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.

 Melissia wrote:
Do you even know the statlines of those vehicles?

The manticore and wyvern? Yes. The whirlwind and orc lobbas? Not off the top of my head.

Glad you are still grumpy from yesterday though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I will agree the screen's firepower is too strong, but not that the screen is too strong in and of itself. As I pointed out earlier, considering their relative effectiveness compared to tactical marines, they're almost right on target. However, they drastically exceed marines under the effect of orders.

So altering their survivability to "bring them in line" as it were wouldn't solve the problem. Only their "buffed by Orders" state is in excess of Space Marines, so the power of their "buffed by Orders" state is what needs to change.

Well, that and bring in to line some of the big guns that are a bit to point effective as far as artillery goes. I suppose it is, to me, more natural to leave guard with the best big guns for the points and merely an okay screen. It's also reasonable to leave them a great screen but bring the big guns in line with other armies.

But you really can't justify having the best big guns and the best screen. That's a bit much, and means you will eb the best army outside a handful of units.

Aren't our big guns in line with everyone else's? What guns do you mean specifically? I can't think of any big gun that's ridiculously OP right now.

No, your big guns surpass everyone else's. Even Tau. You are the shootiest army in 8th edition, and also the tankiest army in 8th edition. Those two things combine to broken status.

Breng77 wrote:


True, they probably should have made orders function like psychic powers, give each a value, roll 2D6 over that value for the order to take. In fact if you did something like make them easy rolls, but made them -1 modifier for every 10 models in a unit, that would work well. So FRFSRF goes of on a 4. For a 10 man unit it would need a 5+, 20 would need a 6+, 30 would need a 7+

So that would be 91% chance to go off (baring CP re-rolls), for say a 5 man squad, 83% for a 10 man squad, 72% for a 20 man squad, 58% for a 30 man squad, 42% for 40, 27% for 50. So the orders have more effect for larger squads but are harder to get off. You then could have built in rules to some characters that gave them "casting" bonuses, and give them a stratagem for 2 CP that auto-passes an order.

Or maybe even a base roll with a penalty for being a conscript, nothing for being a regular guardsman and a bonus for being veteran?

So we had a big discussion earlier in this thread about how the Manticore's not so good, and the Wyvern's not so good. In fact, people were claiming that conscripts have equivalent or better anti-infantry firepower. So... they're probably not OP, since conscript shooting is good (for their points) but not grand.

The Shadowsword's main gun vs any 1 wound model unit is d6 deaths, essentially, give or take. It's really not spectacular. The Space Marine one gets two such guns on the same tank, so ours isn't even the best.

Our big guns are certainly quite capable and very numerous, but they're not ultra-devastating, I don't think. I mean heck, I run a Baneblade company and it usually takes all three main guns to kill a Predator or the like - that's not great.

tomguycot wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


True, they probably should have made orders function like psychic powers, give each a value, roll 2D6 over that value for the order to take. In fact if you did something like make them easy rolls, but made them -1 modifier for every 10 models in a unit, that would work well. So FRFSRF goes of on a 4. For a 10 man unit it would need a 5+, 20 would need a 6+, 30 would need a 7+

So that would be 91% chance to go off (baring CP re-rolls), for say a 5 man squad, 83% for a 10 man squad, 72% for a 20 man squad, 58% for a 30 man squad, 42% for 40, 27% for 50. So the orders have more effect for larger squads but are harder to get off. You then could have built in rules to some characters that gave them "casting" bonuses, and give them a stratagem for 2 CP that auto-passes an order.

Or maybe even a base roll with a penalty for being a conscript, nothing for being a regular guardsman and a bonus for being veteran?

You could go that way, though I think having it be more difficult for larger effect would be desirable. It makes you consider whether taking the big unit is desirable or not. Now I will say as I have it set up it also would incentivize taking 29 models instead of 30. So maybe you start out even lower at like 2+ or 3+ for the order and make 1-10 models -1, 11-20 -2, 21-30 -3, 31-40 -4, 41-50 -5. Then you could also throw in a bonus for Vets if you want, but I think that their improved stats work just as well as a bonus in most cases.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So we had a big discussion earlier in this thread about how the Manticore's not so good, and the Wyvern's not so good. In fact, people were claiming that conscripts have equivalent or better anti-infantry firepower. So... they're probably not OP, since conscript shooting is good (for their points) but not grand.

The Shadowsword's main gun vs any 1 wound model unit is d6 deaths, essentially, give or take. It's really not spectacular. The Space Marine one gets two such guns on the same tank, so ours isn't even the best.

Our big guns are certainly quite capable and very numerous, but they're not ultra-devastating, I don't think. I mean heck, I run a Baneblade company and it usually takes all three main guns to kill a Predator or the like - that's not great.

At least compared to a Knight the Baneblade chassis is definitely not over the top. It's tame in fact. Worse ballistic skill, much worse weapon skill and still takes penalties for moving and shooting heavy weapons. The stormlord is the only one that I think is approaching being above the curve but that's mostly due to being a giant open topped transport.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean heck, I run a Baneblade company and it usually takes all three main guns to kill a Predator or the like - that's not great.

Ah, the ol' Dawn of War game balances! 3x Baneblade shots to seriously injure a predator. Ah...

That could have been GW's master plan all along! *gasp*

But you should be expecting an effective AT unit to be killing 1/3rd of its points in Tanks each turn, or thereabouts.

What other artillery (long range, doesn't need line of sight) does exist in the game that isn't IG? Whirlwinds and orc lobbas are the two I know of.

Currently, the wyvern/manticore generally puts the different whirlwind configurations to shame, wyverns unsurprisingly better than orc lobbas.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So we had a big discussion earlier in this thread about how the Manticore's not so good, and the Wyvern's not so good. In fact, people were claiming that conscripts have equivalent or better anti-infantry firepower. So... they're probably not OP, since conscript shooting is good (for their points) but not grand.

Umm, I think that was me. Pointing out the manticore isn't good at killing light infantry, which is true. It's however great at killing heavy infantry, tanks, monstrous creatures.

As for the wyvern, I realized I forgot to include the re rolls failed wounds aspect, which cranks in up a notch. I'm now wondering if that was the math error Melissa kept mentioning but never clarifying.

Define artillery.

Are we talking Napoleonic "cannons on a frame", or a more modern:

 Selym wrote:
Define artillery.

Long range, doesn't need line of sight. The thing a strong screening unit really has synergy with.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Define artillery.

Long range, doesn't need line of sight. The thing a strong screening unit really has synergy with.

Eldar:


Vaul's Wrath Support Battery with Shadow Weaver (48" Heavy D6, Str 6, Ap 0, D 1, wounds of 6+ give Ap -4).

Night Spinner with Doom Weaver (48" Heavy 2D6, Str 7, Ap 0, D 2, wounds of 6+ give Ap -4).

Dark Reapers with Tempest Launchers (36" Heavy 2D6, Str 4, Ap -2, D 1)

Breng77 wrote:
Ok which units are really effected?

Off the top of my head:
- Infantry Squads
- Veteran Squads
- SWSs
- Scions

Breng77 wrote:

Ok which units are really effected?

You need to do 4 wounds for this to start mattering at all at LD 8. At which point there is a 16% chance of losing 2 models. So really we are looking at units that can take more than 5 models (losing 5 models brings it to 33% chance of losing more than 1 model.)

So effected units are
Bullgryns - (in large squads) - This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Conscripts - These are the problem we are discussing, so no issue here
Infantry squads - hurts them a bit, as they are likely to lose 1 extra model on average to morale So twice as many then?
Tempestus Scions (if taken in larger squads) - again multiple smaller squads are just as good as single larger squads, and these are likely out of your bubble anyway. The reason you'd take them in 10-man squads is Order efficiency and to better protect their special weapons. It's far from an uncommon tactic.
Ogryns - (in large squads)-This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Ratlings- only if you take larger squads, could instead take multiple small squads at no cost.
Rough riders - are they even staying near a commissar? That said, it is a break even for these squads as they are mutli-wound, so they were already losing 2 wounds. Worst case they lose 1 extra model (if one is wounded already) best case, they lose 0 models. Most common, they lose 1 model.
Special Weapons squads - hurt a bit, but not that much, if this squad has lost 4 models, losing 2 vs losing 1 is not a huge issue.
Veterans- Hurts them a bit, they lose an extra model on average. Bear in mind that that extra model will almost certainly be one with a special weapon.

Breng77 wrote:
So I'm confused where this hurts most of IG units?

I'm confused as to why this is necessary in the first place. I'm also confused as to why you asked me which units were affected, only to then list them yourself anyway.

Breng77 wrote:
IT is a break even or buff for most units.

No it isn't. It is largely irrelevant on Bullgryns and Ogryns (purely because the Commissar's Ld alone is usually enough to prevent losses from Morale), and detrimental to everything else.

Breng77 wrote:

It is also not unfluffy, the unit start to run, commissar shoots 1 of the (up to 3 models) that are running, everyone else falls in line.

Except that the Commissar isn't shooting just *one* of the 3 models that are running - he's potentially shooting all 3. What's more, this is in a squad that can have just 5 models left. The whole point of Commissars is that their troops fear them more than any actual enemy - and yet you're having him kill about half of his remaining men to get 2-3 back into line. If Commissars were this useless no one would ever bother using them.

Hell, you've actually made it possible for Commissars to kill more men than actually tried to run. Yes, people joke about trigger-happy Commissars. As a meme, it's funny. On the table it just makes them worthless.

And, once again, why is this necessary? Why do non-Conscript units need to suffer because Conscripts are considered by some to be OP?

SilverAlien wrote:
The manticore and wyvern? Yes. The whirlwind and orc lobbas? Not off the top of my head.

So... you're complaining about units you don't even know the stats of.

Again.

How droll.

The Manticore is 125 pts and Whirlwind is 124 pts, for T7, 11 wounds, 3+ save defensively-- so you get the exact same defenses either way, and both can fire at things not in their line of sight. Offensively, the difference is the Whirlwind has 2d3 S7 AP-1 D2 shots, or 2d6 S6 AP0 D1 shots, and the Manticore has 2d6 S10 AP-2 1d3 damage shots.

Manticore fires 2d6 shots, for an average of 6-7. Of these, 3.5 will hit, 2.33 will wound, 1.55 will be unsaved and do 1d3 damage. Whirlwind will fire 2d3 shots, averaging 4 shots. Of these 2.67 will hit, 1.33 will wound, 0.67 will be unsaved and do 2 damage.

So looks like against most vehicles, the Manticore edges out the Whirlwind in alpha strike, but its firepower abruptly becomes zero in turns five and six, giving the whirlwind more staying power. Against T3 hordes, the Whirlwind has an option to go cheaper and take the castellan launcher, which will do more potential hits and wound T2/T3 on 2+, whjile saving you about nine points to spend elsewhere.

The Lobba can't really be compared to either one of these . The Lobba is a mere 30 points, for 48" S5 AP0 D1, firing at 4+ to hit. They are only T5 with 3 wounds, but they can't be targeted unless they're the closest unit (sneaky grots) and they can be taken en masse for cheap. They're an entirely different animal than the WW or Manticore.

SilverAlien wrote:
Glad you are still grumpy from yesterday though.

I wasn't, then I read your post-- and now I am. Stuff it, spanker.

I definitely think that a lot of this will shake out as three things happen.

1: People realize they actually have to worry about massed infantry now.
2: Codices get released, giving people broader toolboxes to deal with them.
3: People get more used to shooting and charging in the same turn with non-assault weapons, which can significantly raise the damage output of a lot of units.

 Melissia wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The manticore and wyvern? Yes. The whirlwind and orc lobbas? Not off the top of my head.

So... you're complaining about units you don't even know the stats of.

Again.

How droll.

SilverAlien wrote:
Glad you are still grumpy from yesterday though.

I wasn't, then I read your post-- and now I am. Stuff it, spanker.

He's trying to make an argument, and is getting stats wrong either because of inexperience, or because he doesn't have his books in front of him at the moment.

Please be polite. Please don't get my thread locked.

Silver...you too. I'd much rather get to continue playing with the other kids, but you're going to get all of our toys taken away if you keep this up.

There, fixed my math. Had a brainfart on manticore's number of shots per rocket. Lobba is still IMO not comparable. You can get 4d6 shots off from four lobbas for the price of one manticore or whirlwind, and unlike manticores and whirlwinds, you can't target them with long-ranged firepower. For sheer volume of fire, Orks remain best-- and these guns get to hit on a 4+ to boot, so they get twice as many hits as a manticore for hte same price, while being able to fire the entire game instead of just the first four turns.

 Melissia wrote:
There, fixed my math. Had a brainfart on manticore's number of shots per rocket. Lobba is still IMO not comparable. You can get 4d6 shots off from four lobbas for the price of one manticore or whirlwind, and unlike manticores and whirlwinds, you can't target them with long-ranged firepower. For sheer volume of fire, Orks remain best-- and these guns get to hit on a 4+ to boot, so they get twice as many hits as a manticore for hte same price, while being able to fire the entire game instead of just the first four turns.

It can be compared to the wyvern, which gets more shots off for same price, one point lower strength but rerolls failed wounds and is generally superior to both it and the castellan launcher.

The manticore wasn't really the one in question, no one defends the manticore. The manticore does alpha strikes really well in an edition where tabling has been the norm

 Arandmoor wrote:
Silver...you too. I'd much rather get to continue playing with the other kids, but you're going to get all of our toys taken away if you keep this up.

Calling someone grumpy when they immediately jump on you the moment you post something is fairly reasonable, considering I've been making every effort to be polite despite nothing but insults coming from your side constantly. So you can shove it.

I didn't jump on you. It is honestly rather rude to complain about a unit when you don't even know its basic stats.

The Manticore is clearly far superior to the Whirlwind against even T7 3+ vehicles. It doesn't "edge it out", it does as much damage as 2.33 Whirlwinds. Yeah, it stops shooting after turn 4, but a Whirlwind needs to shoot for more than 9 turns to match its output. And of course it's better to front-load your shooting.

The Lobba is reasonably compared to the Wyvern or mortar Heavy Weapon Squads, not the Manticore (though against everything but GEQs you'd take the Manticore). Also note that you can shoot Lobbas. You just can't shoot their crew. It's also much worse than mortar Heavy Weapon Squads.

 Melissia wrote:
I didn't jump on you. It is honestly rather rude to complain about a unit when you don't even know its basic stats.

I mentioned I'd heard others complain about it, but didn't even know for sure how it compared to other similar units, clearly about to do comparisons after people mentioned more units to compare it to. Then went ahead and looked up the others as soon as I could access my indices.

From which we can tell, yes the wyvern does out perform the castellan whirlwind and orc lobbas of the same cost, amusingly the cheaper wyvern outperforms the castellan even on a 1 to 1 ratio. Now I'll start doing comparisons with the other artillery mentioned above.

I think targeting immunity is a pretty sweet tradeoff for a bit less firepower-per-point, especially in a faction like Orks where your primary offensive unit just happens to provide plenty of screening as a side effect of their desire to punch things in the face.

It's not quite as powerful on a unit with NLOS shooting since those can hide anyway... but it does make them less reliant on LOS blocking terrain than, say, mortar teams.

Again, the only thing you can't shoot is the unit of 2 Grot Gunners. You can still shoot the T5 W3 5+ gun. It is less durable than 3 mortar teams against lots of shooting, and has much less firepower.

 vipoid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Ok which units are really effected?

Off the top of my head:
- Infantry Squads
- Veteran Squads
- SWSs
- Scions

Breng77 wrote:

Ok which units are really effected?

You need to do 4 wounds for this to start mattering at all at LD 8. At which point there is a 16% chance of losing 2 models. So really we are looking at units that can take more than 5 models (losing 5 models brings it to 33% chance of losing more than 1 model.)

So effected units are
Bullgryns - (in large squads) - This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Conscripts - These are the problem we are discussing, so no issue here
Infantry squads - hurts them a bit, as they are likely to lose 1 extra model on average to morale So twice as many then?
Tempestus Scions (if taken in larger squads) - again multiple smaller squads are just as good as single larger squads, and these are likely out of your bubble anyway. The reason you'd take them in 10-man squads is Order efficiency and to better protect their special weapons. It's far from an uncommon tactic.
Ogryns - (in large squads)-This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Ratlings- only if you take larger squads, could instead take multiple small squads at no cost.
Rough riders - are they even staying near a commissar? That said, it is a break even for these squads as they are mutli-wound, so they were already losing 2 wounds. Worst case they lose 1 extra model (if one is wounded already) best case, they lose 0 models. Most common, they lose 1 model.
Special Weapons squads - hurt a bit, but not that much, if this squad has lost 4 models, losing 2 vs losing 1 is not a huge issue.
Veterans- Hurts them a bit, they lose an extra model on average. Bear in mind that that extra model will almost certainly be one with a special weapon.

Breng77 wrote:
So I'm confused where this hurts most of IG units?

I'm confused as to why this is necessary in the first place. I'm also confused as to why you asked me which units were affected, only to then list them yourself anyway.

Breng77 wrote:
IT is a break even or buff for most units.

No it isn't. It is largely irrelevant on Bullgryns and Ogryns (purely because the Commissar's Ld alone is usually enough to prevent losses from Morale), and detrimental to everything else.

Breng77 wrote:

It is also not unfluffy, the unit start to run, commissar shoots 1 of the (up to 3 models) that are running, everyone else falls in line.

Except that the Commissar isn't shooting just *one* of the 3 models that are running - he's potentially shooting all 3. What's more, this is in a squad that can have just 5 models left. The whole point of Commissars is that their troops fear them more than any actual enemy - and yet you're having him kill about half of his remaining men to get 2-3 back into line. If Commissars were this useless no one would ever bother using them.

Hell, you've actually made it possible for Commissars to kill more men than actually tried to run. Yes, people joke about trigger-happy Commissars. As a meme, it's funny. On the table it just makes them worthless.

And, once again, why is this necessary? Why do non-Conscript units need to suffer because Conscripts are considered by some to be OP?

No I haven't made it possible for commissars to kill more men than actually try to run unless you use the commissar ability when you lose 2 models, which would be dumb unless that is all that is left in the unit. You won't use it if you lose a single model, you won't lose it if you lose 2 models (unless that kills the squad), you will only use it when you lose 3+ models, in which case he likely kills less than try to run.

Also why do IG need to be basically immune to morale? Why is it a problem for you to lose 2-3 models to morale, the commissar is still giving your squads an LD buff. Now maybe you wouldn't take him, if you were not running conscripts, but I honestly don't think he is amazing if you aren't anyway.

In general it is a cleaner fix to do it this way, but I suppose you could say, he always kills 1D3 conscripts in his rule, it just makes the rules more complicated. Because "Units cannot lose more than 1 model, unless they are conscripts in which case they lose D3 models." is just wonkier rule writing.

 Selym wrote:
Eldar:

Vaul's Wrath Support Battery with Shadow Weaver (48" Heavy D6, Str 6, Ap 0, D 1, wounds of 6+ give Ap -4).

Night Spinner with Doom Weaver (48" Heavy 2D6, Str 7, Ap 0, D 2, wounds of 6+ give Ap -4).

Dark Reapers with Tempest Launchers (36" Heavy 2D6, Str 4, Ap -2, D 1)

Good lord, what is with craftworld eldar pricing? I've barely looked at this index, but why on earth is everything so expensive?

The shadow weaver's are shockingly bad, making the castellan and wyvern look wonderful by comparison. I have no idea why d6 shots of str 6 costs nearly 100 points.

The Night spinner is better. It compares well with the whirlwind, and can even match the manticore when it comes to heavy infantry killing. It isn't anywhere near as potent vs tanks/MCs however.

This may have been FAQ's, but it appears only the exarch can take the tempest launcher? Otherwise it could be a competitive choice. .

 ross-128 wrote:
I think targeting immunity is a pretty sweet tradeoff for a bit less firepower-per-point, especially in a faction like Orks where your primary offensive unit just happens to provide plenty of screening as a side effect of their desire to punch things in the face.

It's not quite as powerful on a unit with NLOS shooting since those can hide anyway... but it does make them less reliant on LOS blocking terrain than, say, mortar teams.

There was some confusion before the FAQ hit, but now it is clear you can target the big guns irregardless of the gretchin.

Breng77 wrote:

No I haven't made it possible for commissars to kill more men than actually try to run unless you use the commissar ability when you lose 2 models, which would be dumb unless that is all that is left in the unit.

Well, yeah, because the whole point is to reduce casualties.

Breng77 wrote:
You won't use it if you lose a single model, you won't lose it if you lose 2 models (unless that kills the squad), you will only use it when you lose 3+ models, in which case he likely kills less than try to run..

So, basically, you want Commissars to be entirely pointless. Got it.

Breng77 wrote:
Also why do IG need to be basically immune to morale?

So that their infantry isn't complete garbage? Also, losing one guy isn't immune to Morale. See Tyranids for that.

Breng77 wrote:
Why is it a problem for you to lose 2-3 models to morale, the commissar is still giving your squads an LD buff.

Why is it so important to you that IG infantry (other than Conscripts, weirdly enough) has to be absolute crap? Bear in mind that it isn't just 2-3 guys - it's 2-3 guys on top of the 5+ guys you lose to force that check in the first place. At that point you're losing near enough the entire squad anyway and might as well not have bothered with the Commissar in the first place.

I can only assume that you really love facing nothing but artillery Conscripts because you sure as hell don't seem want IG players to field anything else.

Breng77 wrote:
Now maybe you wouldn't take him, if you were not running conscripts, but I honestly don't think he is amazing if you aren't anyway.

...

So you think that Commissars aren't great for most IG units . . . and yet you feel obliged to nerf them anyway.

Breng77 wrote:

In general it is a cleaner fix to do it this way, but I suppose you could say, he always kills 1D3 conscripts in his rule, it just makes the rules more complicated. Because "Units cannot lose more than 1 model, unless they are conscripts in which case they lose D3 models." is just wonkier rule writing.

The issue with what you're suggesting though is that if you make it universal then Conscripts are actually the least affected. Losing d3 models from a 50-man squad is almost inconsequential. Losing 2-3 extra guys from a 10-man squad on top of the 5+ casualties they took to inflict that morale check is basically a dead squad.

I appreciate that restricting the d3 models to conscripts isn't quite as neat, but it's very necessary otherwise you end up screwing over all other IG infantry unnecessarily and, if anything, make Conscripts far more desirable (since most other infantry would be getting basically no benefit from Commissars).

Vipoid is entirely correct. If you're going to be losing more models from commissars anyway, there's no reason to use smaller Guardsmen squads over the larger Conscript squad.

 vipoid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

No I haven't made it possible for commissars to kill more men than actually try to run unless you use the commissar ability when you lose 2 models, which would be dumb unless that is all that is left in the unit.

Well, yeah, because the whole point is to reduce casualties.

Breng77 wrote:
You won't use it if you lose a single model, you won't lose it if you lose 2 models (unless that kills the squad), you will only use it when you lose 3+ models, in which case he likely kills less than try to run..

So, basically, you want Commissars to be entirely pointless. Got it.

Breng77 wrote:
Also why do IG need to be basically immune to morale?

So that their infantry isn't complete garbage? Also, losing one guy isn't immune to Morale. See Tyranids for that.

Breng77 wrote:
Why is it a problem for you to lose 2-3 models to morale, the commissar is still giving your squads an LD buff.

Why is it so important to you that IG infantry (other than Conscripts, weirdly enough) has to be absolute crap? Bear in mind that it isn't just 2-3 guys - it's 2-3 guys on top of the 5+ guys you lose to force that check in the first place. At that point you're losing near enough the entire squad anyway and might as well not have bothered with the Commissar in the first place.

I can only assume that you really love facing nothing but artillery Conscripts because you sure as hell don't seem want IG players to field anything else.

Breng77 wrote:
Now maybe you wouldn't take him, if you were not running conscripts, but I honestly don't think he is amazing if you aren't anyway.

...

So you think that Commissars aren't great for most IG units . . . and yet you feel obliged to nerf them anyway.

Breng77 wrote:

In general it is a cleaner fix to do it this way, but I suppose you could say, he always kills 1D3 conscripts in his rule, it just makes the rules more complicated. Because "Units cannot lose more than 1 model, unless they are conscripts in which case they lose D3 models." is just wonkier rule writing.

The issue with what you're suggesting though is that if you make it universal then Conscripts are actually the least affected. Losing d3 models from a 50-man squad is almost inconsequential. Losing 2-3 extra guys from a 10-man squad on top of the 5+ casualties they took to inflict that morale check is basically a dead squad.

I appreciate that restricting the d3 models to conscripts isn't quite as neat, but it's very necessary otherwise you end up screwing over all other IG infantry unnecessarily and, if anything, make Conscripts far more desirable (since most other infantry would be getting basically no benefit from Commissars).

The way I'm looking at it is those squads barely benefit from the commissar now, if I lose 5+ models in a 10 man squad, the difference between losing 1 more model and 2 more models is not huge (losing 3 models is extremely rare from a commissar). As for making conscripts more desirable, that is one of the reasons I support nerfs to them as well. If they took damage from fall back, had issues with orders, and did not benefit from the LD buff, they would lose models faster than other units. It is also why I would support larger infantry squads.

Right now the commissar is already incentivizing the choice that you make to conscript spam, because auto-lose only 1 model on LD 8 is already better for those conscripts than losing 1 model after losing 5+ models is for those small squads. Maybe a better fix given the current situation would be for summary execution to be units within 6" of a commissar use half the number of casualties rounded down for the purposes of morale checks. This would mean that for a 10 man squad you would need to take 6 casualties to risk losing a single model. The result would largely be that you never lose more than a single model in squads of 10 or less.

Then if you don't allow conscripts to use the LD of the commissar, and they take 20 casualties, they are still going to explode to morale (they would take 6+ D6 wounds), in this case you might not even bar them from using his LD (2 + d6 casualties for losing 20 models sounds fine to me).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Vipoid is entirely correct. If you're going to be losing more models from commissars anyway, there's no reason to use smaller Guardsmen squads over the larger Conscript squad.

There already basically isn't a reason outside of maybe scions.

ITT:

"We can fix conscripts by removing their orders."

"OR! You could redesign the entire codex! Here's my ideas:"

 vipoid wrote:
I appreciate that restricting the d3 models to conscripts isn't quite as neat, but it's very necessary otherwise you end up screwing over all other IG infantry unnecessarily and, if anything, make Conscripts far more desirable (since most other infantry would be getting basically no benefit from Commissars).

The only way to do a "neat" solution is to involve somehow having the low leadership of the conscripts factor in. Dividing the total of the failed morale check by the unit's unmodified leadership, and taking that many causalities rounded down (to a minimum of one). However... that's arguably worse than just taking on special rule of conscripts, as it's annoying and fiddly in the extreme.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:

"We can fix conscripts by removing their orders."

"OR! You could redesign the entire codex! Here's my ideas:"

It's still being discussed if that fixes them. It would fix most of the issues of them being able to do non screening things too well, but there is still debate if that's the only issue with them, or if they also perform too well as a screening unit.

I honestly can't see the problem with Conscripts. They are cheap, but their cost skyrockets with the various addons you need to make them get work done. People have been trying hard to break them, but scions seem to benefit way more from these combos than the conscripts do.