn 1 assaults! Turn 1 deep strikes! Rejoice, assault armies, revel in your ability to lock down the enemy on turn 1 every time, easy wins without ever firing a shot!
PS - Fall-back, new wound chart, no null deploy, and Conscripts. UMad?
Sincerely,
GW"
TBH they really should have seen that coming though. Did they really think GW was going to hand them all their dreams on a platter and leave nothing to counter it?
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.
If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.
Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.
There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.
And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.
If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.
Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.
There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.
And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
This assumes that during that time you cannot cripple your opponents on table force (half his units), which apparently are enough to blow away your screen turn 1. You also need to remember that on each of those turns they only have at best about a 50% chance of getting the charge. I'm also missing the ton of effective deepstrike assault armies from reserve. I see GSC, Nids, and that is most of the best ones that can do it in volume with good units.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
Surely what should actually be happening here is that an army that relies on deep striking should be able to have enough anti-screen stuff on the board to have a good chance of being able to get lots of value out of their deep strikers on turn 2 or 3, unless the other player has put so many points into otherwise-bad screening units that they're at a serious disadvantage against lists that don't rely on deep striking. This doesn't really seem like what's going on.
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.
If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.
Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.
There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.
And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
...it sounds a lot like you want assault armies to never have a chance to get to you, and you consider that balanced.
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.
If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.
Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.
There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.
And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
This assumes that during that time you cannot cripple your opponents on table force (half his units), which apparently are enough to blow away your screen turn 1. You also need to remember that on each of those turns they only have at best about a 50% chance of getting the charge.
Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.
And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.
Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?
I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
Surely what should actually be happening here is that an army that relies on deep striking should be able to have enough anti-screen stuff on the board to have a good chance of being able to get lots of value out of their deep strikers on turn 2 or 3, unless the other player has put so many points into otherwise-bad screening units that they're at a serious disadvantage against lists that don't rely on deep striking. This doesn't really seem like what's going on.
Not sure that's true, because getting "lots of value" out of your deepstrikers ever. Scions are a perfect example of a deep-striking unit that gets lots of value.
The advantages of deepstrikers are:
1) Can close with the enemy (and even assault them) with no (or very little) chance of ever being stopped beforehand.
2) Can be wherever they want whenever they want, essentially, if objectives are needed.
3) Have literally infinite durability until they finally shoot their bolt, which means they are infinitely durable until they delete something.
That utility alone should make deepstrikers inefficient at the actual job of killing for their points. Right now, they're not, and they're OP for it (example: scions).
Not to seem like too much of a jerk, but complaining about Conscripts is like crying at the river. No matter what you say it keeps moving and will not stay the same very long. Eventually, a new Codex, a new model with cool rules, or some change to game mechanics will make those Imperial Soup lists a lot less powerful.
I'm glad GW did something about Conscripts and we will see how having orders fail half the time works out. Some people have pointed Command Point rerolls can impact this, which is true once per turn for a single unit. For the most part, Conscripts will be squishy half the time, and this is really good considering some of the games I have played.
I'm not saying this is a great nerf. But it's one of those nerfs that creates an opportunity to counter something I run into in games. When I do play against Imperium Soup lists, Gulliman is always sneaking up behind Conscripts. Now I have at least some sort of chance to actually shoot at him before he reaches my army, and I think that's the best this change represents. It's the river flowing, it doesn't care about my opinion, I'm just grateful it's not where it was yesterday.
Would it be okay if we moved on to complaining about Doctrines, Veterans, Scions and Earthshaker rounds now? Honestly, those things concern me more than screening units. Seems incredibly unfair those Doctrines apply to things like Baneblades.
Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.
And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.
Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?
I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.
This seems implausible. Deep striking assault units are actually very easy to ward off even without very durable screeners. For example, a 15 point Cyberwolf model/unit denies deep striking in a 9.5" diameter circle. If it gets killed, you move another one up to where it was. There's nothing your opponent can do about this between your movement phase and when he has to bring in his deep strikers. Other deep strikers are also great for this; there are a bunch of cheap Elysian things that you can drop in to deny deep striking in a big area. So Conscripts are actually not necessary at all for dealing with deep striking CC units, or deep strikers in general. They just do it hugely better than other units that already do a perfectly satisfactory job, and they're good for a lot of other purposes like holding objectives and bogging down footslogging CC units.
ross-128 wrote: Honestly, I wonder how much of this is a combination of invisible deathstar players salty over the loss of their win condition, and assault players who feel like GW trolled them because they got hyped about turn-1 assaults before finding out how chaff works.
"Turn 1 assaults! Turn 1 deep strikes! Rejoice, assault armies, revel in your ability to lock down the enemy on turn 1 every time, easy wins without ever firing a shot!
PS - Fall-back, new wound chart, no null deploy, and Conscripts. UMad?
Sincerely,
GW"
TBH they really should have seen that coming though. Did they really think GW was going to hand them all their dreams on a platter and leave nothing to counter it?
Hello,
assault player here. Conscripts don't do gak against boyz.
Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.
And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.
Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?
I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.
This seems implausible. Deep striking assault units are actually very easy to ward off even without very durable screeners. For example, a 15 point Cyberwolf model/unit denies deep striking in a 9.5" diameter circle. If it gets killed, you move another one up to where it was. There's nothing your opponent can do about this between your movement phase and when he has to bring in his deep strikers. Other deep strikers are also great for this; there are a bunch of cheap Elysian things that you can drop in to deny deep striking in a big area. So Conscripts are actually not necessary at all for dealing with deep striking CC units, or deep strikers in general. They just do it hugely better than other units that already do a perfectly satisfactory job, and they're good for a lot of other purposes like holding objectives and bogging down footslogging CC units.
You and I have different definitions of satisfactory.
Grots aren't very good, and also are a screening unit.
Gaunts are also not very good, and also are a screening unit.
Kroot aren't good at all, and also are a screening unit.
Every other screening unit being gakky does not mean conscripts should be gakky, it means they should come up.
We need youtube memes. The hearthstone community can live with the eras of some totally toxic OP deck because they take it with a laugh. So, who wants to do some Conscripts memes? Maybe that way people will be less angry, all the time.
Galas wrote: We need youtube memes. The hearthstone community can live with the eras of some totally toxic OP deck because they take it with a laugh. So, who wants to do some Conscripts memes? Maybe that way people will be less angry, all the time.
Spoiler:
As a Hearthstone player; the unbalanced things in Hearthstone are a drop of unbalance compared to the unbalances in 40k. It doesn't even begin to compare.
You and I have different definitions of satisfactory.
Grots aren't very good, and also are a screening unit.
Gaunts are also not very good, and also are a screening unit.
Kroot aren't good at all, and also are a screening unit.
Every other screening unit being gakky does not mean conscripts should be gakky, it means they should come up.
I don't think this really engages with my post. My point was that you don't actually need durable blob units to screen against assault deep strikers. You just need something, because you've accomplished your goal if the deep strikers either don't come in or come in way more than 9" from the stuff they actually want to charge. I specifically mentioned Cyberwolves and Elysians. For example, glancing over their index, it looks to me like the best Tau deep strike screener is Kroot Hounds.
You and I have different definitions of satisfactory.
Grots aren't very good, and also are a screening unit.
Gaunts are also not very good, and also are a screening unit.
Kroot aren't good at all, and also are a screening unit.
Every other screening unit being gakky does not mean conscripts should be gakky, it means they should come up.
I don't think this really engages with my post. My point was that you don't actually need durable blob units to screen against assault deep strikers. You just need something, because you've accomplished your goal if the deep strikers either don't come in or come in way more than 9" from the stuff they actually want to charge. I specifically mentioned Cyberwolves and Elysians. For example, glancing over their index, it looks to me like the best Tau deep strike screener is Kroot Hounds.
Unit wants his tanks to be perfectly safe from any and all full charge armies for at least 4 rounds without having to actually think about strategy, doing nothing but setting up massive walls. There is a huge difference between what he considers balanced and what balance is.
You and I have different definitions of satisfactory.
Grots aren't very good, and also are a screening unit.
Gaunts are also not very good, and also are a screening unit.
Kroot aren't good at all, and also are a screening unit.
Every other screening unit being gakky does not mean conscripts should be gakky, it means they should come up.
I don't think this really engages with my post. My point was that you don't actually need durable blob units to screen against assault deep strikers. You just need something, because you've accomplished your goal if the deep strikers either don't come in or come in way more than 9" from the stuff they actually want to charge. I specifically mentioned Cyberwolves and Elysians. For example, glancing over their index, it looks to me like the best Tau deep strike screener is Kroot Hounds.
I don't... think that's true though.
Maybe my army was a bad example, with the 12 acolytes and 2 primaris psykers, but lets use marines as an example. I could see 1000 points spend on shooting units, and 1000 points spent on deepstriking units.
If your screening units aren't durable for their points (e.g. cyberwolves) then they're just going to get evaporated before the deep-strikers can come down. You need high durability per point to survive to turn 3 in the current 8th edition environment.
If your screening units are just "more deep-strikers" then you've put yourself on the back foot by having 50% of your reserves drop in your own DZ, or close to it. At worst, you fail to estimate when your opponent brings their own deepstrikers in and either wait too long or get shot off the board, and at best your best offensive units (e.g. Elysians with plasmaguns) lost a lot of their punch not deepstriking 9" away from the enemy's own vulnerable units.
You and I have different definitions of satisfactory.
Grots aren't very good, and also are a screening unit.
Gaunts are also not very good, and also are a screening unit.
Kroot aren't good at all, and also are a screening unit.
Every other screening unit being gakky does not mean conscripts should be gakky, it means they should come up.
I don't think this really engages with my post. My point was that you don't actually need durable blob units to screen against assault deep strikers. You just need something, because you've accomplished your goal if the deep strikers either don't come in or come in way more than 9" from the stuff they actually want to charge. I specifically mentioned Cyberwolves and Elysians. For example, glancing over their index, it looks to me like the best Tau deep strike screener is Kroot Hounds.
I don't... think that's true though.
Maybe my army was a bad example, with the 12 acolytes and 2 primaris psykers, but lets use marines as an example. I could see 1000 points spend on shooting units, and 1000 points spent on deepstriking units.
If your screening units aren't durable for their points (e.g. cyberwolves) then they're just going to get evaporated before the deep-strikers can come down. You need high durability per point to survive to turn 3 in the current 8th edition environment.
If your screening units are just "more deep-strikers" then you've put yourself on the back foot by having 50% of your reserves drop in your own DZ, or close to it. At worst, you fail to estimate when your opponent brings their own deepstrikers in and either wait too long or get shot off the board, and at best your best offensive units (e.g. Elysians with plasmaguns) lost a lot of their punch not deepstriking 9" away from the enemy's own vulnerable units.
God forbid making the wrong tactical choice should punish you.
You and I have different definitions of satisfactory.
Grots aren't very good, and also are a screening unit.
Gaunts are also not very good, and also are a screening unit.
Kroot aren't good at all, and also are a screening unit.
Every other screening unit being gakky does not mean conscripts should be gakky, it means they should come up.
I don't think this really engages with my post. My point was that you don't actually need durable blob units to screen against assault deep strikers. You just need something, because you've accomplished your goal if the deep strikers either don't come in or come in way more than 9" from the stuff they actually want to charge. I specifically mentioned Cyberwolves and Elysians. For example, glancing over their index, it looks to me like the best Tau deep strike screener is Kroot Hounds.
I don't... think that's true though.
Maybe my army was a bad example, with the 12 acolytes and 2 primaris psykers, but lets use marines as an example. I could see 1000 points spend on shooting units, and 1000 points spent on deepstriking units.
If your screening units aren't durable for their points (e.g. cyberwolves) then they're just going to get evaporated before the deep-strikers can come down. You need high durability per point to survive to turn 3 in the current 8th edition environment.
If your screening units are just "more deep-strikers" then you've put yourself on the back foot by having 50% of your reserves drop in your own DZ, or close to it. At worst, you fail to estimate when your opponent brings their own deepstrikers in and either wait too long or get shot off the board, and at best your best offensive units (e.g. Elysians with plasmaguns) lost a lot of their punch not deepstriking 9" away from the enemy's own vulnerable units.
God forbid making the wrong tactical choice should punish you.
Not sure how "playing a game of chicken with your deepstrikers" is really 'tactical' or 'fun' but sure.
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.
If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.
Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.
There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.
And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
This assumes that during that time you cannot cripple your opponents on table force (half his units), which apparently are enough to blow away your screen turn 1. You also need to remember that on each of those turns they only have at best about a 50% chance of getting the charge.
Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.
And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.
Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?
I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.
The list you state on the bottom, loses to IG turn 1 as those 14 models all get killed by shooting. SO if the conscripts can last one turn as a screen against a turn 1 charge it is fine. If they don't bring in models on turn 1, IG wins the game.
As for the 50%, no that is for units with re-rolls base, a 9" charge. Without any re-roll a 9" charge is a 27% chance. So only 2.16 without re-rolls, using the stratagem means maybe you get 3. The stratagem can be used for a single unit. With only the stratagem there are 4 rolls that auto fail as you need at least one 3 to get to 9. Using the stratagem for one unit gets that unit to ~50% chance to charge, if you use it for every failed charge that can possibly make 9" (people often won't use it if they roll nothing higher than a 3 on either dice). Straight re-rolls are better, and work for all units, but not too many deepstrike assault units have this rule. Those are the units that I refer to though as basically having a 50% chance to charge, now some things like Warptime can assure a single unit the ability to assault from deepstrike. From someone who has deepstruck assaulted many times, it is not reliable, and it is hard against good play to hit multiple units unless your opponent has poor positioning. Even without a ton of chaff.
Galas wrote: We need youtube memes. The hearthstone community can live with the eras of some totally toxic OP deck because they take it with a laugh. So, who wants to do some Conscripts memes? Maybe that way people will be less angry, all the time.
Spoiler:
As a Hearthstone player; the unbalanced things in Hearthstone are a drop of unbalance compared to the unbalances in 40k. It doesn't even begin to compare.
I don't know what to say. Jade Druid is Jade Druid, and better lets not talk about Undertaker Hunter... the difference is the time they take to fix this kind of problems.
Not to seem like too much of a jerk, but complaining about Conscripts is like crying at the river. No matter what you say it keeps moving and will not stay the same very long. Eventually, a new Codex, a new model with cool rules, or some change to game mechanics will make those Imperial Soup lists a lot less powerful.
I'm glad GW did something about Conscripts and we will see how having orders fail half the time works out. Some people have pointed Command Point rerolls can impact this, which is true once per turn for a single unit. For the most part, Conscripts will be squishy half the time, and this is really good considering some of the games I have played.
I'm not saying this is a great nerf. But it's one of those nerfs that creates an opportunity to counter something I run into in games. When I do play against Imperium Soup lists, Gulliman is always sneaking up behind Conscripts. Now I have at least some sort of chance to actually shoot at him before he reaches my army, and I think that's the best this change represents. It's the river flowing, it doesn't care about my opinion, I'm just grateful it's not where it was yesterday.
Would it be okay if we moved on to complaining about Doctrines, Veterans, Scions and Earthshaker rounds now? Honestly, those things concern me more than screening units. Seems incredibly unfair those Doctrines apply to things like Baneblades.
I don't enjoy doing this, but I think you're really making up your own scenario here. I don't see how the changes to making orders work only a 4+ creates "an opportunity to counter". I'm curious about what you are referring to when you say "Gulliman is always sneaking up behind conscripts. Now I at least have some sort of a chance to actually shoot at him before he reaches my army".
The changes that are being made only push the Imperium Soup armies more, since they're the armies that make the least use out of orders in the first place.
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.
If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.
Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.
There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.
And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
This assumes that during that time you cannot cripple your opponents on table force (half his units), which apparently are enough to blow away your screen turn 1. You also need to remember that on each of those turns they only have at best about a 50% chance of getting the charge.
Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.
And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.
Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?
I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.
The list you state on the bottom, loses to IG turn 1 as those 14 models all get killed by shooting. SO if the conscripts can last one turn as a screen against a turn 1 charge it is fine. If they don't bring in models on turn 1, IG wins the game.
As for the 50%, no that is for units with re-rolls base, a 9" charge. Without any re-roll a 9" charge is a 27% chance. So only 2.16 without re-rolls, using the stratagem means maybe you get 3. The stratagem can be used for a single unit. With only the stratagem there are 4 rolls that auto fail as you need at least one 3 to get to 9. Using the stratagem for one unit gets that unit to ~50% chance to charge, if you use it for every failed charge that can possibly make 9" (people often won't use it if they roll nothing higher than a 3 on either dice). Straight re-rolls are better, and work for all units, but not too many deepstrike assault units have this rule. Those are the units that I refer to though as basically having a 50% chance to charge, now some things like Warptime can assure a single unit the ability to assault from deepstrike. From someone who has deepstruck assaulted many times, it is not reliable, and it is hard against good play to hit multiple units unless your opponent has poor positioning. Even without a ton of chaff.
Your first point is absolutely false. Not every IG army brings artillery; unless of course you want to force them to.
Your second point... I get it. I still think the fact that they have a 50/50 of getting into assault without having been shot at at all ever (except for phhhbbbt overwatch) is ridiculously good and should not be brushed off as "oh, it's only 50/50."
It's like saying "I when the game on a 4+! What? It's only 50/50!"
You and I have different definitions of satisfactory.
Grots aren't very good, and also are a screening unit.
Gaunts are also not very good, and also are a screening unit.
Kroot aren't good at all, and also are a screening unit.
Every other screening unit being gakky does not mean conscripts should be gakky, it means they should come up.
I don't think this really engages with my post. My point was that you don't actually need durable blob units to screen against assault deep strikers. You just need something, because you've accomplished your goal if the deep strikers either don't come in or come in way more than 9" from the stuff they actually want to charge. I specifically mentioned Cyberwolves and Elysians. For example, glancing over their index, it looks to me like the best Tau deep strike screener is Kroot Hounds.
I don't... think that's true though.
Maybe my army was a bad example, with the 12 acolytes and 2 primaris psykers, but lets use marines as an example. I could see 1000 points spend on shooting units, and 1000 points spent on deepstriking units.
If your screening units aren't durable for their points (e.g. cyberwolves) then they're just going to get evaporated before the deep-strikers can come down. You need high durability per point to survive to turn 3 in the current 8th edition environment.
If your screening units are just "more deep-strikers" then you've put yourself on the back foot by having 50% of your reserves drop in your own DZ, or close to it. At worst, you fail to estimate when your opponent brings their own deepstrikers in and either wait too long or get shot off the board, and at best your best offensive units (e.g. Elysians with plasmaguns) lost a lot of their punch not deepstriking 9" away from the enemy's own vulnerable units.
If your 2000 point army cannot cripple 1000 points of your opponents army within 3 turns while still being able to deny area it seems like an issue with the army build. That said, part of this is a problem with mission design. If missions require units on the table to score points, it isn't really viable to keep 1000 points of army off the table for 3 turns.
It's like saying "I when the game on a 4+! What? It's only 50/50!"
You're literally comparing getting to do anything at all with a melee based army with winning the game. Your statement is, in no unclear terms, that you want to be able to completely deny an assault army to ever lay a hand on you, or you consider yourself as having lost the game.
You seem to think you're the hero in a single player game and your opponents are chaf you have to get through and should be able to do so with minimal effort. Your idea of balance is a joke.
I don't know what to say. Jade Druid is Jade Druid, and better lets not talk about Undertaker Hunter... the difference is the time they take to fix this kind of problems.
Another difference is that in 40k, you would be able to make a deck with 50% or more Undertakers.
Maybe my army was a bad example, with the 12 acolytes and 2 primaris psykers, but lets use marines as an example. I could see 1000 points spend on shooting units, and 1000 points spent on deepstriking units.
If your screening units aren't durable for their points (e.g. cyberwolves) then they're just going to get evaporated before the deep-strikers can come down. You need high durability per point to survive to turn 3 in the current 8th edition environment.
If your screening units are just "more deep-strikers" then you've put yourself on the back foot by having 50% of your reserves drop in your own DZ, or close to it. At worst, you fail to estimate when your opponent brings their own deepstrikers in and either wait too long or get shot off the board, and at best your best offensive units (e.g. Elysians with plasmaguns) lost a lot of their punch not deepstriking 9" away from the enemy's own vulnerable units.
You're not putting all of the cyberwolves out front turn 1, though. You're hiding some of them behind a Russ or whatever. If they kill the two that you've got out front, you take two more from behind the Russ and advance them 10 + d6". Sure, there are deep strike oriented armies that beat this. But actually this is incredibly effective against lots of assault deep strike compositions for a tiny number of points -- obviously you can't expect to be invulnerable to deep strikers for this kind of investment.
I don't understand what you're trying to say about defensive deep strikers. Say I have some Elysian sniper teams in reserve. These are dirt cheap, so I'm not giving up a whole lot of firepower by keeping them off the board. Certainly I'm way ahead on board if my opponent has 1000 points in assault deep strikers. Yeah, these count against what I'm allowed to put in reserve, but I thought we were assuming I had more of a gunline army. If my turn 1 screen gets killed, then on turn 2 I deep strike a sniper team in front of my other stuff. If they get killed, then on turn 3 I deep strike another sniper team. I don't have to guess when my opponent's bringing things on; the whole point is to make sure that he never has a good opportunity to bring things on.
These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.
If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.
Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.
There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.
And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.
Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?
The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.
This assumes that during that time you cannot cripple your opponents on table force (half his units), which apparently are enough to blow away your screen turn 1. You also need to remember that on each of those turns they only have at best about a 50% chance of getting the charge.
Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.
And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.
Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?
I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.
The list you state on the bottom, loses to IG turn 1 as those 14 models all get killed by shooting. SO if the conscripts can last one turn as a screen against a turn 1 charge it is fine. If they don't bring in models on turn 1, IG wins the game.
As for the 50%, no that is for units with re-rolls base, a 9" charge. Without any re-roll a 9" charge is a 27% chance. So only 2.16 without re-rolls, using the stratagem means maybe you get 3. The stratagem can be used for a single unit. With only the stratagem there are 4 rolls that auto fail as you need at least one 3 to get to 9. Using the stratagem for one unit gets that unit to ~50% chance to charge, if you use it for every failed charge that can possibly make 9" (people often won't use it if they roll nothing higher than a 3 on either dice). Straight re-rolls are better, and work for all units, but not too many deepstrike assault units have this rule. Those are the units that I refer to though as basically having a 50% chance to charge, now some things like Warptime can assure a single unit the ability to assault from deepstrike. From someone who has deepstruck assaulted many times, it is not reliable, and it is hard against good play to hit multiple units unless your opponent has poor positioning. Even without a ton of chaff.
Your first point is absolutely false. Not every IG army brings artillery; unless of course you want to force them to.
Your second point... I get it. I still think the fact that they have a 50/50 of getting into assault without having been shot at at all ever (except for phhhbbbt overwatch) is ridiculously good and should not be brushed off as "oh, it's only 50/50."
It's like saying "I when the game on a 4+! What? It's only 50/50!"
Sure not every IG army brings artillery, some bring their own deepstrikers, which could kill these units. IF we are looking at a competitive game, then yes those 14 models would be tabled every game, because competitive IG (the only thing we are talking about because it is the only IG abusing conscripts to the level where nothing can get to their units for 3 turns) will have a way to deal with them.
I also think it is ridiculous to think that every unit needs to be able to be killed prior to doing damage. Why is that true for assault (50-50 is basically for a single unit in any army) and not for shooting. There are plenty of shooting units that get to act at full capacity without ever taking damage. The idea that you need to be able to cripple any and all assault units before they can possibly touch anything of value is not great for the game.
Like I said there are not many great assault armies that can deepstrike a ton of good assault units, and get re-roll charges for all those units. I struggle to think of any. The worst offenders are honestly CSM with infiltration strategems, and warptime.
So the reason assaulters need to be able to be shot before they make it is there is no real way to avoid assault. You can avoid shooting (except against artillery) by being out of Line of Sight. Being shot does not necessarily cripple an assault unit either, while being in an assault absolutely cripples a shooting unit.
Think about it this way:
If you get B2B with my Leman Russ, it does nothing except run away.
Flip it on its head:
I shoot your assault unit, and the only move it can make is away from me, it cannot shoot, and it cannot charge.
That's what it feels like to be a shooting unit hit by an assaulting unit. The army in question just doesn't /do/ anything.
Purifier wrote: This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat.
I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
How in the heck is a commissar surrounded by scrubs hard to remove? There are hundreds of ways to deal with those blowhards.
So you want to force us to rely on a gimmick of rotating deep-strikers that leaves us helpless against bikes, transports, jump infantry, and basically any other source of 12"+ movement?
The idea that a screen should be wiped in a single turn by equal points is absurd on its face. A "screen" that could be removed so easily would be the second most fragile model in the game (behind the lascannon HWT, champion of fragility by virtue of being 20 points of gun sitting on 6 points of wounds).
So the reason assaulters need to be able to be shot before they make it is there is no real way to avoid assault. You can avoid shooting (except against artillery) by being out of Line of Sight. Being shot does not necessarily cripple an assault unit either, while being in an assault absolutely cripples a shooting unit.
Think about it this way:
If you get B2B with my Leman Russ, it does nothing except run away.
Flip it on its head:
I shoot your assault unit, and the only move it can make is away from me, it cannot shoot, and it cannot charge.
That's what it feels like to be a shooting unit hit by an assaulting unit. The army in question just doesn't /do/ anything.
Except the difference is your shooting units instead just kill the assaulting unit. SO would you prefer the russ just died when it was assaulted? Further with assault units it is incredibly hard to avoid shooting and get into the assault. You can also avoid assault by being out of range, much more easily than shooting. Further the shooting unit should it survive gets to attack in close combat (however bad it may be) and do damage that an assault unit does not get to do in shooting. I look at it this way. With a shooting unit you basically get to operate at full capacity for every turn you aren't assaulted. Assault units only get to operate at full capacity in turns you are assaulted. IF fall back did not prevent shooting, it would be way too powerful as it is a lot of risk and work to get into the assault in the first place. You seem to be under the impression that deepstrike assaults = auto turn off gunline, when IME that is anything but true. Most of these types of units are expensive, or if not fragile (die to overwatch fragile). I also don't want to see screens gone. I just don't want them to be able to survive for 3 turns at the cost of only 200-300 points if getting focused down by an entire army.
Purifier wrote: This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat.
I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
How in the heck is a commissar surrounded by scrubs hard to remove? There are hundreds of ways to deal with those blowhards.
Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.
ross-128 wrote: So you want to force us to rely on a gimmick of rotating deep-strikers that leaves us helpless against bikes, transports, jump infantry, and basically any other source of 12"+ movement?
The idea that a screen should be wiped in a single turn by equal points is absurd on its face. A "screen" that could be removed so easily would be the second most fragile model in the game (behind the lascannon HWT, champion of fragility by virtue of being 20 points of gun sitting on 6 points of wounds).
I think this is intended as a reply to me but I feel like you've so badly misunderstood what I'm saying that I'm not sure what to say here other than to suggest that you re-read the conversation I was participating in.
ross-128 wrote: So you want to force us to rely on a gimmick of rotating deep-strikers that leaves us helpless against bikes, transports, jump infantry, and basically any other source of 12"+ movement?
The idea that a screen should be wiped in a single turn by equal points is absurd on its face. A "screen" that could be removed so easily would be the second most fragile model in the game (behind the lascannon HWT, champion of fragility by virtue of being 20 points of gun sitting on 6 points of wounds).
Not equal points, more points. For instance 30 ork boyz in combat should remove 30 conscripts in a single turn if they all get to attack (that is double points). OR 3 10 man tactical squads should easily remove 30 conscripts in a turn if they are all in optimal range (360 points). Right now those marines would leave 12 conscripts alive after shooting, and then if they could all charge might be able to kill your conscripts.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You can avoid shooting (except against artillery) by being out of Line of Sight.
That's like saying you can avoid assault by being out of charge range. It's not how these games work at all. What are you gonna be doing while your entire army is hiding out of line of sight?
Purifier wrote: This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat. I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
How in the heck is a commissar surrounded by scrubs hard to remove? There are hundreds of ways to deal with those blowhards.
Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.
ross-128 wrote: It takes about 3x the cost of anti-infantry shooting for most things to remove (supported) conscripts
Do you have some figures for that?
In a single turn, definitely takes about that much. And it should.
Let's see though.
Spoiler:
Captain w/MCBG and chainsword Primaris Lieutenant As such, all 1s on to-hit and to-wound are rerolled. 4 tactical squads w/combiflamer, flamer. Flamers: 8d6 auto hits, average 28 hits, 3+ to wound reroll 1s, 21.778, 14.5 models removed from flamers. Combi-boltguns: 8 shots, 4+ hit reroll 1s, 4.667 hits, 3+ to wound reroll 1s, 4.148 wounds, about 3 models removed from sarge boltgun-mode combiflamers. Boltguns+MCABR: 34 shots, 3+ hit reroll 1s, 26.445 hits, 3+ to wound reroll 1s, 20.568 wounds, 14 models removed from squaddie boltguns and the Lt's MCABR. Mastercrafted Boltgun: 2 shots, 2+ to hit reroll 1s, 1.945 hits, 3+ to wound reroll 1s, 1.296 wounds, 1 model removed from the captain.
Then they assault. Captain, Lt, and 4 squads all use grenades. Captain rolled separately because separate to-hit, 3.5 average attacks, hit on 2+ rerolling misses, 3.403 hits, wounding on 4+ rerolling 1s, 1.985 wounds, 1 and a third model removed by the cap's grenade. Other 5 grenades average 17.5 attacks, 3+ to hit reroll 1s, 13.611 hits, wounding on 4+ rerolling 1s, 7.940 wounds, and 5.293 models removed.
So in total, before the assault phase after the grenades-- which is a charge, so the tacticals hit first-- they have already removed 39 models, then in the assault phase, they get 28 hitting on 3+ from the tac squads, 9 hitting on 2+ from the characters, all wounding in 3+, rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. 21.778 hits from tacs, 16.938 wounds, 11 models removed. The squad is already gone before the characters get to attack. Marines consolidates 3", preferably in to cover, and get ready for the opponent's turn, sans conscripts.
Yeah that's about right; 4 tac squads and a pair of HQs* manage to frekaing delete an entire 50-man conscript squad in one turn without taking any damage, and without taking in to account any chapter tactics. And that's tacticals, I should remind you. To give an understatement of the century, tacticals aren't exactly the super-best op-pls-nerf unit in the Marine army list according to most people on this forum.
*To be clear, I chose this particular grouping because this was less than 3x the cost of a conscript squad and support. This is around 491 points; a unit of conscripts needs at least a platoon commander and commissar, putting them at 201 points, and even a company commander and commissar split across two squads of conscripts is still 180 points per conscript squad.
Purifier wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: You can avoid shooting (except against artillery) by being out of Line of Sight.
That's like saying you can avoid assault by being out of charge range. It's not how these games work at all. What are you gonna be doing while your entire army is hiding out of line of sight?
scoring on objectives and winning like what happened to me at NOVA more than once.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OH! That's only 491 points and would take 4 turns.
I'm sure if you added the other 170 (say, 2 assault cannon razorbaks or the like) you could get it under 3 turns.
And that's also if the characters do not participate in the assault, if you read melissia's post.
OH! That's only 491 points and would take 4 turns.
I'm sure if you added the other 170 (say, 2 assault cannon razorbaks or the like) you could get it under 3 turns.
And that's also if the characters do not participate in the assault, if you read melissia's post.
HAHAHAHA and how are these marines managing to shoot their full loadout and charge every round? And not taking ANY casualties? That is the worst example I've ever read.
The assumption is that A) they got all the way to you without being touched, B) they take no casualties. C) they kill exactly everyone they are fighting and no one else interrupts them between their rounds so they can keep shooting->charging. and D) In none of the charges do they lose a single man.
WHEN IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN!?
Purifier wrote: This doesn't really fix them at all, if it's the only change. The reduced unit size is ok, I suppose, but then you just get two units instead and cluster them around the Commissar.
The problem was always the Commissar, so I guess we'll see if he is changed at all. My guess is no.
They're still as hard to remove as before, but they pose less of a threat.
I think the intention is to let them be cheap effective screening units, which can't do much more.
How in the heck is a commissar surrounded by scrubs hard to remove? There are hundreds of ways to deal with those blowhards.
Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.
ross-128 wrote: It takes about 3x the cost of anti-infantry shooting for most things to remove (supported) conscripts
Do you have some figures for that?
In a single turn, definitely takes about that much. And it should.
Let's see though.
Spoiler:
Captain w/MCBG and chainsword
Primaris Lieutenant
As such, all 1s on to-hit and to-wound are rerolled.
4 tactical squads w/combiflamer, flamer.
Flamers: 8d6 auto hits, average 28 hits, 3+ to wound reroll 1s, 21.778, 14.5 models removed from flamers.
Combi-boltguns: 8 shots, 4+ hit reroll 1s, 4.667 hits, 3+ to wound reroll 1s, 4.148 wounds, about 3 models removed from sarge boltgun-mode combiflamers.
Boltguns+MCABR: 34 shots, 3+ hit reroll 1s, 26.445 hits, 3+ to wound reroll 1s, 20.568 wounds, 14 models removed from squaddie boltguns and the Lt's MCABR.
Mastercrafted Boltgun: 2 shots, 2+ to hit reroll 1s, 1.945 hits, 3+ to wound reroll 1s, 1.296 wounds, 1 model removed from the captain.
Then they assault. Captain, Lt, and 4 squads all use grenades. Captain rolled separately because separate to-hit, 3.5 average attacks, hit on 2+ rerolling misses, 3.403 hits, wounding on 4+ rerolling 1s, 1.985 wounds, 1 and a third model removed by the cap's grenade. Other 5 grenades average 17.5 attacks, 3+ to hit reroll 1s, 13.611 hits, wounding on 4+ rerolling 1s, 7.940 wounds, and 5.293 models removed.
So in total, before the assault phase after the grenades-- which is a charge, so the tacticals hit first-- they have already removed 39 models, then in the assault phase, they get 28 hitting on 3+ from the tac squads, 9 hitting on 2+ from the characters, all wounding in 3+, rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. 21.778 hits from tacs, 16.938 wounds, 11 models removed. The squad is already gone before the characters get to attack. Marines consolidates 3", preferably in to cover, and get ready for the opponent's turn, sans conscripts.
Yeah that's about right; 4 tac squads and a pair of HQs* manage to frekaing delete an entire 50-man conscript squad in one turn without taking any damage, and without taking in to account any chapter tactics. And that's tacticals, I should remind you. To give an understatement of the century, tacticals aren't exactly the super-best op-pls-nerf unit in the Marine army list according to most people on this forum.
*To be clear, I chose this particular grouping because this was less than 3x the cost of a conscript squad and support. This is around 491 points; a unit of conscripts needs at least a platoon commander and commissar, putting them at 201 points, and even a company commander and commissar split across two squads of conscripts is still 180 points per conscript squad.
Purifier wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: You can avoid shooting (except against artillery) by being out of Line of Sight.
That's like saying you can avoid assault by being out of charge range. It's not how these games work at all. What are you gonna be doing while your entire army is hiding out of line of sight?
scoring on objectives and winning like what happened to me at NOVA more than once.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OH! That's only 491 points and would take 4 turns.
I'm sure if you added the other 170 (say, 2 assault cannon razorbaks or the like) you could get it under 3 turns.
That does assume no artillery in the guard army, which is really the sticking point in your balance argument. The army with the best screen in the game should not also have the best long range no LOS shooting. If artillery were not so powerful a lot of this would be different. Your argument is that not all guard armies have this, and that is true, but it exists and as such is a balance issue. Now maybe it could be addressed for the artillery making them less effective (I've argued -1 to hit if they don't have LOS to the target). At which point the screen is less of an issue.
OH! That's only 491 points and would take 4 turns.
I'm sure if you added the other 170 (say, 2 assault cannon razorbaks or the like) you could get it under 3 turns.
And that's also if the characters do not participate in the assault, if you read melissia's post.
HAHAHAHA and how are these marines managing to shoot their full loadout and charge every round? And not taking ANY casualties? That is the worst example I've ever read.
Let me know when you stop running with those goalposts.
Breng77 wrote:That does assume no artillery in the guard army, which is really the sticking point in your balance argument. The army with the best screen in the game should not also have the best long range no LOS shooting. If artillery were not so powerful a lot of this would be different. Your argument is that not all guard armies have this, and that is true, but it exists and as such is a balance issue. Now maybe it could be addressed for the artillery making them less effective (I've argued -1 to hit if they don't have LOS to the target). At which point the screen is less of an issue.
So by nerfing the screen you therefore nerf every army that doesn't have artillery... and make even casual IG players have to bring artillery?
How about we complain about / nerf the artillery, rather than nerfing every single other army type than artillery?
Galas wrote: We need youtube memes. The hearthstone community can live with the eras of some totally toxic OP deck because they take it with a laugh. So, who wants to do some Conscripts memes? Maybe that way people will be less angry, all the time.
Spoiler:
As an avid HS player, the way the community survives "broken" decks is by running anti META decks. This is actually my favorite thing to do. When agro shaman was broken I ran a control warrior to legend that lost to 90% of other decks. But because 70% of the player base was running it i had a great overall win percentage. Last season Jade was dominating so I ran Barnes priest that had about a 70% win percentage against jade and about 35% against other decks, but because 80% of people on ladder were playing Jade it was an easy trip to legends. IMO the 40k scene just needs more anti-meta players. If someone is runnning the new broken list there is typically one strange build that can beat it 90% of the other times. What makes this harder in 40k is the models are expensive and take a long time to paint instead of making a new deck that takes a few minutes.
Let me know when you stop running with those goalposts.
I haven't changed the goalposts at all. I'm telling you the math is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off, because you're making assumptions in that statement that isn't based in reality. You're assuming that 200 conscripts can't kill a single Marine in 4 rounds for that math to work. That is not changing the goalposts. You're being absolutely ridiculous. If we can just ignore math I could have just said "well, you can get 800 conscripts for 4 points!" and when you say "no you can't" I just go STOP RUNNING WITH THE GOALPOSTS!
Yeah, you are right Asmodios. In Age of Sigmar for example, you had the meta competitive lists that where mortal wound spam, but nobody ran their "anti meta army" that was Hordes.
But the problem is that having a deck in Hearthstone and a Army in warhammer is like... hundreds of euros cheaper and you only need to spend like 20-30 minutes opening the packs and building your decks.
One can't expect the same kind of "meta adapting" mentality in a wargame than in a computer card game.
EDIT: Ok I should read posts to the last phrase before I respond to them, you already said this
He's not moving the goal posts when the example of how to remove the conscripts involves fully functional uninjured units and takes 3 turns.
As I said I am fine nerfing the artillery, but that tends to meet with the same resistance except on a fluff side, that it makes artillery need LOS to be good.
This is a game, and things need to be balanced for both players to have fun.
Purifier wrote:I haven't changed the goalposts at all. I'm telling you the math is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off, because you're making assumptions in that statement that isn't based in reality. You're assuming that 200 conscripts can't kill a single Marine in 4 rounds for that math to work. That is not changing the goalposts. You're being absolutely ridiculous. If we can just ignore math I could have just said "well, you can get 800 conscripts for 4 points!" and when you say "no you can't" I just go STOP RUNNING WITH THE GOALPOSTS!
This was your exact post, only edited to remove the quote you were replying to.
Purifier wrote:Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.
I think I did exactly what you asked. The fact that you have a problem with it isn't my fault.
Purifier wrote:I haven't changed the goalposts at all. I'm telling you the math is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off, because you're making assumptions in that statement that isn't based in reality. You're assuming that 200 conscripts can't kill a single Marine in 4 rounds for that math to work. That is not changing the goalposts. You're being absolutely ridiculous. If we can just ignore math I could have just said "well, you can get 800 conscripts for 4 points!" and when you say "no you can't" I just go STOP RUNNING WITH THE GOALPOSTS!
This was your exact post, only edited to remove the quote you were replying to.
Purifier wrote:Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.
I think I did exactly what you asked. The fact that you have a problem with it isn't my fault.
Do you honestly not understand how math works? You did NOT do what I asked. The unit you quoted can NOT take out the 660 points, since the conscripts at the worst of times have overwatch and can hit back. Realistically they would also be able to shoot at them with their full force between every round of combat the marines get.
Realistically, they'll get to do that manouvre once, and then the next round, whatever unit they walked into after killing the previous one walks away. The rest of the units fire in rapid fire range. The Marines are dead.
Purifier wrote:I haven't changed the goalposts at all. I'm telling you the math is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off, because you're making assumptions in that statement that isn't based in reality. You're assuming that 200 conscripts can't kill a single Marine in 4 rounds for that math to work. That is not changing the goalposts. You're being absolutely ridiculous. If we can just ignore math I could have just said "well, you can get 800 conscripts for 4 points!" and when you say "no you can't" I just go STOP RUNNING WITH THE GOALPOSTS!
This was your exact post, only edited to remove the quote you were replying to.
Purifier wrote:Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.
I think I did exactly what you asked. The fact that you have a problem with it isn't my fault.
Do you honestly not understand how math works? You did NOT do what I asked. The unit you quoted can NOT take out the 660 points, since the conscripts at the worst of times have overwatch and can hit back.
I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.
I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".
I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.
I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".
So I did.
.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?
I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.
I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".
So I did.
.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?
Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.
Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.
I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.
I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".
So I did.
.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?
Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.
Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.
Done.
Ok, there are now 150 left and it's the turn of the conscripts. The Marines are dead.
Nope, they didn't manage to wipe out 200 conscripts.
I can't believe the level of disingenuous you would have to be to pretend like you don't understand that the conscripts get to use their skills too when we're talking about balance.
I didn't state that the Marines get to fire their weapons either, so why did you do that in the example?
I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.
I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".
So I did.
.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?
Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.
Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.
Done.
Ok, there are now 550 left and it's the turn of the conscripts. The Marines are dead.
Nope, they didn't manage to wipe out 600 conscripts.
I can't believe the level of disingenuous you would have to be to pretend like you don't understand that the conscripts get to use their skills too when we're talking about balance.
I didn't state that the Marines get to fire their weapons either, so why did you do that in the example?
I assumed you were asking for a DPS check, like one might do in an MMO against a target-dummy NPC that doesn't fight back, to determine the DPS they have so that when it comes time to do an actual dungeon or whatever you know what everyone's max DPS is against a target that neither defends itself nor retaliates.
This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.
Galas wrote: Yeah, you are right Asmodios. In Age of Sigmar for example, you had the meta competitive lists that where mortal wound spam, but nobody ran their "anti meta army" that was Hordes.
But the problem is that having a deck in Hearthstone and a Army in warhammer is like... hundreds of euros cheaper and you only need to spend like 20-30 minutes opening the packs and building your decks.
One can't expect the same kind of "meta adapting" mentality in a wargame than in a computer card game.
EDIT: Ok I should read posts to the last phrase before I respond to them, you already said this
Yup quiet a bit cheaper hahaha.... One thing I also think people aren't taking into consideration is in games like HS all the balance changes take place at once, but you have to be patient with WH because it takes over a year. People keep comparing conscripts to grots... yes grots are worse and orks are in a tough spot right now but I expect they will be in a good spot after the codex drop it just takes a while. IMOGW has been updating at a great rate and what they have released has been solid, I wouldn't freak out much till after each book gets its codex. Also, lots of the issues stem from the Imperium being able to mix and match different armies. That's the equivalent of mixing class cards in HSimo there needs to be strict limitations or disadvantages for mixing. Of course, the orks codex will never be able to compete with the best units of like 10 codexes mashed together.
This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.
A DPS check has exactly zero relevance here, and it's completely obvious that this is the case. I'm terribly sorry that I didn't lay down the entirely obvious in text form.
Now please, try again, this time without making ridiculous assumptions.
This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.
A DPS check has exactly zero relevance here, and it's completely obvious that this is the case. I'm terribly sorry that I didn't lay down the entirely obvious in text form.
Now please, try again, this time without making ridiculous assumptions.
How about instead of wasting my time trying to draaaaaaag out of you whatever it is you're actually asking for, since apparently there are a bunch of unstated assumptions in every post and I'm risking stepping in a minefield by missing one, I just don't, and we can end it here. That seems like it would be the more reasonable response.
This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.
A DPS check has exactly zero relevance here, and it's completely obvious that this is the case. I'm terribly sorry that I didn't lay down the entirely obvious in text form.
Now please, try again, this time without making ridiculous assumptions.
How about instead of wasting my time trying to draaaaaaag out of you whatever it is you're actually asking for, since apparently there are a bunch of unstated assumptions in every post and I'm risking stepping on a minefield of missing one, I just don't, and we can end it here. That seems like it would be the more reasonable response.
I think anyone except for you is entirely capable of understanding that there has to be some kind of link to the actual game in the example. Besides, I wasn't even asking you when you dragged up something that was clearly completely wrong to respond to something that wasn't for you.
I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.
I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".
So I did.
.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?
Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.
Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.
Done.
Ok, there are now 550 left and it's the turn of the conscripts. The Marines are dead.
Nope, they didn't manage to wipe out 600 conscripts.
I can't believe the level of disingenuous you would have to be to pretend like you don't understand that the conscripts get to use their skills too when we're talking about balance.
I didn't state that the Marines get to fire their weapons either, so why did you do that in the example?
I assumed you were asking for a DPS check, like one might do in an MMO against a target-dummy NPC that doesn't fight back, to determine the DPS they have so that when it comes time to do an actual dungeon or whatever you know what everyone's max DPS is against a target that neither defends itself nor retaliates.
This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.
What I'm wondering is when did this go from "about 3x their points for a one-turn wipe" to "500-ish points of Marines can't wipe out 1800 points of conscripts (that's how much 600 conscripts cost), not good enough".
I would think it's pretty obvious why the conscripts don't get to shoot back in a one turn wipe. I also think it would be pretty obvious why suddenly throwing 550 more conscripts into the equation would suddenly swing it the other way. That's just a lot of extra points you've thrown in.
I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.
I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".
So I did.
.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?
Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.
Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.
Done.
Ok, there are now 550 left and it's the turn of the conscripts. The Marines are dead.
Nope, they didn't manage to wipe out 600 conscripts.
I can't believe the level of disingenuous you would have to be to pretend like you don't understand that the conscripts get to use their skills too when we're talking about balance.
I didn't state that the Marines get to fire their weapons either, so why did you do that in the example?
I assumed you were asking for a DPS check, like one might do in an MMO against a target-dummy NPC that doesn't fight back, to determine the DPS they have so that when it comes time to do an actual dungeon or whatever you know what everyone's max DPS is against a target that neither defends itself nor retaliates.
This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.
What I'm wondering is when did this go from "about 3x their points for a one-turn wipe" to "500-ish points of Marines can't wipe out 1800 points of conscripts (that's how much 600 conscripts cost), not good enough".
I would think it's pretty obvious why the conscripts don't get to shoot back in a one turn wipe. I also think it would be pretty obvious why suddenly throwing 550 more conscripts into the equation would suddenly swing it the other way. That's just a lot of extra points you've thrown in.
And I would think it's obvious that I wrote the numbers wrong and I did change them in an edit a while ago. There are still 150 that get to shoot. I mean honestly, the edit is 10 minutes before you posted...
It's obvious that Ross is dragging this out entirely. Seriously you think anyone is going to buy the fact that he was asking for something entirely unrelated? Who in 40k uses a DPS check like some odd MMO?
There's only one person here dragging the goalposts and it isn't Purifier.
Crazyterran wrote: Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.
Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...
I missed this, but i feel it needs addressing. The nazis were bad news (although this is cultural, some people/cultures deny the holocaust existed). But not all germans (like the military) actually liked the nazis. They just followed orders, and got dragged off at 3am in the morning if they didn't. Comparisons to the german airforce don't equate to the nazis. The wehrmacht existed before the nazis, as did most of the symbols and regalia that are now associated with the nazis. As for the "we haven't seen the whole book yet", yeah yeah i've heard that one before.
Im perfectly aware, i typically play Germany if i get the choice in those types of games (mostly because someone has to play the bad guy, partially because the Uniforms are cool). The higher ups that were not Nazis are typically ones that are well respected even after the war, like Rommel. The majority were Nazis, and while yes, their symbols and choice of mustaches were common and popular pre-Nazism, they now stand for one of the most vile regimes in Human history.
In the context in it was used, Conscript/Imperial players were being called Nazis without saying the actual word. Dont lecture us when you are cherry picking the context to get on a soap box about how not all Germans were Nazis. Anyone whos taken a cursory glance at a history book would know that.
Hey, looks are the most important part. What good is being good if you aren't stylin'? After all, the ladies call me Ranch because I be dressin'.
Well I can also tell you that 150 conscripts definitely won't wipe 500 points of marines in a single turn, especially without an officer to give them orders. Considering each shot only has a 1/27 chance of killing one at all.
Adjusting the marine force from under 500 to 660 will probably get you 10-15 more marines too, those extra marines will want to shoot a second squad because they already expect to wipe the first in combat. So the second squad will take a few losses plus a blam.
If the conscripts are all in rapid fire range, then they're close enough for those marines to consolidate into combat after they wipe the first squad. The squad they consolidate into will fall back of course, but without an officer now it can't fire.
So one squad is dead, one is damaged and can't fire. The marines will take about 5 casualties from the other two squads double tapping, then maaaybe 1 from overwatch, but are still more than strong enough to wipe the second and badly damage the third.
Overall I'd expect the marines to win in 3-4 turns depending on things like overkill and transitions between squads, taking 15 casualties give or take about 3. With orders they'll take more of course, but on four squads that's another 60 points to play with.
In 30 man squads it gets a bit more complicated but basically the marines will want to split their attention to kill two squads at a time, ideally allocating excess firepower onto a third. The big thing will be to avoid wasting fire on overkill. However in 7 squads (6 30s and a 20) you'll need four officers for 120 points if you want to add orders. The marines will also take far less overwatch, because any individual squad they assault will have fewer models surviving the shooting phase. Just the squad nerf alone is great for the marines, if they fail an order that's just a bonus.
What chapter of Marines and how are their squads built. For example Ultamarines with their +1 running 5 man squads don't really have to worry about morale.
That depends very heavily on how the marine player deployed their squads. In general though, because of their high LD and ATSKNF, morale losses should be negligible outside of really bad rolls. If the Marines are MSU, even the worst roll will only ever see them take 1 loss to morale: a 6 after 3 losses, a 5 or 6 after 4 losses with 1 survivor. Due to re-rolls, these have a chance of 1/36 and 1/9 respectively
The 50% on the table restriction should vary by army. In a soup detachment, 100% must be on the table. Specific armies get a percentage on the table, similar to the new chapter tactics everyone is getting.
There is a fundamental flaw in 8th edition conception. The fact that detachment slots are basically unlimited (you can get 18 Troop slots) means that someone could bring 500 Conscripts to a game and basically just sit on objectives and win without throwing a single die (it takes 1687 bolter shots to kill them all. No army has this kind of firepower).
I enjoy that I just read "The fundamental flaw in 8th edition is that people can take too many troops."
Funny thing about fluff... For your opponent, a fluffy list also happens to be the most powerful list he can put together. Because he builds the list first and rationalizes the fluff later. For you, a fluffy list is any list your opponent can beat. Because they decide which units they don't like first, and rationalize why those units are unfluffy later. :p
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.
haha, bugs me.
Yup if not completely out I would at least have liked to see faction benefits only gained if your entire army shares the relevant keyword.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.
haha, bugs me.
Yup if not completely out I would at least have liked to see faction benefits only gained if your entire army shares the relevant keyword.
I guess two or more keywords could cover it? Not just Imperial but, Imperial and Space Marine <Chapter> or whatever. (Don't have books on me)
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.
haha, bugs me.
Yup if not completely out I would at least have liked to see faction benefits only gained if your entire army shares the relevant keyword.
I guess two or more keywords could cover it? Not just Imperial but, Imperial and Space Marine <Chapter> or whatever. (Don't have books on me)
I was more thinking that to get say the ultra marines Chapter tactics and strategems would require your entire army to have the ultra marines keyword, with the exception of maybe an inquisitor/assassin. Or maybe except a single auxiliary detachment from needing the keyword or something. That way you can play soup if you want, but you don't gain any army specific benefits from your "chapter". So your space marine army cannot have say Raven Guard for some troops, but Ultra Marines for your gunline with Guiliman. But you could take just RG as an aux detachment and keep your Raven Guard CT.
Part of the problem is the keyword and ally system has been built into the game fundamentally. A lot of small factions, GSC, custodes and inquisitors for example, would need overhauls to work with a revamped version requiring greater unity.
On the other hand, works great for chaos. I can go all CSM of different types, or mix demons and CSM if they are all dedicated to a single god.
So I do like the idea, but it isn't something you could just slap on as a rule for matched play without overhauling a few armies and altering keywords. Giving custodes and GSC a rule ignoring it (as GSC already sorta has) and adding the inquisition keyword to a number of existing armies (SoB, deathwatch, and grey knights) for example.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
The most I've ever seen was 200, with 100-150 being closer to the norm.
Hmmm, aren't commisars Officio Prefectus? So they need to be in a different detachment, and that detachment isn't gonna have Regiment special rules, not even making it a Tempestus Scions detachment.
SilverAlien wrote: Part of the problem is the keyword and ally system has been built into the game fundamentally. A lot of small factions, GSC, custodes and inquisitors for example, would need overhauls to work with a revamped version requiring greater unity.
On the other hand, works great for chaos. I can go all CSM of different types, or mix demons and CSM if they are all dedicated to a single god.
So I do like the idea, but it isn't something you could just slap on as a rule for matched play without overhauling a few armies and altering keywords. Giving custodes and GSC a rule ignoring it (as GSC already sorta has) and adding the inquisition keyword to a number of existing armies (SoB, deathwatch, and grey knights) for example.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
The most I've ever seen was 200, with 100-150 being closer to the norm.
It would be easy for GSC, you just tack a sentence into the Blood Brothers rule that says that their IG detachment does not negate their CT. But if they ally nids then they give up CT.
For incomplete armies like Inquisition/Assassins you could go a couple of ways (potentially both).
1.) For assassins State that units from these codices may be included in imperium armies without effecting CT 2.) For Inquisition Give the ordos their own traits, and state that these armies can include any imperium units but restrict taking any non-inquisition HQ choices.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.
haha, bugs me.
Yup if not completely out I would at least have liked to see faction benefits only gained if your entire army shares the relevant keyword.
I guess two or more keywords could cover it? Not just Imperial but, Imperial and Space Marine <Chapter> or whatever. (Don't have books on me)
I was more thinking that to get say the ultra marines Chapter tactics and strategems would require your entire army to have the ultra marines keyword, with the exception of maybe an inquisitor/assassin. Or maybe except a single auxiliary detachment from needing the keyword or something. That way you can play soup if you want, but you don't gain any army specific benefits from your "chapter". So your space marine army cannot have say Raven Guard for some troops, but Ultra Marines for your gunline with Guiliman. But you could take just RG as an aux detachment and keep your Raven Guard CT.
I think I would retain the Chapter tactics and strategems, but start knocking off CPs instead. I feel like the Space Marines would still be able to fight as they normally do even if paired up with IG, but overall command coordination might be less efficient. Something like lose the +3 CP bonus for Battleforged seems more appropriate to me.
Anyways, I like the idea of soup reduction, but we've drifted off topic.
More on-topic, I'm happy that it appears like GW has not made sweeping changes to conscripts. A chance to fumble orders and limited squad sizes is much better than increasing costs for them or some of the other proposed changes. I look forward to seeing them in full codex context though.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.
haha, bugs me.
Yup if not completely out I would at least have liked to see faction benefits only gained if your entire army shares the relevant keyword.
I guess two or more keywords could cover it? Not just Imperial but, Imperial and Space Marine <Chapter> or whatever. (Don't have books on me)
I was more thinking that to get say the ultra marines Chapter tactics and strategems would require your entire army to have the ultra marines keyword, with the exception of maybe an inquisitor/assassin. Or maybe except a single auxiliary detachment from needing the keyword or something. That way you can play soup if you want, but you don't gain any army specific benefits from your "chapter". So your space marine army cannot have say Raven Guard for some troops, but Ultra Marines for your gunline with Guiliman. But you could take just RG as an aux detachment and keep your Raven Guard CT.
I think I would retain the Chapter tactics and strategems, but start knocking off CPs instead. I feel like the Space Marines would still be able to fight as they normally do even if paired up with IG, but overall command coordination might be less efficient. Something like lose the +3 CP bonus for Battleforged seems more appropriate to me.
Anyways, I like the idea of soup reduction, but we've drifted off topic.
More on-topic, I'm happy that it appears like GW has not made sweeping changes to conscripts. A chance to fumble orders and limited squad sizes is much better than increasing costs for them or some of the other proposed changes. I look forward to seeing them in full codex context though.
Make it so you have to elect your primary army (say Space Marines, Ad Mech etc), and any detachment from a different book wouldn't grant any command points gained for the detachment.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.
haha, bugs me.
Yup if not completely out I would at least have liked to see faction benefits only gained if your entire army shares the relevant keyword.
I guess two or more keywords could cover it? Not just Imperial but, Imperial and Space Marine <Chapter> or whatever. (Don't have books on me)
I was more thinking that to get say the ultra marines Chapter tactics and strategems would require your entire army to have the ultra marines keyword, with the exception of maybe an inquisitor/assassin. Or maybe except a single auxiliary detachment from needing the keyword or something. That way you can play soup if you want, but you don't gain any army specific benefits from your "chapter". So your space marine army cannot have say Raven Guard for some troops, but Ultra Marines for your gunline with Guiliman. But you could take just RG as an aux detachment and keep your Raven Guard CT.
I think I would retain the Chapter tactics and strategems, but start knocking off CPs instead. I feel like the Space Marines would still be able to fight as they normally do even if paired up with IG, but overall command coordination might be less efficient. Something like lose the +3 CP bonus for Battleforged seems more appropriate to me.
Anyways, I like the idea of soup reduction, but we've drifted off topic.
More on-topic, I'm happy that it appears like GW has not made sweeping changes to conscripts. A chance to fumble orders and limited squad sizes is much better than increasing costs for them or some of the other proposed changes. I look forward to seeing them in full codex context though.
I don't think the CP knock is far enough as it is too easy, especially for imperial armies, to have a ton of CP. IT has little to do with "they would fight as normal" and more to do with the game mechanics giving your a benefit for restricting your choices. Right now with the detachment based system the restriction on CT is basically non-existent. I think if you said "your whole army must be x to benefit from x tactics" then people would have a real choice to make.
Hollow wrote: Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?
Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.
This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.
I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.
haha, bugs me.
Yup if not completely out I would at least have liked to see faction benefits only gained if your entire army shares the relevant keyword.
I guess two or more keywords could cover it? Not just Imperial but, Imperial and Space Marine <Chapter> or whatever. (Don't have books on me)
I was more thinking that to get say the ultra marines Chapter tactics and strategems would require your entire army to have the ultra marines keyword, with the exception of maybe an inquisitor/assassin. Or maybe except a single auxiliary detachment from needing the keyword or something. That way you can play soup if you want, but you don't gain any army specific benefits from your "chapter". So your space marine army cannot have say Raven Guard for some troops, but Ultra Marines for your gunline with Guiliman. But you could take just RG as an aux detachment and keep your Raven Guard CT.
I think I would retain the Chapter tactics and strategems, but start knocking off CPs instead. I feel like the Space Marines would still be able to fight as they normally do even if paired up with IG, but overall command coordination might be less efficient. Something like lose the +3 CP bonus for Battleforged seems more appropriate to me.
Anyways, I like the idea of soup reduction, but we've drifted off topic.
More on-topic, I'm happy that it appears like GW has not made sweeping changes to conscripts. A chance to fumble orders and limited squad sizes is much better than increasing costs for them or some of the other proposed changes. I look forward to seeing them in full codex context though.
Make it so you have to elect your primary army (say Space Marines, Ad Mech etc), and any detachment from a different book wouldn't grant any command points gained for the detachment.
Then you just pick the one giving you a ton of CP, and you lose a couple from the elite detachments.
Galas wrote: Hmmm, aren't commisars Officio Prefectus? So they need to be in a different detachment, and that detachment isn't gonna have Regiment special rules, not even making it a Tempestus Scions detachment.
You mean in the actual Guard codex? Surely it's just going to be like: "You get doctrines if all units in a detachment with a <REGIMENT> keyword have the same one. Officio Prefectus, Aeronautica Imperialis, etc. are not <REGIMENTS>." Like how Chaos Marines deal with the Fallen and Fabius Bile.
Galas wrote: Hmmm, aren't commisars Officio Prefectus? So they need to be in a different detachment, and that detachment isn't gonna have Regiment special rules, not even making it a Tempestus Scions detachment.
You mean in the actual Guard codex? Surely it's just going to be like: "You get doctrines if all units in a detachment with a <REGIMENT> keyword have the same one. Officio Prefectus, Aeronautica Imperialis, etc. are not <REGIMENTS>." Like how Chaos Marines deal with the Fallen and Fabius Bile.
one of the previews went over it. All the auxilia are just given a blanket exception and don't interfere with or receive regiment tactics. We can even still bring scions in a cadian regiment for example, they just don't get their own regiment tactic or the cadian one. But it doesn't interfere.
However, units like my vindicare would block my regiment tactic, which is a real damn shame. He'll have to have his own detachment with the other black sheep.
He does for everyone, and that's good. Should be more things like that, where getting something from another army isn't just free stuff. I'd like to see things like "detachments from a different codex than your main detachment doesn't get the extra Command Points."
I mean, you say that but currently the detachment system is going to be my saving grace. I can use some of my R&H stuff to make a decent IG detachment to go along with my admech. Tech thralls as conscripts (at least till fires comes out), the leman russes that have been gathering dust the entire time I owned them, and whatever artillery is still good this edition.
Whst's funny to me is that my admech are now in the position my CSM were last edition, where I'm allying with guard/R&H just to be decent. I think my R&H models have been the single best investment I've ever made in this hobby.
The problem they made with these separate codecies or over powered factions is that it's not fun for both players. The IG player doesn't like that they now play on easy mode with no need to use tactics or even move (if you just role some dice every turn you might as well play a game without models). And none codex factions get sick of losing every week against stacked odds. It doesn't sell figures to the majority and just kills the game over time. The huge boom in sales during thd index period should show how fun the game became but now it's slowly feeling like a bunch of the play testers are fixing the system for their own reasons. In the end, when all thd codex stuff is out, everything will probably be fine again as every faction is op balancing out everyone but now players have to deal with months of meh.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Chapter Approved will likely limit the amount of allies you can bring just like the GHB2017 did for AoS.
A week ago that might've helped some, but now it'd make things worse. So hopefully they won't do that unless they want the game to be even less balanced.
lolman1c wrote: The problem they made with these separate codecies or over powered factions is that it's not fun for both players. The IG player doesn't like that they now play on easy mode with no need to use tactics or even move (if you just role some dice every turn you might as well play a game without models). And none codex factions get sick of losing every week against stacked odds. It doesn't sell figures to the majority and just kills the game over time. The huge boom in sales during thd index period should show how fun the game became but now it's slowly feeling like a bunch of the play testers are fixing the system for their own reasons. In the end, when all thd codex stuff is out, everything will probably be fine again as every faction is op balancing out everyone but now players have to deal with months of meh.
That's assuming the rest of the codices are on guard level, not the mediocrity that preceded the IG codex. Even then all the early codices will be screwed, which is a bit annoying as someone whose main armies all fell into that window. Guess we need to see what nids and eldar do.
pismakron wrote: > That's assuming the rest of the codices are on guard level, not the mediocrity that preceded the IG codex.
What mediocrity? Has there been any mediocre codices in 8th edition?
None of the codices have been mediocre, but none of them have raised the power level bar past where it was in the Indexes. All the Codex Armies were still getting beat by Index Guard, and now Guard is better than it was in the Index...
pismakron wrote: > That's assuming the rest of the codices are on guard level, not the mediocrity that preceded the IG codex.
What mediocrity? Has there been any mediocre codices in 8th edition?
I mean, they generally haven't done anything major to the armies (barring DG because it was barely an army before). They had some decent options but nothing mind blowing. Not compared to the IG codex at least.
That's kinda the thing, this wasn't a case of every codex being more powerful than the last, this is one codex that fundamentally does not sit on the same power curve as the rest, which are all ballpark with one another.
Hollow wrote: And suprise suprise, it's the same old usual suspects crying that the sky is falling. Will they ever tire?
"Hey, remember when these guys pointed out how broken conscripts were and said that they'd be a must take for any serious imperial army? And remember when this turned out to 100% be correct and they've become an omnipresent staple of the tournament scene? Well those people are at it again! When will they stop "jumping" to totally correct conclusions based on basic math and logic!"
Seriously, I watched thread after thread of people defending broken units even as evidence continued to mount and they gave up and went quiet. Maybe pattern recognition would help some of you.
Hollow wrote: And suprise suprise, it's the same old usual suspects crying that the sky is falling. Will they ever tire?
"Hey, remember when these guys pointed out how broken conscripts were and said that they'd be a must take for any serious imperial army? And remember when this turned out to 100% be correct and they've become an omnipresent staple of the tournament scene? Well those people are at it again! When will they stop "jumping" to totally correct conclusions based on basic math and logic!"
Seriously, I watched thread after thread of people defending broken units even as evidence continued to mount and they gave up and went quiet. Maybe pattern recognition would help some of you.
To be fair, half of those people also called out three to ten other things to be broken as well and were wrong on most of them.
I have no problem (In fact, I like) when people use math and logic to rationally discuss and breakdown codexes. When people start crying that the whole book is broken, therefore the whole game is broken, when a book hasn't even been released yet. That gets on my nerves.
Jidmah wrote: To be fair, half of those people also called out three to ten other things to be broken as well and were wrong on most of them.
True, I originally thought index noise marines were really good for example. But again, a lot of those were reactions to an entirely new edition based on past information. 5 codices in we have a much better idea what the norms for this edition are:
Jidmah wrote: To be fair, half of those people also called out three to ten other things to be broken as well and were wrong on most of them.
Conscripts were obviously good however you sliced it.
The "its impossible for 240 points of [X] to kill 240 points of Necron warriors" panic fortunately died down pretty fast.
Hollow wrote: I have no problem (In fact, I like) when people use math and logic to rationally discuss and breakdown codexes. When people start crying that the whole book is broken, therefore the whole game is broken, when a book hasn't even been released yet. That gets on my nerves.
The whole book isn't broken, that is hyperbole to a degree. But the codex is already undeniably superior to the previous codices. The strongest WT yet released is in it as a generic trait for any regiment for example, and said trait is a direct upgrade of many existing WTs. Similarly the relics are without a doubt the best we've seen so far. The stratagems perhaps not, but the doctrines applying to everything and giving some really strong benefits again are directly superior to basically everything we've seen before, barring Stygies admech as the singular exception.
This codex is without a doubt codex creep, and that bodes poorly for the edition moving forward. It shows that, even with the undeniably simplified 8th edition, balance isn't going to last. Which kinda makes a lot of us wonder why we should play such a basic system if GW still can't balance even this. I'm kinda curious what the HH code rulebook ends up looking like myself.
Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
master of ordinance wrote: Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
Well, personally I include "marine fanwank" in the same broken boat as Imperial Guard, as they are all basically one big army that keeps getting all the best rules and models from GW.
Currently, you could take a fairly varied selection of "imperial soup" units, and easily take on a similar ork/eldar/tau force 25% bigger than you, and still have a strong chance of winning. (Varied selection meaning a fluffy list, or a variety of "decent" units).
If you took the uber OP spam list of imperial soup, then you could increase that margin by a bit.
The only hope Xenos have is to only run their "best" units in a spam list, which pretty much means 200+ boyz plus ghazzy, or nothing but Commanders. But even with such totally boring cheese lists as these, it only gives Xenos a *chance* to win. Odds are still heavily in the favour of the uberkilly IG/Marine fanwank you love so much.
I'm just glad I don't play tournaments, I'm more into this hobby for the fun and the fluff and the modelling. But it doesn't mean I don't still get annoyed at the obvious favourtism going on, and the way people on here seem to be trying to deny it with a straight face.
master of ordinance wrote: Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
Dude, you're like the 10th person to make this exsact comment. It's not smart, original or helpful and with the amount of discussion it's clear that something is not right. I've played orks for the last few editions so I've never experienced in my army this magical unit you described but what I do know is that units which were actually wiping my entire army out turn one have just been buffed. And then buffed some more... This would be fine if the other codex stuff showed similar traits but surprisingly, the factions I'm used to getting whipped by, are underwhelming for once. Which makes the IG codex unusual and a lot of people who paid good money on their codex want to know why. It would be like going to a restaurant and buying the same meal as those at the other table. Waiter comes out and gives you a pretty average meal. You're disappointed because you had waited long but it's just fine. Then suddenly the chief himself comes out and walks over to the other table with what looks like an amazing feast. So much effort and thought must have gone into that meal! You sit there confused and feeling robbed. You're in the same place, you ordered the same thing, you paid the same price but the other customer was given special attention. Now imagine you have also been loyal to this restaurant for many many years.... the big problem gw has now is if the following codex seems mediocre. If so, the hate for ig will rise as other factions can't understand why they give gw all this money only to be handed a unloved and rushed peice of work. However, if it is just as great then we will presume this is the new balance and continue our small little lives.
master of ordinance wrote: Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
Well, personally I include "marine fanwank" in the same broken boat as Imperial Guard, as they are all basically one big army that keeps getting all the best rules and models from GW.
Currently, you could take a fairly varied selection of "imperial soup" units, and easily take on a similar ork/eldar/tau force 25% bigger than you, and still have a strong chance of winning. (Varied selection meaning a fluffy list, or a variety of "decent" units).
If you took the uber OP spam list of imperial soup, then you could increase that margin by a bit.
The only hope Xenos have is to only run their "best" units in a spam list, which pretty much means 200+ boyz plus ghazzy, or nothing but Commanders. But even with such totally boring cheese lists as these, it only gives Xenos a *chance* to win. Odds are still heavily in the favour of the uberkilly IG/Marine fanwank you love so much.
I'm just glad I don't play tournaments, I'm more into this hobby for the fun and the fluff and the modelling. But it doesn't mean I don't still get annoyed at the obvious favourtism going on, and the way people on here seem to be trying to deny it with a straight face.
Aren't internet trolls fun?
In all seriousness though, it's baffling that Games Workshop made the decision to focus on the armies that could ally with each other in a mega faction first before helping the armies that suffered the most form the ally system of 8th.
master of ordinance wrote: Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
Alright, I'm saying it's broken as a Skitarii and Necron player.
Hollow wrote: I have no problem (In fact, I like) when people use math and logic to rationally discuss and breakdown codexes. When people start crying that the whole book is broken, therefore the whole game is broken, when a book hasn't even been released yet. That gets on my nerves.
The whole book isn't broken, that is hyperbole to a degree. But the codex is already undeniably superior to the previous codices. The strongest WT yet released is in it as a generic trait for any regiment for example, and said trait is a direct upgrade of many existing WTs. Similarly the relics are without a doubt the best we've seen so far. The stratagems perhaps not, but the doctrines applying to everything and giving some really strong benefits again are directly superior to basically everything we've seen before, barring Stygies admech as the singular exception.
This codex is without a doubt codex creep, and that bodes poorly for the edition moving forward. It shows that, even with the undeniably simplified 8th edition, balance isn't going to last. Which kinda makes a lot of us wonder why we should play such a basic system if GW still can't balance even this. I'm kinda curious what the HH code rulebook ends up looking like myself.
One over the top codex makes not a creep.
If the next one/few are as good, it is creep.
If not, than it's an outlier.
Unfortunately, guard seems to be indeed too good right now with the codex.
The conscript nerf was good enough, had they not received so many buffs elsewhere, and spiced it up with great traits and relics.
Hopefully we will see either a tune down in chapter approved, or a tune up for the previous codcies.
master of ordinance wrote: Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
Well, personally I include "marine fanwank" in the same broken boat as Imperial Guard, as they are all basically one big army that keeps getting all the best rules and models from GW.
Currently, you could take a fairly varied selection of "imperial soup" units, and easily take on a similar ork/eldar/tau force 25% bigger than you, and still have a strong chance of winning. (Varied selection meaning a fluffy list, or a variety of "decent" units).
If you took the uber OP spam list of imperial soup, then you could increase that margin by a bit.
The only hope Xenos have is to only run their "best" units in a spam list, which pretty much means 200+ boyz plus ghazzy, or nothing but Commanders. But even with such totally boring cheese lists as these, it only gives Xenos a *chance* to win. Odds are still heavily in the favour of the uberkilly IG/Marine fanwank you love so much.
I'm just glad I don't play tournaments, I'm more into this hobby for the fun and the fluff and the modelling. But it doesn't mean I don't still get annoyed at the obvious favourtism going on, and the way people on here seem to be trying to deny it with a straight face.
Aren't internet trolls fun?
In all seriousness though, it's baffling that Games Workshop made the decision to focus on the armies that could ally with each other in a mega faction first before helping the armies that suffered the most form the ally system of 8th.
100% agree! We ork players now have to deal with these imperial players for month s until we get a codex which will be underwhelming and disappointing. Then we'll have to deal with a few more years of it untill fans start to design their own balanced codex, get a cease and desist from gw and ork players go underground playing illegal fan games of 40k and gw slowly removes orks for not being grim and dark enough. We will be hunted for sport by gw store managers!
master of ordinance wrote: Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
Alright, I'm saying it's broken as a Skitarii and Necron player.
Ball is in your court.
As someone who plays Marines(three different flavors because I have no self-control) but not Imperial Soup Marines and Skitarii, I say it's broken as well.
master of ordinance wrote: Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
Alright, I'm saying it's broken as a Skitarii and Necron player.
Ball is in your court.
As someone who plays Marines(three different flavors because I have no self-control) but not Imperial Soup Marines and Skitarii, I say it's broken as well.
As an Imperial Guard and Necron player, the codex is certainly broken.
I just want to know the thought process of removing SHV of their to hit penalty (which made sense), but then increasing the reliability of their shots on a decent portion of them (of which I am jealous of), WHILE dropping their points.
Why the point decrease? What is the point of Imperial Knights now?
Quickjager wrote: I just want to know the thought process of removing SHV of their to hit penalty (which made sense), but then increasing the reliability of their shots on a decent portion of them (of which I am jealous of), WHILE dropping their points.
Why the point decrease? What is the point of Imperial Knights now?
Imperial Knights are still usable alternatives though, even if they're not "quite" up to the same standard.
Meanwhile, in Xenotown, Eldar Wraithknights had their stats nerfed, while having their points cost almost doubled, so they are now totally unplayable.
And Ork Stompas...
You remember when Indiana Jones was a great and beloved movie trilogy, and then George Lucas dug up Indy's body, painted him up like a whore, and defiled him over and over and released the sex-tape as "The Crystal Skull"? Pretty much what the Orks had done to them.
So yeh, I have to agree, I don't understand why they gave superheavies (sorry, I mean *Imperial* superheavies) a buff, while making them cheaper, and then did the exact opposite with all the other army's big stuff regardless of whether it was necessary or not.
Quickjager wrote: I just want to know the thought process of removing SHV of their to hit penalty (which made sense), but then increasing the reliability of their shots on a decent portion of them (of which I am jealous of), WHILE dropping their points.
Why the point decrease? What is the point of Imperial Knights now?
Imperial Knights are still usable alternatives though, even if they're not "quite" up to the same standard.
Meanwhile, in Xenotown, Eldar Wraithknights had their stats nerfed, while having their points cost almost doubled, so they are now totally unplayable.
And Ork Stompas...
You remember when Indiana Jones was a great and beloved movie trilogy, and then George Lucas dug up Indy's body, painted him up like a whore, and defiled him over and over and released the sex-tape as "The Crystal Skull"? Pretty much what the Orks had done to them.
So yeh, I have to agree, I don't understand why they gave superheavies (sorry, I mean *Imperial* superheavies) a buff, while making them cheaper, and then did the exact opposite with all the other army's big stuff regardless of whether it was necessary or not.
Comparing two Indices to a not-released Codex, though. What if the upcoming Eldar Codex and the eventual Ork Codex brings them up to an equally competitive level?
master of ordinance wrote: Aah, good to see the same old complainers are out in force, stating that the Guard are going to br brokenly OP. I think the word they are actually looking for is 'competitive' and 'not underpowered', maybe even 'balanced'.
Although to be fair, these are the people whom classify 'broken' as 'my unit of uberkilly marine fanwank cant wipe it out in turn 1', so there is that to consider.
Alright, I'm saying it's broken as a Skitarii and Necron player.
Ball is in your court.
As someone who plays Marines(three different flavors because I have no self-control) but not Imperial Soup Marines and Skitarii, I say it's broken as well.
As an Imperial Guard and Necron player, the codex is certainly broken.
I think a lot of Guard players are legitimately afraid they will be this edition's Eldar. If I was a Guard player, I would be concerned about whether or not people will play against me. But don't worry, Eldar are next so you might be off the hook as being the undisputed top tier army.
Well, except for index craftworld eldar which was fairly bad. Ynnari and Harlequins have been the only particularly strong eldar... so far.
It honestly remains to be seen if IG is a one off power spike or the start of actual creep. Or the first 5 codices were just kinda bad, with the later ones having more thought out into them.
Just watched the rather epic Death Guard v Astra Militarum battle report on Table Top Tactics. Guard won... by 1 point. Was nice to see some of the new orders and stratagems being used. There is no denying that there are a good few powerful choices and options but there is nothing I have seen yet that would make me say it is any more viable than any of the other Codexes we've seen so far.
Hollow wrote: Just watched the rather epic Death Guard v Astra Militarum battle report on Table Top Tactics. Guard won... by 1 point. Was nice to see some of the new orders and stratagems being used. There is no denying that there are a good few powerful choices and options but there is nothing I have seen yet that would make me say it is any more viable than any of the other Codexes we've seen so far.
Well... I guess we now know that what may be one of the worst possible DG lists I could imagine isn't that much behind a merely bad IG list. So that's uh... that's a thing.
If you wanna give any details (I don't have the attention span to watch a four hour video that closely) feel free, I'd love more information on how the DG player even got that close.
SilverAlien wrote: Well, except for index craftworld eldar which was fairly bad. Ynnari and Harlequins have been the only particularly strong eldar... so far.
It honestly remains to be seen if IG is a one off power spike or the start of actual creep. Or the first 5 codices were just kinda bad, with the later ones having more thought out into them.
That is what I am afraid of. They could try to swing the pendulum of Eldar power back toward the middle and overshoot. I am very much not happy with Eldar being pretty bad. I just don't want to see them go hilariously overpowered in response.
One thing that is annoying me about some sects of the fandom is that people bring up past editions and power level as a justification for armies being good or bad in the current edition. Yes, Guard wasn't good in 6/7e, but making them OP like they are now (even before the Codex) is not the solution any more than nerfing Eldar into the dirt because 6/7e. I shouldn't HAVE to bring Guilliman with my Crimson Fists to be competitive with Guard. It doesn't help that Imperial Fists have the worst Chapter Tactics, a mediocre Strategem, and Crimson Fists have a terrible Warlord Trait (even their relic is a bit blah).
Quickjager wrote: I just want to know the thought process of removing SHV of their to hit penalty (which made sense), but then increasing the reliability of their shots on a decent portion of them (of which I am jealous of), WHILE dropping their points.
Why the point decrease? What is the point of Imperial Knights now?
Imperial Knights are still usable alternatives though, even if they're not "quite" up to the same standard.
Meanwhile, in Xenotown, Eldar Wraithknights had their stats nerfed, while having their points cost almost doubled, so they are now totally unplayable.
The entire Tau army barring the Commander and drones would like a word with you.
Quickjager wrote: I just want to know the thought process of removing SHV of their to hit penalty (which made sense), but then increasing the reliability of their shots on a decent portion of them (of which I am jealous of), WHILE dropping their points.
Why the point decrease? What is the point of Imperial Knights now?
Imperial Knights are still usable alternatives though, even if they're not "quite" up to the same standard.
Meanwhile, in Xenotown, Eldar Wraithknights had their stats nerfed, while having their points cost almost doubled, so they are now totally unplayable.
The entire Tau army barring the Commander and drones would like a word with you.
Total nonsense. All T'au need are a few point reductions. That's literally it.
Quickjager wrote: I just want to know the thought process of removing SHV of their to hit penalty (which made sense), but then increasing the reliability of their shots on a decent portion of them (of which I am jealous of), WHILE dropping their points.
Why the point decrease? What is the point of Imperial Knights now?
Imperial Knights are still usable alternatives though, even if they're not "quite" up to the same standard.
Meanwhile, in Xenotown, Eldar Wraithknights had their stats nerfed, while having their points cost almost doubled, so they are now totally unplayable.
The entire Tau army barring the Commander and drones would like a word with you.
Total nonsense. All T'au need are a few point reductions. That's literally it.
The markerlight streamlining seriously broke them so they'd also need a rework.
Would need to do a bit more than tweak pts values to create a clear, effective break between Crisis suit squads and Commanders.
Loss of JSJ is a tough pill to swallow.
Pts tweaks would go a long way to fixing Tau, but there are some underlying issues and loss of flavor/theme to address.
Quickjager wrote: I just want to know the thought process of removing SHV of their to hit penalty (which made sense), but then increasing the reliability of their shots on a decent portion of them (of which I am jealous of), WHILE dropping their points.
Why the point decrease? What is the point of Imperial Knights now?
Imperial Knights are still usable alternatives though, even if they're not "quite" up to the same standard.
Meanwhile, in Xenotown, Eldar Wraithknights had their stats nerfed, while having their points cost almost doubled, so they are now totally unplayable.
The entire Tau army barring the Commander and drones would like a word with you.
Total nonsense. All T'au need are a few point reductions. That's literally it.
The markerlight streamlining seriously broke them so they'd also need a rework.
Would need to do a bit more than tweak pts values to create a clear, effective break between Crisis suit squads and Commanders.
Loss of JSJ is a tough pill to swallow.
Pts tweaks would go a long way to fixing Tau, but there are some underlying issues and loss of flavor/theme to address.
My biggest issue is it is increasingly the case that Tau "unique" features have been spread out among other armies, the latest being cadians can replicate the highest impact parts of the markerlight table in a sort of similar manner with their stratagem. I don't really see how they can make their basic rules different to what can be done with other armies to a greater or lesser degree without pulling something out of a magic hat.
Arachnofiend wrote: None of the codices have been mediocre, but none of them have raised the power level bar past where it was in the Indexes.
Space Marines did, and did so enormously.
Guilliman existed before the codex, and the two major new power players in C:SM (Raven Guard and Salamanders) both don't get any benefit out of him. And none of these things are superior than Index Guard, so... my point stands.
Arachnofiend wrote: Guilliman existed before the codex, and the two major new power players in C:SM (Raven Guard and Salamanders) both don't get any benefit out of him. And none of these things are superior than Index Guard, so... my point stands.
Funny you should mention RG and Sallies; both of them got a massive power boost out of the codex, in fact I would say they've been resurgent BECAUSE of the massive power boost the codex gave them. Along with across-the-board points reductions and generally better rules, they got solid bonus rules for free plus good stratagems and relics.
A Space Marine player playing off the index is flat out weaker than the one playing off the codex, and noticeably so. So no, your point doesn't stand.
Arachnofiend wrote: Guilliman existed before the codex, and the two major new power players in C:SM (Raven Guard and Salamanders) both don't get any benefit out of him. And none of these things are superior than Index Guard, so... my point stands.
Funny you should mention RG and Sallies; both of them got a massive power boost out of the codex, in fact I would say they've been resurgent BECAUSE of the massive power boost the codex gave them. Along with across-the-board points reductions and generally better rules, they got solid bonus rules for free plus good stratagems and relics.
A Space Marine player playing off the index is flat out weaker than the one playing off the codex, and noticeably so, and if you had paid any attention to the differences you'd have noticed that. So no, your point doesn't stand, it's a point made out of ignorance.
You're arguing against a point I didn't make. Space Marines got better than they were in the Index, obviously, but they didn't get better than the best faction at the time of the C:SM's publication. Space Marines needed some adjustments upwards (especially, y'know, non-Ultramarines) and the adjustments were thankfully reserved enough that they didn't come out of it clearly on top of the pack, merely "very good". The same can be said for the CSM codex.
Personally I consider both Marine codexes to be great successes because things that weren't good got better while the things that were already good stayed the same. I would have nerfed Guilliman if it was up to me, of course, but I guess it can't be perfect.
Actually, you're arguing against a point I didn't make, because apparently you didn't read my post before responding.
In fact, you're arguing for a point YOU didn't make, because the post I responded to didn't even mention Guilliman, you moved the goalposts after the fact. The post I responded to had nothing to do with him. You claimed, and I quote:
Arachnofiend wrote: None of the codices have been mediocre, but none of them have raised the power level bar past where it was in the Indexes.
This is objectively false. Space Marines, the very first codex, raised the power level bar well beyond what it was at in the indexes, and Marines not represented in with a codex (BA, SW, DA) still suffer from being weaker than the codex marines by a long shot.
My original point was "none of the codexes are better than Guard was in its Index version, so the top end of what's powerful has not risen since the Indexes." I'd like to believe you read that since you took the time to crop it out of the quote, but...
Arachnofiend wrote: My original point was "none of the codexes are better than Guard was in its Index version, so the top end of what's powerful has not risen since the Indexes." I'd like to believe you read that since you took the time to crop it out of the quote, but...
I'd actually argue that Marines in their codex are as powerful as a pure Guard army-- a lot of the time, the problem people have is being unwilling to adapt to a new metagame; it was perfectly possible to completely wipe out a conscript meatshield squad in turn one or two (depending on deployment style and map layout), and then use that to break through their lines and destroy their artillery, for example. However, most hyper-competitive players aren't using pure Guard armies, but people still end up calling them Guard armies regardless. I think the vogue term right now is "Imperial Soup".
