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.
Arandmoor wrote: It looks like the new Marine codex is introducing more anti-infantry units. So, I'm guessing GW saw this coming.
The new primaris mini-centurion devastators look like they'll chew infantry spam up, and spit it out at a fair price-point under their basic load-out.
They have something like 2 assault 6 S4 guns, and can fire twice per shooting phase. Come in squads of 3-6.
Add in a primaris rhino or a captain's aura and you're talking about a ton of lead being thrown a fair distance downrange with very, very good accuracy.
broxus wrote: If nerf conscrips and how they work with commissars they need to nerf the Tyranid and Orc hordes and immunity to moral tests.
Bolters and standard infantry weapons are your answer to conscripts.
The issue with both of these is that conscripts aren't really comparable to most other units in terms of durability. Compared to guard infantry they have a 25% discount, compared to termagaunts they have that and a better armor save, literally jsut a better grot, and compared to ork boyz they are half the price, better armor save, one worse toughness. So more efficient anti infantry weapons are a bit unreasonable for other armies/units, for which the existing answers are efficient enough and IG hordes are flat out better than tyranid and grot hordes in virtually every way right now.
The only unit even close is the brimstone horrors, who lack the morale rules the others have as a hypothetical weak spot that may not mean much in practice. But, as we see by them being the other standout chaff unit in most etc lists, that weakness is probably not compensating for the invulnerable save and even lower pricetag.
daedalus wrote: I think GW should inflate the point system by a factor of 10x, that way greater granularity of control over point cost balance may be achieved.
And then I get to say "Conscripts cost 35 points now. How can you say they're too cheap?!"
I was actually thinking about this earlier. Say hypothetically that grots are worth exactly three points and normal guardsman are worth exactly four, as the game is currently balanced. There really isn't any way to fit termagaunts and conscripts in without pushing their stats up or down.
Then again, this implies a level of fine control over the balance I don't think GW has ever bothered with.
Isn't there some grand tournament that is going to happen here soon where some dude is bringing 399 conscripts? According to these forums, he should auto-win no problem. Even though at the last ITC tournament, guard didn't even get in the top 3 if I recall. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Commissar Benny wrote: Isn't there some grand tournament that is going to happen here soon where some dude is bringing 399 conscripts? According to these forums, he should auto-win no problem. Even though at the last ITC tournament, guard didn't even get in the top 3 if I recall. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
I am interested to see how they get on. Conscripts with smite spam for is an interesting take on the meta. Its a team tournament though which skews things a bit.
Its possible it still isn't as good as "put your entire army around RG, laugh due to having all the rerolls" but we shall see.
Most of the complaining about conscripts is probably based on maths - but mathematics doesn't lie. You need a very good reason to explain why a unit which point for point does more damage than most regular infantry and is harder to kill than most regular infantry isn't going to be very good.
Guard have lots of good units these days (most things aside from Leman Russ Tanks - due to the weird game-wide 50 point tax that seems to effect all non-Super Heavy Tanks) but I struggle to think of a match up where bringing two units of 50 will be a bad choice.
In some games you are bubble wrapping for direct charges. In others you are area denying for deep strike and equivalent deployment rules. Against pure gunlines just mob up on objectives and shoot back. People have said you can't do all three at once but you don't typically need to.
I think all this doom and gloom for 19 page now is quiet amusing. There are ways around the conscripts like massed fire and thinning them out in shooting and assaulting with CC units. 50 conscrips die pretty fast with a 5+
Rickels wrote: I think all this doom and gloom for 19 page now is quiet amusing. There are ways around the conscripts like massed fire and thinning them out in shooting and assaulting with CC units. 50 conscrips die pretty fast with a 5+
The issue is they don't die that fast when your enemy has 200 of them for a mere 600 points. That's when getting through them before the guard has shot you off the table becomes a real chore.
Most of the complaining about conscripts is probably based on maths - but mathematics doesn't lie.
But, like any system, they're susceptible to poorly considered input.
Almost all the mathhammer I've seen attempted assumes the conscripts are unharmed and within 12" of the enemy.
Almost all the screening unit theorycrafting I've seen attempted assumes they're spread out across an entire side of the table.
Almost all the complaints assume they're paradoxically doing both at once.
I mean, mathhammer is a model. It's not perfect. We all know it's not perfect. I get that. I just wish we could come up with a better way of doing it than somehow assuming they teleport into existence at whatever the most advantageous place is going to be, unharmed and ready to fire. It's just unreasonable to assume that all 50 are going to be alive at that point, and I feel like that should be considered more heavily when modelling the damage output.
Having that been said, Katherine already had a legitimate argument for why they have a little too much damage when they're shooting (and are getting ordered), and made the case that orders on conscripts were too powerful. Katherine also used the same estimates to determine that their staying power was actually in line with their point values in direct comparison to how survivable space marines are. That was about half the thread ago. Since then we still have seen helpful suggestions like "give conscripts 6+ armor", "don't let commissars keep conscripts in line", and other things even less coherent that not only failed to solve the issue made conscripts inadvertently even moreso the only infantry worth taking in the army.
At this point, if you have to change ANYTHING for conscripts, the only two reasonable things to do are:
- Reinstate the platoon and make them 0-1 for the overhead of the rest of the troops
- Make them BS 6+. That gives them about 58% of 2-4 dead space marines at full strength, at 12" FRFSRF range, which is a bunch of conditions that shouldn't matter because they'll never happen.
The first option is my preferred, because it solves it through a convention that's been in place for years, and it's fluffy. The second option is something I've been contemplating for a while. I still don't know if I like it, but I'd be interested in seeing it happen. It completely makes anything that can force a -1 on shooting attacks to become utterly immune to them, which I definitely DON'T like the idea of. I can't accept with a serious face that laser light is too slow to hit a Valkyrie.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/24 15:41:26
We had numbers indicating MSU of space marines all in cover were similar to conscripts standing out in the open. There is a bit of a difference between the two, both in terms of usage and how many such units/models are likely to exist in given game.
Personally, my stance currently is: they are a bit too useful when bunched up and given orders, but this is an easy fix.
I also think commissars have a bit too much synergy with them, given you will never realistically take conscripts without a commissar, and 30 points to boost two or more squads is a token price for a unit whose leadership is supposed to be a major downside, and currently the game lacks many ways to deal with characters, particularly with the conga line way conscripts are often fielded. It's also not much of an issue with a 50-100 conscripts unless you are playing really low point games, but more than that starts becoming a problem.
As far as solutions go, I've seen a number that work
So the 0-1 per platoon approach works imo, because in moderation they aren't a balance issue.
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
I also still think a 6+ armor save would work, even at a 6+ they absorb damage slightly better than normal squads of infantry of the same cost (30 wounds on an 6+ Is 25, 75 points dead for 3 point conscripts. 30 on a 5+ is 20 dead, 80 points on a normal squad). Considering that conscripts would still synergize better with commissars in this scenario, they'd still have a useful role.
I also did have one additional thought: this game just needs more low strength AP-2 weaponry. This would arguably be the best way to kill such a unit if coated correctly, but currently there are few weapons like that, and those that do exist tend be high strength and a bit overkill for conscripts. It also won't further invalidate other horde armies, who are all generally 6+ across the board, or rocking invulnerable saves (though brimstone horrors could use a hit as well it seems).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/24 16:56:19
Low strAP-2 weaponry ends up being better against SHV rather than conscripts, because each point of rend is actually very valuable now. The problem is largely that this armor which was effectivly nonexistent in a previous edition, now is always there but the points haven't changed. It makes their durability quite literally 33 percent better against AP- weapons for no points increase.
It was a problem some people predicted but I didn't think anything of it at the time, because so many theories were floating around how the AP system would work. Remember people though lasguns might end up being AP +1 ? literally improving the opponents armor save. It was an interesting idea that would have been great if GW ever got rid of the 1 always means a fail system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/24 17:08:07
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
That would ruin the Commissar and nobody would ever use it, unless you also gave him a big boost to his range.
~5000 points of IG and DKoK
I'm awful at reading private messages, so just reply to the threads I'm visiting.
Another solution would be to do what Sigmar does, and have both a points limit, and a wounds limit.
2000 points, 100 wounds. Boom. Done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/24 17:15:31
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
If you going to nerf the conscripts ability to get orders or their synergy with the commisar then they would have to go through every army that has this effect (nids/orks) and remove it as well.
All of this is MATHHAMMER and has not been proven in a GT yet so its all theory atm. Stop for a second and give it a bit to see if it really is the mountain you making this molehill into
daedalus wrote: I think GW should inflate the point system by a factor of 10x, that way greater granularity of control over point cost balance may be achieved.
And then I get to say "Conscripts cost 35 points now. How can you say they're too cheap?!"
I was actually thinking about this earlier. Say hypothetically that grots are worth exactly three points and normal guardsman are worth exactly four, as the game is currently balanced. There really isn't any way to fit termagaunts and conscripts in without pushing their stats up or down.
Then again, this implies a level of fine control over the balance I don't think GW has ever bothered with.
It does not take army context into account, is the problem.
Basically, a Guardsman is not always a Guardsman. They're not always worth 4 points. You need to take the rest of the army they belong to into account.
Take a guardsman and add him to a Tau army. Are they still worth 4 points when stacked up against a Firewarrior? How about in a World Eaters list? Necrons? Eldar?
Termagaunts are worth what they're worth in the context of a Tyranids list. Conscripts are, OTOH, worth 3 PPM in the context of the IG.
Wake. Rise. Destroy. Conquer.
We have done so once. We will do so again.
Most of the complaining about conscripts is probably based on maths - but mathematics doesn't lie.
But, like any system, they're susceptible to poorly considered input.
Almost all the mathhammer I've seen attempted assumes the conscripts are unharmed and within 12" of the enemy.
Almost all the screening unit theorycrafting I've seen attempted assumes they're spread out across an entire side of the table.
Almost all the complaints assume they're paradoxically doing both at once.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Now take your conscript and shoot him with a S4 no rend hit and a naked tactical marine with the same. In terms of points lost the Conscripts are losing just 60% of what the Marine player is losing.
Against an S3 hit no rend its about 70%.
S4 -1 rend? The conscript player is losing a full 50% fewer points than the Marine player.
How about S6 -1 rend, because assault cannons are meant to blend T3 units? Well again, the guard player is losing just 48% of the points the naked marine player would be. So its pretty bad.
So in conclusion conscripts have about the same damage output as basic marines without orders against regular T4 infantry (and they are even better vs T3). They can easily and cheaply get an order to double their firepower, which gives them some of the best firepower for regular infantry in the game.
They are considerably more resilient than basic marines to any firepower you are likely to get. In fact you can do the numbers and they come out tougher than almost every infantry unit in the game (barring Brimstones). For another comparison shooting bolters into Conscripts is just a little over half as effective as shooting them into Boys. Shooting them with bolters is just slightly more efficient than shooting a lascannon armed Razorback! At what point does it become silly?
None of this requires them to be in 12" - if some or all of them are their firepower just becomes even more effective. Sometimes it is going to happen because people fail charges.
None of this requires them to block off an entire side of the table. The fact they are cheap and can therefore provide area denial, bubble wrapping or blob up on objectives is just a further perk.
Even if they got nerfed down to a 6+ save and couldn't take orders they would still be pretty good in terms of comparable cheap horde units.
They are awesome in every situation I imagine.
Whether or not they are as awesome as the all in RG buffed alpha strike I don't know. We shall have to see. But I expect IG to place highly in tournaments and will be surprised if they don't.
Harlequins came 2nd in that tournament and I just don't see how Harlequins would have a hope against guard with a solid sea of conscripts.
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
That would ruin the Commissar and nobody would ever use it, unless you also gave him a big boost to his range.
How the Hell would it help him avoid snipers and stay in cover?
Arandmoor wrote: It does not take army context into account, is the problem.
Basically, a Guardsman is not always a Guardsman. They're not always worth 4 points. You need to take the rest of the army they belong to into account.
Take a guardsman and add him to a Tau army. Are they still worth 4 points when stacked up against a Firewarrior? How about in a World Eaters list? Necrons? Eldar?
Termagaunts are worth what they're worth in the context of a Tyranids list. Conscripts are, OTOH, worth 3 PPM in the context of the IG.
Well... no termagaunts aren't if we accept conscripts are. Everyone pretty much agrees on that. I don't think anyone is arguing termagaunts or grots are balanced in fact, there is a reason they are basically absent from competitive lists. Indeed, most of the people defending conscripts in this thread have argued termagaunts are overpriced/too weak, same with grots.
The context here doesn't amount to much. Termagaunts and grots are currently weaker, benefit less from synergy within their own army than conscripts, and are generally just meh.
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
That would ruin the Commissar and nobody would ever use it, unless you also gave him a big boost to his range.
How the Hell would it help him avoid snipers and stay in cover?
Assuming that was addressed to me, it would keep him from staying out of line of sight, if you read the quote again. Prevents the weird conga line where the commissar is executing a model on the other side of a solid wall outside his pistol's range.
Also yes the idea was it'd be a 9" to 12" bubble, not 6"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/24 18:15:41
Arandmoor wrote: It does not take army context into account, is the problem.
Basically, a Guardsman is not always a Guardsman. They're not always worth 4 points. You need to take the rest of the army they belong to into account.
Take a guardsman and add him to a Tau army. Are they still worth 4 points when stacked up against a Firewarrior? How about in a World Eaters list? Necrons? Eldar?
Termagaunts are worth what they're worth in the context of a Tyranids list. Conscripts are, OTOH, worth 3 PPM in the context of the IG.
Well... no termagaunts aren't if we accept conscripts are. Everyone pretty much agrees on that. I don't think anyone is arguing termagaunts or grots are balanced in fact, there is a reason they are basically absent from competitive lists. Indeed, most of the people defending conscripts in this thread have argued termagaunts are overpriced/too weak, same with grots.
The context here doesn't amount to much. Termagaunts and grots are currently weaker, benefit less from synergy within their own army than conscripts, and are generally just meh.
Grots aren't "meh". They're redundant in their list and they suck. There's a big difference.
Conscripts have a big advantage over guardsmen that grots do not have over orks. Namely, their maximum squad size is five times the size of a normal guardsman squad. That's a huge advantage over guardsmen.
Grots can be accompanied by a handler that does much the same thing a commissar does. However, regular boyz mobs are the same size as grot mobs, shoot almost as good, and CC about 8 times as good for twice the price per model.
Grots seem to be a 7th edition unit that simply isn't fully compatible with the 8th edition rules. They're a very poor comparison to conscripts. The only thing the two units have in common is price.
Also, conscripts can't be pooped out, 10 at a time, by an HQ unit specifically devised to synergise with them. They also carry assault guns, in a mobile army, so that they can move, advance, and shoot (albeit they'll only hit on a 5+ when they do). I feel that gaunts have lots of synergy with their own army. I have no idea where you get the idea that they don't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/24 18:28:15
Wake. Rise. Destroy. Conquer.
We have done so once. We will do so again.
SilverAlien wrote:
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
Devil's in the details though. That sounds like it COULD be reasonable at first, until you find out what people's ideas of a reasonable distance is. Nine inches is enough space to barely fit a mathematically optimum-placed squad of conscripts inside the bubble. That's not useful, and you'd just hate the player for "slow playing" because he took an hour each time he moved to make sure everyone could be where they were supposed to be. It also makes moving anywhere near terrain basically impossible. At 12" you have basically the same problem with terrain, but placement becomes a bit more forgiving. Also, it might've been hard before, but the placement at 12" guarantees that assaulty armies NEVER get to the chewy commissariat center of the conscript tootsieroll pop. Of course, at 18" fully inside the bubble, it's become useful, and you can actually navigate terrain and be able to do things like have enough flexibility to deploy with other units also in your deployment zone but everyone's going to look at crazy ol' daedalus over here increasing the range and immediately panic.
Maybe it could be 12", and every model just had to be within 12" range of SOME commissar somewhere, rather than all being within 12" of one specific commissar? I'm trying to be reasonable.
I also still think a 6+ armor save would work, even at a 6+ they absorb damage slightly better than normal squads of infantry of the same cost (30 wounds on an 6+ Is 25, 75 points dead for 3 point conscripts. 30 on a 5+ is 20 dead, 80 points on a normal squad). Considering that conscripts would still synergize better with commissars in this scenario, they'd still have a useful role.
I also did have one additional thought: this game just needs more low strength AP-2 weaponry. This would arguably be the best way to kill such a unit if coated correctly, but currently there are few weapons like that, and those that do exist tend be high strength and a bit overkill for conscripts. It also won't further invalidate other horde armies, who are all generally 6+ across the board, or rocking invulnerable saves (though brimstone horrors could use a hit as well it seems).
But is the issue their survivability or is it their damage? I'm confused because I keep hearing one, but then it seems like its the other.
Quickjager wrote:The problem is largely that this armor which was effectivly nonexistent in a previous edition, now is always there but the points haven't changed. It makes their durability quite literally 33 percent better against AP- weapons for no points increase.
That's a pretty marine-centric way of looking at it. I remind you that all that cover they lost in 8th edition didn't decrease their points either. Seems to be a wash teetering on maybe a little better off for Guard than they were before.
At this point, if you have to change ANYTHING for conscripts, the only two reasonable things to do are:
- Reinstate the platoon and make them 0-1 for the overhead of the rest of the troops
- Make them BS 6+. That gives them about 58% of 2-4 dead space marines at full strength, at 12" FRFSRF range, which is a bunch of conditions that shouldn't matter because they'll never happen.
The first option is my preferred, because it solves it through a convention that's been in place for years, and it's fluffy. The second option is something I've been contemplating for a while. I still don't know if I like it, but I'd be interested in seeing it happen. It completely makes anything that can force a -1 on shooting attacks to become utterly immune to them, which I definitely DON'T like the idea of. I can't accept with a serious face that laser light is too slow to hit a Valkyrie.
This brings up a point I've been wondering.
Why didn't GW add in to the shooting rules "A 6 on the dice always hits, (regardless of modifiers)"
At this point, if you have to change ANYTHING for conscripts, the only two reasonable things to do are:
- Reinstate the platoon and make them 0-1 for the overhead of the rest of the troops
- Make them BS 6+. That gives them about 58% of 2-4 dead space marines at full strength, at 12" FRFSRF range, which is a bunch of conditions that shouldn't matter because they'll never happen.
The first option is my preferred, because it solves it through a convention that's been in place for years, and it's fluffy. The second option is something I've been contemplating for a while. I still don't know if I like it, but I'd be interested in seeing it happen. It completely makes anything that can force a -1 on shooting attacks to become utterly immune to them, which I definitely DON'T like the idea of. I can't accept with a serious face that laser light is too slow to hit a Valkyrie.
This brings up a point I've been wondering.
Why didn't GW add in to the shooting rules "A 6 on the dice always hits, (regardless of modifiers)"
Because that allows certain armies to ignore the special rules of other armies, e.g. Orks would ignore the hard-to-hit rule (or the Raven Guard Chapter Tactics) if they're firing while moving with heavy weapons.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
That math is off by a bit. Three conscripts without orders will be dealing just as many wounds vs MEQ as the marine on average. At 24'' they fire 3 shots, 1 hit, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. While the marine fires 1 shot, 2/3 hits, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. So three conscripts without orders but with a commissar (10.8 pts by those numbers) are just as effective as one space marine (13 pts) at 83% of the cost. And since FRFSRF makes them twice as shooty, three conscripts with orders dish out 200% of what the marine does on average at 92% of his price.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots. Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target. The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points. A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price. 3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price 3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
That math is off by a bit. Three conscripts without orders will be dealing just as many wounds vs MEQ as the marine on average. At 24'' they fire 3 shots, 1 hit, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. While the marine fires 1 shot, 2/3 hits, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. So three conscripts without orders but with a commissar (10.8 pts by those numbers) are just as effective as one space marine (13 pts) at 83% of the cost. And since FRFSRF makes them twice as shooty, three conscripts with orders dish out 200% of what the marine does on average at 92% of his price.
Your math is off. Space marine is 1/2 wounds (4+, not 5+), not 1/3rd, meaning instead of 1/9 damage, it is 1/6. Bringing it back to what Katherine calculated.
Yes, Conscripts with orders are too good, that's daedalus's point as well as mine and Katherine's.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/24 19:28:01
Arandmoor wrote: Also, conscripts can't be pooped out, 10 at a time, by an HQ unit specifically devised to synergise with them. They also carry assault guns, in a mobile army, so that they can move, advance, and shoot (albeit they'll only hit on a 5+ when they do). I feel that gaunts have lots of synergy with their own army. I have no idea where you get the idea that they don't.
If you look at the pricing and offensive options of that HQ, you realize it's not really that useful. It's so expensive that the 60 termagaunts it creates over the course of a game only make up for like 2/3rds of the cost. It's good, but no better than the HQ optiosn available to guard. As for the whole assault weapon thing, it's a 12 inch single shot assault weapon with 4 str and no ap. Being able to advance and fire doesn't help much compared to a 24" RF weapon.
So termagaunts are fairly garbage. No offensive power even compared to barebones IG infantry or conscripts, over costed as disposable bodies (6+ for 4 points is worse than any suggested nerf to conscripts), HQs aren't particularly more efficient point wise compared to what guard has. Just no real purpose. Why would you take them?
daedalus wrote: But is the issue their survivability or is it their damage? I'm confused because I keep hearing one, but then it seems like its the other.
That's because the disagreement now boils down to some thinking both are an issue, some think only the damage is the issue.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
This all banks on commissars only being able to effect a single unit of conscripts at a time, which again isn't what currently happens, a commissar can effect two conscript units easily, three if you push things.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
That math is off by a bit. Three conscripts without orders will be dealing just as many wounds vs MEQ as the marine on average. At 24'' they fire 3 shots, 1 hit, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. While the marine fires 1 shot, 2/3 hits, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. So three conscripts without orders but with a commissar (10.8 pts by those numbers) are just as effective as one space marine (13 pts) at 83% of the cost. And since FRFSRF makes them twice as shooty, three conscripts with orders dish out 200% of what the marine does on average at 92% of his price.
Your math is off. Space marine is 1/2 wounds (4+, not 5+), not 1/3rd, meaning instead of 1/9 damage, it is 1/6. Bringing it back to what Katherine calculated.
Yes, Conscripts with orders are too good, that's daedalus's point as well as mine and Katherine's.
That's included in the calculation. The space marine gets 2/3 hits, that is divided by two for his 4+ to wound yielding 1/3 wounds. Just like the lasgun a bolter has no AP so 1/9 damage.
Arandmoor wrote: Also, conscripts can't be pooped out, 10 at a time, by an HQ unit specifically devised to synergise with them. They also carry assault guns, in a mobile army, so that they can move, advance, and shoot (albeit they'll only hit on a 5+ when they do). I feel that gaunts have lots of synergy with their own army. I have no idea where you get the idea that they don't.
If you look at the pricing and offensive options of that HQ, you realize it's not really that useful. It's so expensive that the 60 termagaunts it creates over the course of a game only make up for like 2/3rds of the cost. It's good, but no better than the HQ optiosn available to guard. As for the whole assault weapon thing, it's a 12 inch single shot assault weapon with 4 str and no ap. Being able to advance and fire doesn't help much compared to a 24" RF weapon.
So termagaunts are fairly garbage. No offensive power even compared to barebones IG infantry or conscripts, over costed as disposable bodies (6+ for 4 points is worse than any suggested nerf to conscripts), HQs aren't particularly more efficient point wise compared to what guard has. Just no real purpose. Why would you take them?
daedalus wrote: But is the issue their survivability or is it their damage? I'm confused because I keep hearing one, but then it seems like its the other.
That's because the disagreement now boils down to some thinking both are an issue, some think only the damage is the issue.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
This all banks on commissars only being able to effect a single unit of conscripts at a time, which again isn't what currently happens, a commissar can effect two conscript units easily, three if you push things.
We can make Termagaunts good, if you like. 3pts per model?
The damage is absolutely the issue. Katherine demonstrated that against most weapons a Conscript and a Marine's toughness are about right, point for point.
You're doing Shroedinger's Conscripts again. Is the commissar hiding from snipers behind LOS blocking terrain? If so, is he tying two or three conscript units to that one terrain piece as well as one? And if he is out where the squads can appropriately be spread out, the problem goes away because he can be sniped. Oh, and if the conscripts are trying to get 3 units in range of the Commissar, are they all packed together also? Or are they providing a screen? If it's a screen, if a conga-line back to the commissar takes 10 models, you might as well buy another commissar for the unit...
...seriously, all this stuff requires tabletop tactics.
Quickjager wrote:The problem is largely that this armor which was effectivly nonexistent in a previous edition, now is always there but the points haven't changed. It makes their durability quite literally 33 percent better against AP- weapons for no points increase.
That's a pretty marine-centric way of looking at it. I remind you that all that cover they lost in 8th edition didn't decrease their points either. Seems to be a wash teetering on maybe a little better off for Guard than they were before.
How is that Marine centric? Marines have rarely benefited from cover outside of jink saves or night fighting. Are you saying having 33% reduction of incoming fire is not worth anything? Or are you talking about how Aegis Defense Line isn't as good?
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
That math is off by a bit. Three conscripts without orders will be dealing just as many wounds vs MEQ as the marine on average. At 24'' they fire 3 shots, 1 hit, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. While the marine fires 1 shot, 2/3 hits, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. So three conscripts without orders but with a commissar (10.8 pts by those numbers) are just as effective as one space marine (13 pts) at 83% of the cost. And since FRFSRF makes them twice as shooty, three conscripts with orders dish out 200% of what the marine does on average at 92% of his price.
Your math is off. Space marine is 1/2 wounds (4+, not 5+), not 1/3rd, meaning instead of 1/9 damage, it is 1/6. Bringing it back to what Katherine calculated.
Yes, Conscripts with orders are too good, that's daedalus's point as well as mine and Katherine's.
That's included in the calculation. The space marine gets 2/3 hits, that is divided by two for his 4+ to wound yielding 1/3 wounds. Just like the lasgun a bolter has no AP so 1/9 damage.
That's not how math works though - he has a 2/3rds to hit, and it's absolute, so he either hits or he doesn't. If he hits, it's 1/2, if he doesn't it's nothing. The nothing is already accounted for by the fact that it's 2/3rds and not 1, so the hit has a 50% chance to wound, because when you scale it up to large squad sizes, that's how it works.
9 Marines: 9 shots, 6 hit, 3 (not 2) wound, 1 dead space marine.
29 conscripts plus commissar: 29 shots, 9.66 hits, 3.22 wounds, 1.07 dead space marines.
