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.

This seems like a specific case of disliking efficient hordes, which directly translates to "Nerf Guard."

People want Guard nerfed. The simplest way is to appropriately cost Guard units, which they currently aren't.

Seriously, a Guardsmen should be either 5 or 6 points, for what they can do. It may be that upgrades aren't properly costed [ie undercosted] but that can also be fixed. I do also like the idea of each "upgrade category" having the same cost. A special weapon is 12 points, and you can choose from a flamer worth 12 points [d6+4 hits, maybe 10" range?] or a Meltagun worth 12 points [longer range?] or a Plasmagun worth 12 [as it is?] or a Grenade Launcher worth 12 [D6 hits / S6 Shot with a better modifier/d3 damage?]

It would make list-writing easier. You could choose the tools as you deploy, as this pricing would accommodate the weapons' POTENTIAL in a good scenario, if the player is good enough to make it work. Plasma may be good against marines, but a Grenade Launcher would be better against Ork Boys. You can choose which equally valued weapon to use as appropriate, to ensure you can reach maximum potential in your game.

Because that's how this game needs to be priced. Based on the POTENTIAL of models to achieve goals.

 greatbigtree wrote:
This seems like a specific case of disliking efficient hordes, which directly translates to "Nerf Guard."

People want Guard nerfed. The simplest way is to appropriately cost Guard units, which they currently aren't.

Seriously, a Guardsmen should be either 5 or 6 points, for what they can do. It may be that upgrades aren't properly costed [ie undercosted] but that can also be fixed. I do also like the idea of each "upgrade category" having the same cost. A special weapon is 12 points, and you can choose from a flamer worth 12 points [d6+4 hits, maybe 10" range?] or a Meltagun worth 12 points [longer range?] or a Plasmagun worth 12 [as it is?] or a Grenade Launcher worth 12 [D6 hits / S6 Shot with a better modifier/d3 damage?]

If a standard Guardsman gets bumped to 5 or 6 points, then they need a 4+ save or something to make the standard GEQ units(Guard Infantry Squad, Special Weapon Squad, Heavy Weapon Squad) more survivable. Veterans would need to get that 4+ save as well. Special Weapon Squads and Heavy Weapon Squads would need to be shifted to be 100% special/heavy weapons as well to justify their existence.

Because as it stands? The standard Guard statline really is barely worth 4 points and that took Conscripts being put up to the same price as a standard Guardsman and Commissars being rendered to the point of uselessness for that to happen.

Some of the biggest problem units relating to Guard are static artillery pieces that FW has. Those got somewhat of a fix in that they had their points adjusted and it further clarified that Masters of Ordnance didn't affect them, but there's still a lot of work that could be done on them.

the_scotsman wrote:
can we take a moment to clarify why the OP thinks grots are a balance issue?

T2, 3 points, no save? Those grots?

I'm similarly bewildered by their mention of Ripper Swarms.

Conscripts were heinously broken, but I'm not entirely sure that infantry squads are inherently the best troop choice in the game right now. Brimstone Horrors are certainly better in terms of per-point-durability, exchanging that for having none of the offensive power infantry squads have.

This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

Because they weren't killed by the fist full by a tac squad with only bolters

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

Because they weren't killed by the fist full by a tac squad with only bolters

Yes. According to Dakka conscripts are broken because you can't kill them in one turn with equal points of anti-horde and shadowswords are broken because they can kill 1/3 their points in tanks per turn.

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

They were 3 points per model with a S3 AP0 D1 weapon that had 24" and was Rapid Fire 1. They came in units of 20-30 models and had Frag Grenades at 0 points.
They were Troops choices, and thus could be fit easily into Imperial Soup armies, with a Commissar Lord as your HQ to effectively make them immune to Morale tests.

Apparently that was broken.

Every tournament list and their mothers running 60-120 conscripts was just because they where all flufly Valhallan players that where really really into casual play.

Yeah. Good ol revisionism. In less than 3 months. And I'll add that I oppose the "Marines are the worst" crow and the "Everything IG is OP and they should be nerfed into te ground", but common guys. Next thing you'll say Malefic Lords, Stormravens and Brimstones were fine pre-nerfs.

Easiest way is one of two things

1) Comp score
2) More limited on Detachments

Either way, each army can have a "bonus" to take more of certain units, DE can take more FA, Guard more Heavy etc...

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

The amount of table space they take up for their points easily negated enemy close range, melee elements, and deep strikes; in addition to the fact that they were hilariously hard to remove with a commissar hiding somewhere nearby. They also filled troop slots for CP, and could hurt anything just by throwing fist-fulls of lasgun shots, especially if given orders. Their large unit size cap allowed for very efficient orders as well as a small number of deployments to gain first turn. And finally because good anti-horde weapons aren't really a thing in the game right now, while good anti-elite weapons and abilities, such as the 57 different flavors of smite, suck against them.

And the general theme that a wall of cheap bodies at the front of the army is fantastic is still going strong thanks to a lot of those issues not being addressed yet.

They do serve as a good knowledge check though. If you ask someone about them and they claim that they weren't broken, odds are you are talking to someone completely out of touch with the actual competitive tables.

i thought the issues were being fixed with 7th. Or was it 8th? Chapter approved? When everyone has a codex?

The way to stop cheese is to balance the game and tweak it when the units that are too good or bad become evident (like Mantic).

GW do not seem to be interested in balancing their game to a competition capable level; as far as I can tell that is not the kind of game GW want to make. Which is fine, it's good fun, but don't be or play against an donkey-cave.

It all comes down to points. Units are played based on their points' efficiency when combined with inherent faction synergies and other potential buffs.

Conscripts at 4 PPM are reasonable.
Infantry should be more expensive; 5 or 6 PPM on account that they are objectively better than Conscripts.

Personally, I'm just going to throw this out there and feel free to argue against or disagree with what I'm about to say, but I get the feeling GW haven't considered the points' cost of Orders when pricing AM units. Or more specifically; they haven't properly considered the value of Orders on huge groups of infantry when pricing the characters that can deliver them or the units that can make use of them. Orders are effectively free stratagems as they stand now. They must have a points cost associated with them but I can't see it anywhere.

With regards to proposed "fixes" for the current meta. As others have stated there is no fix. As one unit becomes less attractive in terms of points' cost another will rise to fill it's place. This is normal, it's what keeps the meta shifting and the game fresh. Ideally it will start shifting a little quicker - akin to changes in MOBAs that regularly shake up the meta.

Marines are 13 pts of pure worthlessness. It should cost IG more than 4 pts to occupy real estate. A 5 or 6 pt unit is STILL A CHAFF UNIT. T3 is much better in 8th and 5+ is MUCH MUCH better in 8th.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It all comes down to points. Units are played based on their points' efficiency when combined with inherent faction synergies and other potential buffs.

Conscripts at 4 PPM are reasonable.
Infantry should be more expensive; 5 or 6 PPM on account that they are objectively better than Conscripts.

Personally, I'm just going to throw this out there and feel free to argue against or disagree with what I'm about to say, but I get the feeling GW haven't considered the points' cost of Orders when pricing AM units. Or more specifically; they haven't properly considered the value of Orders on huge groups of infantry when pricing the characters that can deliver them or the units that can make use of them. Orders are effectively free stratagems as they stand now. They must have a points cost associated with them but I can't see it anywhere.

With regards to proposed "fixes" for the current meta. As others have stated there is no fix. As one unit becomes less attractive in terms of points' cost another will rise to fill it's place. This is normal, it's what keeps the meta shifting and the game fresh. Ideally it will start shifting a little quicker - akin to changes in MOBAs that regularly shake up the meta.

Can't find the points cost of orders. Hmmmmmmm.... Hmmmmmmmm? Your unit must have missed out on the latest info from the 20/30/40 point officer (Platoon/Company/Tempestor) due to a lack of Vox Casters (5 points each - extend order range to 18" if officer is in 3" of a vox caster and unit receiving order has a vox caster). Considering you don't often take Guard Commander units for their individual combat prowess, I would assume the "cost" of the order is baked into them rather than the Infantry Squad.

5ppm Guardsmen seem fine, if it ends things with a more balanced game. 6 points is too high though, at that point it goes to why bother? The only pro there is it would make Veteran Squads look good suddenly. Unless basic upgrades like a Vox Caster are baked into the Squad pricing at least and boltguns become free for Sergeants or the like.

Martel732 wrote:
Marines are 13 pts of pure worthlessness. It should cost IG more than 4 pts to occupy real estate. A 5 or 6 pt unit is STILL A CHAFF UNIT. T3 is much better in 8th and 5+ is MUCH MUCH better in 8th.

If T3 is much better in 8th and 5+ is MUCH MUCH better in 8th, then T4 with 3+ is godlike.

A "5 or 6 point unit" is not a chaff unit when it is your army's standard unit. When someone is running a list that is built around that specific unit as part of your army? It's a Big Deal.

That people seem to continually fail to grasp this is why we are still having arguments about Conscripts and Commissars despite both being nerfed into oblivion.

I'm sorry that you can't just walk all over Guard anymore people, but realistically? Quit bitching about Conscripts. It's over. You won. They're nerfed.

Never mind that we could have had them tied to Infantry Squads to beef up the points requirements or things like that. They're gone. Over. Finito.

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

Because of commissars. The intended balancing factor to conscripts was their poor leadership, effectively making any casualties inflicted count double. But for a relatively cheap price you could completely negate that drawback and give the unit effectively twice the intended durability. This made them way too point-efficient, especially when also given access to cheap and reliable orders (which no longer depend on a unit's leadership). Take away the ability to buff them and make them stand on their own merits and they're a lot less impressive. But unfortunately, instead of applying the obvious fix, GW just removed them from the codex.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It all comes down to points. Units are played based on their points' efficiency when combined with inherent faction synergies and other potential buffs.

Conscripts at 4 PPM are reasonable.
Infantry should be more expensive; 5 or 6 PPM on account that they are objectively better than Conscripts.

This is incorrect.

5 or 6ppm would be acceptable if the unit came standard with a Vox-Caster. They don't. You pay for it.
5 or 6ppm would be acceptable if the unit was outfitted all with the same weapon. They aren't. Sergeants come standard with a Laspistol and Frag Grenades, having to buy a CCW or any non-Laspistol ranged weapon(they can't buy a Lasgun or in the case of Scions, the Tempestor cannot buy a Hot-Shot Lasgun--thus cannot get full benefits from FRFSRF). Taking a Special Weapon or HWT also minimizes the number of guys firing Lasguns in FRFSRF.
5 or 6ppm would be acceptable if the unit had some kind of benefit when parked in cover or was sitting on a 4+ save.

None of those things have happened, thus 5 or 6ppm is not acceptable. Stop trying to suggest/insinuate that it is.

Personally, I'm just going to throw this out there and feel free to argue against or disagree with what I'm about to say, but I get the feeling GW haven't considered the points' cost of Orders when pricing AM units. Or more specifically; they haven't properly considered the value of Orders on huge groups of infantry when pricing the characters that can deliver them or the units that can make use of them. Orders are effectively free stratagems as they stand now. They must have a points cost associated with them but I can't see it anywhere.

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

It's called Officers, Vox-Casters, and range.
Officers must be on foot to issue Orders, excepting those mounted in a Chimera and given the "Mobile Command Vehicle" stratagem(something that used to be a basic rule for the Chimera; now it's just your Officer is always counted as being within 3" of a Vox-Caster if embarked in a Chimera).

Vox-Casters allow for Officers to boost their effective range to 18" if the Officer is within 3" of a Vox-Caster and issuing Orders to units with Vox-Casters. Otherwise the range is 6".
You also can't have "Orders on huge groups of infantry" since Officers are limited in the number of Orders they can issue. Platoon Commanders(Elite choice) can issue 1 Order per turn, Company Commanders(HQ choice) can issue 2 Orders per turn, and Creed can issue 3 Orders per turn.

Outside of the Cadian Warlord trait or a specific Relic, each individual unit can only be issued one Order per turn. There's a Cadian Warlord trait allowing for you to, on a roll of 4+ to issue the same Order to an additional unit of the same type(Infantry or Tank--it's allowing for Tank Commanders to issue as well). There's a Relic called the "Laurels of Command" which allows for you to issue an additional Order to the unit to start with on a roll of a 4+.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

Because of commissars. The intended balancing factor to conscripts was their poor leadership, effectively making any casualties inflicted count double. But for a relatively cheap price you could completely negate that drawback and give the unit effectively twice the intended durability. This made them way too point-efficient, especially when also given access to cheap and reliable orders (which no longer depend on a unit's leadership). Take away the ability to buff them and make them stand on their own merits and they're a lot less impressive. But unfortunately, instead of applying the obvious fix, GW just removed them from the codex.

They took away the 100% chance for Orders specifically on Conscripts. That's the whole point of their "Raw Recruits" rule which required a 4+ roll for Orders issued to Conscripts.
They did that in the shift from Index to Codex.

 Kanluwen wrote:
They took away the 100% chance for Orders specifically on Conscripts. That's the whole point of their "Raw Recruits" rule which required a 4+ roll for Orders issued to Conscripts.
They did that in the shift from Index to Codex.

Well yes, once GW started nerfing conscripts the complaints were less valid. I'm talking about pre-nerf conscripts and why people thought a nerf was necessary in the first place.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

They were 3 points per model with a S3 AP0 D1 weapon that had 24" and was Rapid Fire 1. They came in units of 20-30 models and had Frag Grenades at 0 points.
They were Troops choices, and thus could be fit easily into Imperial Soup armies, with a Commissar Lord as your HQ to effectively make them immune to Morale tests.

Apparently that was broken.

You know they were, only you, MoO, and Melissa say otherwise. They were the perfect unit in this ruleset, cheap bodies that got a good armor save against standard infantry weapons and we're pointless to shoot at with anything else, because you would be losing point efficency to do so.

I made two (three?) threads on this. I KNEW they would be cornerstones on tourney lists. They invalidated melee and deepstrike armies and the only other factions that could remove them were IG mortars or Ass can Razorbacks, but they would potentially lose on objectives still. You are out of touch for saying they were anything but metadefining.

Maybe GK are also have a unicorn build that no one has discovered yea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh you're talking after the commisar nerf.

GK do have a very unstoppable army stratagem but it's secret and anyone who sees it must be eliminated.

Meh, guys who wanna play elites think hordes are cheese. Guys who wanna play with large armies think Lords of War are cheese. This is not a solution.

Ah yes, the box. The box the Sigilite gave us? The one we open in our darkest hour? That box?

The strategems in that box would break a man

Lords of War are definitely not cheese in 8th as they are downed readily by lascannons, don't take up much real estate and generally are VERY expensive. Ironically, the IG seems to have the best LoW as well.

 Quickjager wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh you're talking after the commisar nerf.

Yes and no.

Specifically, once the Guard book was out and the Orders became a 4+ thing for Conscripts? I think that was going to be enough to invalidate the complaints about the damage output side of things. We should have waited and seen a bit further down the road to see how things were going to go once the points and whatnot changes(which were confirmed to be in the works/testing when they swung the nerf bat at Commissars) were underway rather than just kneecapping Commissars.
The Commissar nerf was way too much. Anyone who suggests otherwise in the age of Synapse doing the same damn thing but with more models able to give it out is a fool.

I, personally, think we could have fixed this issue without bombing Commissars or Conscripts both into oblivion. There were a lot of possible ways to address Conscripts in Imperial Soup other than taking a bat to the knees for Guard proper.

Things like making it so that Conscripts didn't count as your "mandatory Troops choices" in a Patrol or they couldn't be taken in anything outside of Brigade or Battalions could have been added in. Making it so that Conscripts required an Infantry Squad for every Conscript Squad you took.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
Ah yes, the box. The box the Sigilite gave us? The one we open in our darkest hour? That box?

The strategems in that box would break a man

Implement Taco Tuesday?

IG are still hilariously overpowered. I think you're fine. 15 10-man squads is even better in some ways. They basically autowin vs any power armor based list.

Martel732 wrote:
IG are still hilariously overpowered. I think you're fine. 15 10-man squads is even better in some ways. They basically autowin vs any power armor based list.

Sure, when they're you.

Meanwhile in the real world, people aren't spamming Tacticals to try to outhorde a horde army.

If you don't have a perfect record vs power armor, you a poor IG player. Period. IG are literally elite-proof.

IG is also the only gunline that gets better the more terrain there is on the table. Nuts.

Well, 40k is a dynamically expanding game.
But in opposition to previous incarnations of the game, GW is fixing ''cheese'' at a higer rate from index to codex to chapter approved.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, 40k is a dynamically expanding game.
But in opposition to previous incarnations of the game, GW is fixing ''cheese'' at a higer rate from index to codex to chapter approved.

Agreed. Right now, I'd say IG and Nids need some hefty point increases. Especially Nids. Manticores and dakkafexes are standouts. Eldar are much more manageable than I thought outside dark reapers, who can also be fixed with a substantial point increase.