Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Infantry were inferior to conscripts as a means of mass, basically unshiftable, screening for cheap. Infantry should got up a 1ppm to compensate for the Conscript point increase, and I feel like officers need to be adjusted a bit since you don't roll to pass orders anymore.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Infantry were inferior to conscripts as a means of mass, basically unshiftable, screening for cheap. Infantry should got up a 1ppm to compensate for the Conscript point increase, and I feel like officers need to be adjusted a bit since you don't roll to pass orders anymore.

Agreed. The HQ tax needs to be an actual Tax. 30 points is not a tax. If Infantry Squads don't go to 5ppm I'll be genuinely surprised.

Ehhh - infantry were never worse than conscripts IMO. The points you save get wasted on a commissar - that infantry never needed to function.

They do more damage per points.
The have access to mortars.
They fill out detachments for cheaper.
Were undercosted then and are still now.

You could argue that one is better than than the other at the time based on what you wanted your army to do. However - Calling one inferior to the other is foolhardy.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehhh - infantry were never worse than conscripts IMO. The points you save get wasted on a commissar - that infantry never needed to function.

They do more damage per points.
The have access to mortars.
They fill out detachments for cheaper.
Were undercosted then and are still now.

You could argue that one is better than than the other at the time based on what you wanted your army to do. However - Calling one inferior to the other is foolhardy.

They costed more, mortars aren't free and you could only run them in units of 10 while Conscripts could run units of 30 and with a single character screen an entire gunline. And if 30 wasn't enough, you could run 60 for only 180 points and bubblewrap your army cheaper than 6 units of Infantry.

They were better for specific roles and your refusal to accept that screams more of your bias in how strong the infantry squad is in your mind compared to how good it actually is.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehhh - infantry were never worse than conscripts IMO. The points you save get wasted on a commissar - that infantry never needed to function.

They do more damage per points.
The have access to mortars.
They fill out detachments for cheaper.
Were undercosted then and are still now.

You could argue that one is better than than the other at the time based on what you wanted your army to do. However - Calling one inferior to the other is foolhardy.

They costed more, mortars aren't free and you could only run them in units of 10 while Conscripts could run units of 30 and with a single character screen an entire gunline. And if 30 wasn't enough, you could run 60 for only 180 points and bubblewrap your army cheaper than 6 units of Infantry.

They were better for specific roles and your refusal to accept that screams more of your bias in how strong the infantry squad is in your mind compared to how good it actually is.

Yes - conscripts costed less at the time but with min unit requirements you could take min detachments of infantry for cheaper. Basically that's all that matters right now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehhh - infantry were never worse than conscripts IMO. The points you save get wasted on a commissar - that infantry never needed to function.

They do more damage per points.
The have access to mortars.
They fill out detachments for cheaper.
Were undercosted then and are still now.

You could argue that one is better than than the other at the time based on what you wanted your army to do. However - Calling one inferior to the other is foolhardy.

They costed more, mortars aren't free and you could only run them in units of 10 while Conscripts could run units of 30 and with a single character screen an entire gunline. And if 30 wasn't enough, you could run 60 for only 180 points and bubblewrap your army cheaper than 6 units of Infantry.

They were better for specific roles and your refusal to accept that screams more of your bias in how strong the infantry squad is in your mind compared to how good it actually is.

Yes - conscripts costed less at the time but with min unit requirements you could take min detachments of infantry for cheaper. Basically that's all that matters right now.

No one cares about "right now" when talking about how strong Conscripts used to be. Quit using how effective a unit currently is to dismiss how good it used to be.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehhh - infantry were never worse than conscripts IMO. The points you save get wasted on a commissar - that infantry never needed to function.

They do more damage per points.
The have access to mortars.
They fill out detachments for cheaper.
Were undercosted then and are still now.

You could argue that one is better than than the other at the time based on what you wanted your army to do. However - Calling one inferior to the other is foolhardy.

They costed more, mortars aren't free and you could only run them in units of 10 while Conscripts could run units of 30 and with a single character screen an entire gunline. And if 30 wasn't enough, you could run 60 for only 180 points and bubblewrap your army cheaper than 6 units of Infantry.

They were better for specific roles and your refusal to accept that screams more of your bias in how strong the infantry squad is in your mind compared to how good it actually is.

Yes - conscripts costed less at the time but with min unit requirements you could take min detachments of infantry for cheaper. Basically that's all that matters right now.

No one cares about "right now" when talking about how strong Conscripts used to be. Quit using how effective a unit currently is to dismiss how good it used to be.

that is a good point - during basically index era 40k detachments didn't matter as much because there weren't stratagems. So just getting more raw bodies was more important. That explain why conscripts were almost always chosen over infantry - even though infantry are basically the exact same unit with better shooting when you factor in the required commisar for conscripts.

I'm not saying conscripts wern't OP - they obviously were. Just that Infantry weren't any less OP. They really weren't. Not even for screening - screening at the time was about spreading out to block as many deep strike zone as possible - smaller units do this better.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehhh - infantry were never worse than conscripts IMO. The points you save get wasted on a commissar - that infantry never needed to function.

They do more damage per points.
The have access to mortars.
They fill out detachments for cheaper.
Were undercosted then and are still now.

You could argue that one is better than than the other at the time based on what you wanted your army to do. However - Calling one inferior to the other is foolhardy.

They costed more, mortars aren't free and you could only run them in units of 10 while Conscripts could run units of 30 and with a single character screen an entire gunline. And if 30 wasn't enough, you could run 60 for only 180 points and bubblewrap your army cheaper than 6 units of Infantry.

They were better for specific roles and your refusal to accept that screams more of your bias in how strong the infantry squad is in your mind compared to how good it actually is.

Yes - conscripts costed less at the time but with min unit requirements you could take min detachments of infantry for cheaper. Basically that's all that matters right now.

No one cares about "right now" when talking about how strong Conscripts used to be. Quit using how effective a unit currently is to dismiss how good it used to be.

that is a good point - during basically index era 40k detachments didn't matter as much because there weren't stratagems. So just getting more raw bodies was more important. That explain why conscripts were almost always chosen over infantry - even though infantry are basically the exact same unit with better shooting when you factor in the required commisar for conscripts.

I'm not saying conscripts wern't OP - they obviously were. Just that Infantry weren't any less OP. They really weren't. Not even for screening - screening at the time was about spreading out to block as many deep strike zone as possible - smaller units do this better.

And yet we weren't seeing Infantry Squads at the top tables meaning there were other things in play that were making the Conscripts a better choice at the time.

Regardless, a 1ppm increase for Infantry would balance them more, and a points hike on Officers to address how Orders currently work would go a long way to fixing the army's balance.

I think the other point is that CA2017 *did* change the meta. And not just by nerfing Marines.

I miss Smite Spam.

Wait no - no I don't.
Not at all.

Tyel wrote:
I miss Smite Spam.

Wait no - no I don't.
Not at all.

Thousand Sons say "hi".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Thousand Sons say "hi".

At least its not 10 Primaris Psykers/Malefic Lords hidden in 100-150 Conscripts/Cultists.

Tyel wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Thousand Sons say "hi".

At least its not 10 Primaris Psykers/Malefic Lords hidden in 100-150 Conscripts/Cultists.

True. They're even better psykers than the Malefic Lords were.

I almost forgot about the Malefic Lord's contribution to helping kill soup until you mentioned them actually.

What they did was ruin the psychic phase for every army that isn't Eldar (their spells are better than smite and never spammed psykers anyways) or TS(they still smite spam)

 Xenomancers wrote:
What they did was ruin the psychic phase for every army that isn't Eldar (their spells are better than smite and never spammed psykers anyways) or TS(they still smite spam)

My GSC isn't too affected since I want to be using the powers from the army list over Smite. I mean if I can Dominate a Castellan that's WAY better than using Smite.

Thousand sons blasting the enemy with psyblows is somewhat better than cheap nobody psykers doing it. At least now it's thematic.

Spoletta wrote:
Thousand sons blasting the enemy with psyblows is somewhat better than cheap nobody psykers doing it. At least now it's thematic.

To be fair, a cult of Tzeentch unleashing massed (and highly unstable) psykers in the populace is thematic too, but it wasn't being used that way, it was being used to bring like 10 ML in a CSM list and it was stupid.

Then again most super competitive lists are kind of stupid because they don't really base themselves around the lore as much as what mechanically punches the hardest. There are plenty of fluffy lists that do well, but they're not as common sadly.

"What they did was ruin the psychic phase for every army that isn't Eldar (their spells are better than smite and never spammed psykers anyways) or TS(they still smite spam)"

It ruined the phase for what, 3 armies?
-R&H: Maelific spam was dumb. Good riddence.
-IG: Oops! Should they buff them to compensate?!?
-GK: Well, yeah, GK got boned.

It didn't impact, what, a dozen or so armies? So why single out Eldar?

Bharring wrote:
"What they did was ruin the psychic phase for every army that isn't Eldar (their spells are better than smite and never spammed psykers anyways) or TS(they still smite spam)"

It ruined the phase for what, 3 armies?
-R&H: Maelific spam was dumb. Good riddence.
-IG: Oops! Should they buff them to compensate?!?
-GK: Well, yeah, GK got boned.

It didn't impact, what, a dozen or so armies? So why single out Eldar?

GK got an exception to Smite, the problem is their baby smite doesn't really hit like the TS do. I almost wonder if the TS were going to be like the GK until GW saw the response to the baby smite and back-pedalled on doing the same thing twice.

Bharring wrote:
"What they did was ruin the psychic phase for every army that isn't Eldar (their spells are better than smite and never spammed psykers anyways) or TS(they still smite spam)"

It ruined the phase for what, 3 armies?
-R&H: Maelific spam was dumb. Good riddence.
-IG: Oops! Should they buff them to compensate?!?
-GK: Well, yeah, GK got boned.

It didn't impact, what, a dozen or so armies? So why single out Eldar?

Yet ironically after the doubling in pts you did not see malefics anyways.

"GW saw the response to the baby smite and back-pedalled on doing the same thing twice."

Thrice.

CWE got minismite in their codex, before even CA2017.

Not sure if anyone else has minismite. Horrors?

Bharring wrote:
"GW saw the response to the baby smite and back-pedalled on doing the same thing twice."

Thrice.

CWE got minismite in their codex, before even CA2017.

Not sure if anyone else has minismite. Horrors?

Horrors have a thing based on unit size, and I think Zoans do as well, but it's not quite the same as the babysmite.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
What they did was ruin the psychic phase for every army that isn't Eldar (their spells are better than smite and never spammed psykers anyways) or TS(they still smite spam)

My GSC isn't too affected since I want to be using the powers from the army list over Smite. I mean if I can Dominate a Castellan that's WAY better than using Smite.

That's true. In general though - it hurt most psykers. It especially jacked nids and daemons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"What they did was ruin the psychic phase for every army that isn't Eldar (their spells are better than smite and never spammed psykers anyways) or TS(they still smite spam)"

It ruined the phase for what, 3 armies?
-R&H: Maelific spam was dumb. Good riddence.
-IG: Oops! Should they buff them to compensate?!?
-GK: Well, yeah, GK got boned.

It didn't impact, what, a dozen or so armies? So why single out Eldar?

Yet ironically after the doubling in pts you did not see malefics anyways.

Funny how that works.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Thousand sons blasting the enemy with psyblows is somewhat better than cheap nobody psykers doing it. At least now it's thematic.

To be fair, a cult of Tzeentch unleashing massed (and highly unstable) psykers in the populace is thematic too, but it wasn't being used that way, it was being used to bring like 10 ML in a CSM list and it was stupid.

Then again most super competitive lists are kind of stupid because they don't really base themselves around the lore as much as what mechanically punches the hardest. There are plenty of fluffy lists that do well, but they're not as common sadly.

The kicker is that these super competitive lists are basing themselves mechanically on what punches the hardest in a separate tournament structure with missions that are not under GW control. I think we tend to forget that tournament specific mission packs, especially ITC, are pretty big in North America, and that skews almost every discussion without ever actually being addressed. It's a bigger factor that we give it credit for.

So I know the idea of 5 point Guardsmen has been talked to death, but with Ork Boyz going up to 7 points in their new codex, I think it about guarantees Guardsmen go to 5 points in Chapter Approved.

Lemondish wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Thousand sons blasting the enemy with psyblows is somewhat better than cheap nobody psykers doing it. At least now it's thematic.

To be fair, a cult of Tzeentch unleashing massed (and highly unstable) psykers in the populace is thematic too, but it wasn't being used that way, it was being used to bring like 10 ML in a CSM list and it was stupid.

Then again most super competitive lists are kind of stupid because they don't really base themselves around the lore as much as what mechanically punches the hardest. There are plenty of fluffy lists that do well, but they're not as common sadly.

The kicker is that these super competitive lists are basing themselves mechanically on what punches the hardest in a separate tournament structure with missions that are not under GW control. I think we tend to forget that tournament specific mission packs, especially ITC, are pretty big in North America, and that skews almost every discussion without ever actually being addressed. It's a bigger factor that we give it credit for.

To be fair, the ITC missions are mostly changes to how you score points for killing things or holding objectives. Being REALLY good at either regardless of how you score stuff can be indicative of a bigger problem.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
So I know the idea of 5 point Guardsmen has been talked to death, but with Ork Boyz going up to 7 points in their new codex, I think it about guarantees Guardsmen go to 5 points in Chapter Approved.

Yeah I think we're about to see a lot of cheap infantry go up by a point or so. That's one of the only things I expect to see, along with some more new missions. Other than that I don't know what to expect.

xlDuke wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
So I know the idea of 5 point Guardsmen has been talked to death, but with Ork Boyz going up to 7 points in their new codex, I think it about guarantees Guardsmen go to 5 points in Chapter Approved.

Yeah I think we're about to see a lot of cheap infantry go up by a point or so. That's one of the only things I expect to see, along with some more new missions. Other than that I don't know what to expect.

My hope is more expanded rules. I'd love more subfaction rules for more armies as an example.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xlDuke wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
So I know the idea of 5 point Guardsmen has been talked to death, but with Ork Boyz going up to 7 points in their new codex, I think it about guarantees Guardsmen go to 5 points in Chapter Approved.

Yeah I think we're about to see a lot of cheap infantry go up by a point or so. That's one of the only things I expect to see, along with some more new missions. Other than that I don't know what to expect.

My hope is more expanded rules. I'd love more subfaction rules for more armies as an example.

I would definitely like to see expanded, more interactive, rules for terrain but I couldn't really express what exactly I would like. What sort of subfaction rules would you want?

xlDuke wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xlDuke wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
So I know the idea of 5 point Guardsmen has been talked to death, but with Ork Boyz going up to 7 points in their new codex, I think it about guarantees Guardsmen go to 5 points in Chapter Approved.

Yeah I think we're about to see a lot of cheap infantry go up by a point or so. That's one of the only things I expect to see, along with some more new missions. Other than that I don't know what to expect.

My hope is more expanded rules. I'd love more subfaction rules for more armies as an example.

I would definitely like to see expanded, more interactive, rules for terrain but I couldn't really express what exactly I would like. What sort of subfaction rules would you want?

Mostly some new options for factions (like an extra tomb world, craft world, Sept, give a couple successor chapters a bonus, maybe some Renegade specific options for CSM, ect). Basically just more alternate ways to run armies, maybe with a focus on different things. Like maybe a Tau Sept who gives bonuses to Kroot and Vespid models, or rules for Tau human Auxillaries, or Ork Freebootas, ect.