Switch Theme:

Fixing Summary Execution  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster





So, amidst all the complaints I'm seeing about Conscript spam, the single biggest complaint I'm probably seeing is the ridiculousness that is Summary Execution, and the fact that even if you kill half a 50 man blob of Conscripts, they're just going to lose one model in the morale phase and then go back to shooting insane numbers of Lasguns, because Commissars are cheap and you can just put one in the middle of a couple of blobs.

So, it seems to me that the simplest solution would be to just acknowledge that even the best Commissar is only going to be able to make his men hold the line for so long in the face of certain death by threatening them with certain death, and take the ol' nerf sword to summary execution. I can think of a couple ways to achieve this, depending on level of complexity you wanted to add to the rule.

1) Leave SE exactly as it is, lose one model to morale and that's it. Buuuuuuut, it's a once per game per commissar ability, and any single unit can only be summarily executed once. After that, they're disillusioned with their choices of heroic death or ignominious death, and opt for plan c: ignominious pants-pissing-and-living-to-hopefully-not-fight-another-day-maybe-they'll-join-the-Tau-or-something.

2) SE reduces the number of models that flee by a fixed ratio (1/2, 1/3, whatever). Sure, some of them are gonna realized they're hosed either way, but some of them are more immediately cowed by the guy 5 feet away who just shot their buddy in the head than they are by the guy 500 feet away who was going to shoot their buddy in the head.

3) SE becomes a game of diminishing returns. First time a unit uses it, they can't lose one model to morale. Second time, they can't lose more the 5. Third time, they can't lose more than 10. Third time, they can't lose more than 15. Fourth time isn't realistically going to happen, congratulations, if you lived that long long, the Emperor thanks you for your service. Or he would, if he cared enough to notice. Which he doesn't, because let's face it, he's pretty much dead, and he didn't even really care that much when he was alive.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/12 00:25:43


"But If the Earth isn't flat, then how did Jabba chakka wookiee no Solo ho ho ho hoooooooo?" 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Conscripts are really the only unit with which Summary Execution is broken. Instead of changing Summary Execution and potentially complicating it or making it worse for every other unit it could help, I'd rather just see conscripts get a rule that says, "These guys are so poorly disciplined and unpredictable that even commissars can't really reign them in. They cannot be the target of Summary Execution."

That said, here are some thoughts on the solutions you've proposed.

1. This would be pretty okay, but getting two turns out of your conscript blob means they're probably sort of kind of doing their job already anyways. If you've lost enough guys to make yourself worried about morale two turns in a row, your opponent has probably invested a lot of points worth of firepower into a cheap unit you barely care about.

I'd also worry that this could cripple your ability to inflict meaningful morale casualties in the first place. Say I kill all but 20 guys on one turn in an effort to force a morale test. You negate the morale test with SE. On my next turn, I can kill over half the unit and rely on morale to finish them off, but at that point, I could just shoot the last couple of guys to death roughly as easily.

2. Generally, the exact number of conscripts left alive doesn't matter all that much. As long as you have enough guys to make a human wall in front of your artillery or stand on an objective, it doesn't much matter whether you have 25 left or just 15. So while this would feel better than the, "No, you have to kill all 50 guys" rule that we currently have, I'm not sure it actually nerfs conscripts much/enough. That said, this is probably my favorite suggestion of the 3.

3. Nah. As mentioned above, if you can keep the blob alive for multiple turns (3 in the example you gave), then they've pretty much done their job at that point. This is less of a "real" nerf and more of a, 'Hey buddy, now that it doesn't really matter, you can kill off those last couple conscripts with morale if you'd like."

Perhaps I'm being too harsh/biased, but I really feel like conscript blobs are exactly the sort of unit the new morale system is meant to be effective against. Want to take an unwieldy number of cheap bodies? Go ahead. But any opponent that brought a moderate amount of anti-horde weaponry is going to clear that unit out in about a turn.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster





Wyldhunt wrote:
"These guys are so poorly disciplined and unpredictable that even commissars can't really reign them in. They cannot be the target of Summary Execution."


Oh, sure, fine, just come along with something way simpler and less convoluted. Rude.


"But If the Earth isn't flat, then how did Jabba chakka wookiee no Solo ho ho ho hoooooooo?" 
   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

Conscripts not being target of Summary Execution does seem the simplest, and probably the one I'd go for. I also think that Conscript blobs should max out at 20 or 30 models per unit at most.

Another option though might be instead of losing 1, it's 1 per 10 models or 1 + D3 for more than 10 models in the unit. That's probably still too good, though.

It never ends well 
   
Made in nz
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot



New Zealand

I was considering Commissars reduce morale losses by D6. Sometimes the commissar just needs to look threatening, and he only can do so much.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

If you eliminate summary execution from conscripts, then you eliminate the unit's function fluff based function. Its too hard of a nerf. They then become purely a blob of lasguns receiving FRSRF orders and you'll all complain about that instead (rightfully, because they're more efficient than ACTUAL infantry squads).

Lowering the unit numbers doesn't do anything. People will just bring more units.

Remove their <regiment> tag and you remove their ability to take orders. Then they can't fall back and fire, they don't get double shots, but they're still useful as a human shield which is their lore based function.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/13 03:05:23


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 argonak wrote:
If you eliminate summary execution from conscripts, then you eliminate the unit's function fluff based function. Its too hard of a nerf. They then become purely a blob of lasguns receiving FRSRF orders and you'll all complain about that instead (rightfully, because they're more efficient than ACTUAL infantry squads).

Lowering the unit numbers doesn't do anything. People will just bring more units.

Remove their <regiment> tag and you remove their ability to take orders. Then they can't fall back and fire, they don't get double shots, but they're still useful as a human shield which is their lore based function.


You make a lot of good points. Some counterpoints:

*I'd argue that the fact that they DO step on the toes of actual infantry squads is kind of a problem. Infantry squads should be the guys that benefit from orders, can be coaxed into staying in the fight, etc. Conscripts are supposed to be the dime-a-dozen newbies or the low-morale "conscripted" prisoners. They shouldn't be making heroic stands in the face of overwhelming firepower. They should be wetting their pants, saving their own skin, or just generally failing to follow orders in the chaos of battle. If you take away both orders and the commissar's ability to make them essentially fearless, then you're left with a very cheap squad of bullet catchers that hit hard for their points. Your opponent will still have to "waste" shots dealing with them, but they won't be the unstoppable area denial units they are now.

* Lowering the unit numbers makes a slight difference in that you now have a bunch of easy kill points you can give up instead of a massive kill point denial squad. It's also more satisfying to know that you're blasting your way through a bunch of small squads rather than failing to hurt one big one, even though you're actually killing the same number of models. Less of a gameplay thing and more of a psychological consideration. It's, "I just killed 4.5 squads!" instead of, "I couldn't even kill that one squad..."




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tygre wrote:
I was considering Commissars reduce morale losses by D6. Sometimes the commissar just needs to look threatening, and he only can do so much.


I kind of like that. d6 fewer morale casualties is a drop in the bucket for conscripts. You could totally still wipe them in a turn using morale casualties. But that squad of 10 guys that lost 5 guys a second ago, you could keep more of them in the fight without it being game breaking.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/13 04:06:21



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission



Eastern VA

The more I think about this one, I agree with the folks suggesting dropping their <REGIMENT> keyword and also making it so that Commissars don't help Conscripts with losses. Maybe they should get to use the Commissar's leadership - so that way they aren't completely useless, and there's still a reason to have Commissars tending the conscript squads, like there would be in the fluff - but "never lose more than one dude" is too much, while it's just fine for regulars and veterans.

~4500 -- ~4000 -- ~2000 -- ~5000 -- ~5000 -- ~4000 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




Seattle Area

I posted a thread in this forum a while back, suggesting no SE and no Orders for conscripts and got flamed by a half dozen people for suggesting a crappy, ham fisted solution.

Not subtle fixes, but ones I think will ultimately prove necessary.

Froth at the top, dregs at the bottom, but the middle - excellent 
   
Made in gb
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Why Aye Ya Canny Dakkanaughts!

 znelson wrote:
I posted a thread in this forum a while back, suggesting no SE and no Orders for conscripts and got flamed by a half dozen people for suggesting a crappy, ham fisted solution.

Not subtle fixes, but ones I think will ultimately prove necessary.

I agree with you completely.

Conscripts aren't part of rigorously trained regiments, they aren't skilled soldiers and they have no discipline. They are conscripts, not Infantry squads, they shouldn't be able to blend so smoothly with the rest of the IG mechanism. They should be cannon fodder and no more.

Ghorros wrote:
The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
 Marmatag wrote:
All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




I agree that conscript spam/commisars is a (slight) issue - not as much as most people seem to think, but still needing addressed. I'd imagine they will prolly try to fix it by way of point bump in the codex, but that isnt really satifactory.

Initially I'd have said reduce the unit size cap down to about half the current level would be fine, but reading the thread last night got me thinking.

I love the new summary execution rule, it perfectly captures the fluff of commissars so wouldn't want to change that. That leaves changing consripts. I'd give them the following rule

rebellious nature. Whenever this unit loses a model to summary execution roll a d6:
1 -"what the hell's going on?" - the entire unit flees, hides or begins infighting. remove the unit from the table.
2 - "that bastard killed johnny, get 'im" - the unit takes d6 mortal wounds and each commisar within 6" each takes d3 mortal wounds. If these wounds kill all commissars within 6" of the unit then the original morale test stands (the executed model counts towards those fleeing).
3 - "bugger this, i'm off anyway" - the original morale test stands. remove models as normal (the executed model counts as having fled)
4 - "gak, I think he's serious" - The execution works and nothing else happens.
5 - "dont piss him off again" the unit automatically passes its next morale tests for as long as a commisar is within 6".
6 - "feth it, For the Emperor!" - the unit automatically passes all morale tests if there is a commissar within 6"
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA


If you don't want them to receive orders, they shouldn't be able to receive orders. Dropping their <regiment> keyword is a mistake as it will screw up the detachment's ability to get regiment bonuses once the AM codex comes out.



I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in gb
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Why Aye Ya Canny Dakkanaughts!

 yakface wrote:

If you don't want them to receive orders, they shouldn't be able to receive orders. Dropping their <regiment> keyword is a mistake as it will screw up the detachment's ability to get regiment bonuses once the AM codex comes out.



Aye, people are trying too hard to find a clever way of fixing them. They just need something like:
Undisciplined: Conscript units cannot be affected by Summary Execuation or Orders.

They're still a massive sink of Firepower to kill and an IG commander can still decide to spend 2CP to ignore morale on a key bubble wrapping unit if they like. It also gives people an insentive to take Infantry squads: either take the cheaper models that will be hurt by morale more and can't benefit from orders or take the slightly more expensive models that do benefit from orders and SE.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/14 23:10:33


Ghorros wrote:
The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
 Marmatag wrote:
All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

 mrhappyface wrote:

Aye, people are trying too hard to find a clever way of fixing them. They just need something like:
Undisciplined: Conscript units cannot be affected by Summary Execuation or Orders.

They're still a massive sink of Firepower to kill and an IG commander can still decide to spend 2CP to ignore morale on a key bubble wrapping unit if they like. It also gives people an insentive to take Infantry squads: either take the cheaper models that will be hurt by morale more and can't benefit from orders or take the slightly more expensive models that do benefit from orders and SE.

I feel like Summary Execution should still work on them, just more of them should need to be shot to maintain order when the unit is really panicking. Like for every 3 conscripts that would be removed, he has to shoot (kill) 1 of them. So if 9 Conscripts were fleeing, he'd have to shoot 3 of them to maintain order.




I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 yakface wrote:

If you don't want them to receive orders, they shouldn't be able to receive orders. Dropping their <regiment> keyword is a mistake as it will screw up the detachment's ability to get regiment bonuses once the AM codex comes out.




Depending on what regiment bonuses end up looking like, and depending on what one considers "conscripts" to be, I might be fine with that. Like, if catachans get a 6+ FNP for being mother truckers, and if conscripts are just less disciplined catachans (how do those survive to reach conscription age?), then it makes sense for them to also have the 6+ FNP. If conscripts are actually just press-ganged unfortunates from the last hive world you resupplied at, they might not deserve that FNP. Similarly, Tallarn conscripts might not have the training that gives Tallarn units... scout or tank bonuses or whatever those guys end up getting.

What I'm getting at is that not receiving regiment bonuses might make sense for conscripts.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Why Aye Ya Canny Dakkanaughts!

 yakface wrote:
I feel like Summary Execution should still work on them, just more of them should need to be shot to maintain order when the unit is really panicking. Like for every 3 conscripts that would be removed, he has to shoot (kill) 1 of them. So if 9 Conscripts were fleeing, he'd have to shoot 3 of them to maintain order.

I still don't like it, IMO conscripts should be a cheap bubble wrap that requires your opponant to waste a turn hacking them to bits before they can get at the meaty tanks in the centre, if they have access to any kind of SE then the bubble wrap is lasting too long for it's points. If you want your bubble wrap to stay alive for multiple turns then you should have to pay more points.

Taking away SE and orders from conscripts solves the problem that conscripts are OP and solves the problem that no one is taking Infantry squads over conscripts.

Ghorros wrote:
The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
 Marmatag wrote:
All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 yakface wrote:
 mrhappyface wrote:

Aye, people are trying too hard to find a clever way of fixing them. They just need something like:
Undisciplined: Conscript units cannot be affected by Summary Execuation or Orders.

They're still a massive sink of Firepower to kill and an IG commander can still decide to spend 2CP to ignore morale on a key bubble wrapping unit if they like. It also gives people an insentive to take Infantry squads: either take the cheaper models that will be hurt by morale more and can't benefit from orders or take the slightly more expensive models that do benefit from orders and SE.

I feel like Summary Execution should still work on them, just more of them should need to be shot to maintain order when the unit is really panicking. Like for every 3 conscripts that would be removed, he has to shoot (kill) 1 of them. So if 9 Conscripts were fleeing, he'd have to shoot 3 of them to maintain order.





Eh. I'm not a fan. Partly because I feel like the cheap, easily removed unit should be just that. Partly because a madman emptying his pistol clip into all of my buddies is more likely to make me go after him instead of walking into the bullet storm that just killed 20 guys ahead of me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pskotti wrote:
I agree that conscript spam/commisars is a (slight) issue - not as much as most people seem to think, but still needing addressed. I'd imagine they will prolly try to fix it by way of point bump in the codex, but that isnt really satifactory.

Initially I'd have said reduce the unit size cap down to about half the current level would be fine, but reading the thread last night got me thinking.

I love the new summary execution rule, it perfectly captures the fluff of commissars so wouldn't want to change that. That leaves changing consripts. I'd give them the following rule

rebellious nature. Whenever this unit loses a model to summary execution roll a d6:
1 -"what the hell's going on?" - the entire unit flees, hides or begins infighting. remove the unit from the table.
2 - "that bastard killed johnny, get 'im" - the unit takes d6 mortal wounds and each commisar within 6" each takes d3 mortal wounds. If these wounds kill all commissars within 6" of the unit then the original morale test stands (the executed model counts towards those fleeing).
3 - "bugger this, i'm off anyway" - the original morale test stands. remove models as normal (the executed model counts as having fled)
4 - "gak, I think he's serious" - The execution works and nothing else happens.
5 - "dont piss him off again" the unit automatically passes its next morale tests for as long as a commisar is within 6".
6 - "feth it, For the Emperor!" - the unit automatically passes all morale tests if there is a commissar within 6"


Some neat fluffy ideas in there! I don't think I could get behind this idea for a few reasons though:

* 7th edition burned me out on random d6 charts.
* Half the time, you're paying for an ability that kills your own units or does nothing at all.
* The other half of the time, you're making conscripts even more problematic than usual for the rest of the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/14 23:35:20



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

Wyldhunt wrote:
Depending on what regiment bonuses end up looking like, and depending on what one considers "conscripts" to be, I might be fine with that. Like, if catachans get a 6+ FNP for being mother truckers, and if conscripts are just less disciplined catachans (how do those survive to reach conscription age?), then it makes sense for them to also have the 6+ FNP. If conscripts are actually just press-ganged unfortunates from the last hive world you resupplied at, they might not deserve that FNP. Similarly, Tallarn conscripts might not have the training that gives Tallarn units... scout or tank bonuses or whatever those guys end up getting.

What I'm getting at is that not receiving regiment bonuses might make sense for conscripts.

I'm not sure you quite understand how detachment bonuses work in the new codexes.

Currently, in order to utilize a detchment bonus (a SM Chatper Tactic, a CSM Legion Trait, etc.) ALL units in the detachment MUST have a <CHAPTER> or <LEGION> keyword, respectively. So for example, if you include any (non-summoned) Daemons as part of a CSM detachment, then none of the units in that detachment benefit from their Legion Trait.

So in the case of Conscripts, if there were such a thing as Regiment Traits (which there will assuredly be), then a detachment made up of all Catachan regiment units and a conscript unit or two would not get to benefit at all from the Catachan Traits because of the presence of the conscripts.

Its not just a case of the conscripts getting the regiment bonus, its the case of the entire detachment not getting the regiment bonus if the conscripts don't have a regiment.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




Seattle Area

Pskotti wrote:
I agree that conscript spam/commisars is a (slight) issue - not as much as most people seem to think, but still needing addressed. I'd imagine they will prolly try to fix it by way of point bump in the codex, but that isnt really satifactory.

Initially I'd have said reduce the unit size cap down to about half the current level would be fine, but reading the thread last night got me thinking.

I love the new summary execution rule, it perfectly captures the fluff of commissars so wouldn't want to change that. That leaves changing consripts. I'd give them the following rule

rebellious nature. Whenever this unit loses a model to summary execution roll a d6:
1 -"what the hell's going on?" - the entire unit flees, hides or begins infighting. remove the unit from the table.
2 - "that bastard killed johnny, get 'im" - the unit takes d6 mortal wounds and each commisar within 6" each takes d3 mortal wounds. If these wounds kill all commissars within 6" of the unit then the original morale test stands (the executed model counts towards those fleeing).
3 - "bugger this, i'm off anyway" - the original morale test stands. remove models as normal (the executed model counts as having fled)
4 - "gak, I think he's serious" - The execution works and nothing else happens.
5 - "dont piss him off again" the unit automatically passes its next morale tests for as long as a commisar is within 6".
6 - "feth it, For the Emperor!" - the unit automatically passes all morale tests if there is a commissar within 6"


I think this is a neat idea, but would probably create as many problems as it solves. You could always CP the result which makes it unlikely you'd a result of 1 or 2.

I think what gets lost in this is that a player can still spend 2CP to avoid a morale check, and every AM list has CPs coming out it's ass. Given the volume of fire required to make a real dent, how many conscript squads are taking a meaningful morale test? Two, maybe?

No orders, no SE, no problems.

Froth at the top, dregs at the bottom, but the middle - excellent 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 yakface wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Depending on what regiment bonuses end up looking like, and depending on what one considers "conscripts" to be, I might be fine with that. Like, if catachans get a 6+ FNP for being mother truckers, and if conscripts are just less disciplined catachans (how do those survive to reach conscription age?), then it makes sense for them to also have the 6+ FNP. If conscripts are actually just press-ganged unfortunates from the last hive world you resupplied at, they might not deserve that FNP. Similarly, Tallarn conscripts might not have the training that gives Tallarn units... scout or tank bonuses or whatever those guys end up getting.

What I'm getting at is that not receiving regiment bonuses might make sense for conscripts.

I'm not sure you quite understand how detachment bonuses work in the new codexes.

Currently, in order to utilize a detchment bonus (a SM Chatper Tactic, a CSM Legion Trait, etc.) ALL units in the detachment MUST have a <CHAPTER> or <LEGION> keyword, respectively. So for example, if you include any (non-summoned) Daemons as part of a CSM detachment, then none of the units in that detachment benefit from their Legion Trait.

So in the case of Conscripts, if there were such a thing as Regiment Traits (which there will assuredly be), then a detachment made up of all Catachan regiment units and a conscript unit or two would not get to benefit at all from the Catachan Traits because of the presence of the conscripts.

Its not just a case of the conscripts getting the regiment bonus, its the case of the entire detachment not getting the regiment bonus if the conscripts don't have a regiment.



Ah right. I keep thinking it's "All units with <Faction> have to have the same <Faction>. " My bad.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Emboldened Warlock




Widnes UK

 yakface wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Depending on what regiment bonuses end up looking like, and depending on what one considers "conscripts" to be, I might be fine with that. Like, if catachans get a 6+ FNP for being mother truckers, and if conscripts are just less disciplined catachans (how do those survive to reach conscription age?), then it makes sense for them to also have the 6+ FNP. If conscripts are actually just press-ganged unfortunates from the last hive world you resupplied at, they might not deserve that FNP. Similarly, Tallarn conscripts might not have the training that gives Tallarn units... scout or tank bonuses or whatever those guys end up getting.

What I'm getting at is that not receiving regiment bonuses might make sense for conscripts.

I'm not sure you quite understand how detachment bonuses work in the new codexes.

Currently, in order to utilize a detchment bonus (a SM Chatper Tactic, a CSM Legion Trait, etc.) ALL units in the detachment MUST have a <CHAPTER> or <LEGION> keyword, respectively. So for example, if you include any (non-summoned) Daemons as part of a CSM detachment, then none of the units in that detachment benefit from their Legion Trait.

So in the case of Conscripts, if there were such a thing as Regiment Traits (which there will assuredly be), then a detachment made up of all Catachan regiment units and a conscript unit or two would not get to benefit at all from the Catachan Traits because of the presence of the conscripts.

Its not just a case of the conscripts getting the regiment bonus, its the case of the entire detachment not getting the regiment bonus if the conscripts don't have a regiment.


That could easily a change that in the AM codex to be "if all units in the detachment have the same <REGIMENT> or the CONSCRIPT keyword then <REGIMENT> units in the detachment get x bonus.

Ulthwe: 7500 points 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: