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.

Jpr wrote:
Last i've heard is they wanted to get the faq out with release, but may end up delayed due to the sheer amount of questions being asked/raised.

So now that the OP has gone back on what they've said, can we lock this [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] of a thread ?

So Gw stated they want this edition to be a "living ruleset", this means multiple FAQs and probably a yearly round-up of changes. They also claim it's the edition we players want. Has it occurred to anyone that the rules were leaked on purpose (like every leak these days)? That GW leaked them weeks before launch so all the gremlins could be found and they could patch it at launch?

We know the 40k devs don't play the game the way many players do and we know there aren't many of them. There also weren't that many playtesters and they didn't have a huge ammount fo time to do it. And we know there were few proof readers/editors because of the numerous mistakes in the indexes and we know they'd have to have sent the books to the printers long ago to get them boxed and ready to be sent out in time. The only way GW could have ironed out all the issues would be to release the game late next year. They kind of needed it to hit asap.

I hope there is day 1 dlc to patch the game. A few issues have already come up (like conscript spam) and they need to shut that gak down quickly before it poisons the game. Once that stuff gets it's claws into a game it's really hard to get rid of it.

Its weird to me because I have yet to see games with conscript spam its just been mathhammer.

 Leth wrote:
Its weird to me because I have yet to see games with conscript spam its just been mathhammer.

Well it take time to make a conscript army. I know it takes me a while, but I do crazy things like filing off mould lines and have a paint scheme that is not great for airbrushing.

I'm fully planning on running this army. I ran leafblower guard in 4th and I still have all my models. 150 guardsmen fully painted. I may add more. At least until they raise the cost of conscripts, but right now the efficiency of this build is too good to pass up.

Demantiae wrote:
So Gw stated they want this edition to be a "living ruleset", this means multiple FAQs and probably a yearly round-up of changes. They also claim it's the edition we players want. Has it occurred to anyone that the rules were leaked on purpose (like every leak these days)? That GW leaked them weeks before launch so all the gremlins could be found and they could patch it at launch?

We know the 40k devs don't play the game the way many players do and we know there aren't many of them. There also weren't that many playtesters and they didn't have a huge ammount fo time to do it. And we know there were few proof readers/editors because of the numerous mistakes in the indexes and we know they'd have to have sent the books to the printers long ago to get them boxed and ready to be sent out in time. The only way GW could have ironed out all the issues would be to release the game late next year. They kind of needed it to hit asap.

I hope there is day 1 dlc to patch the game. A few issues have already come up (like conscript spam) and they need to shut that gak down quickly before it poisons the game. Once that stuff gets it's claws into a game it's really hard to get rid of it.

They sent all the rules to most (all?) retailers and some community people over two weeks before the release date. So they knew very well that the rules would be fully leaked the day after they sent all the materials. And ever since the pre-order day, you can walk in in any GW and look at the rules for yourself, and even use their books to play 8th in the stores. So it was definitely intended for the community to have access to the rules before the release.

I supposed they intended to release a FAQ for the core rules quickly. I don't know if erratas/power rebalancing was (and is) part of the plan.

Jpr wrote:
Last i've heard is they wanted to get the faq out with release, but may end up delayed due to the sheer amount of questions being asked/raised.

lol

 Leth wrote:
Its weird to me because I have yet to see games with conscript spam its just been mathhammer.

I faced 2 units of 50. They bubbled for a turn, but died pretty easily. Didn't see them at all as game changing.

xmbk wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its weird to me because I have yet to see games with conscript spam its just been mathhammer.

I faced 2 units of 50. They bubbled for a turn, but died pretty easily. Didn't see them at all as game changing.

That is the level I am probably going to use. Enough to be able to tactically apply bodies in useful places, but they don't take the meat out of the army.

xmbk wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its weird to me because I have yet to see games with conscript spam its just been mathhammer.

I faced 2 units of 50. They bubbled for a turn, but died pretty easily. Didn't see them at all as game changing.

Did you manage to take out the commissars early or how did you deal with them?

macluvin wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Like I said, it's a marginal difference between cultists and normal guardsman. Not enough to merit cultists at 4 points imo, they should be 5 with normal guard (and again conscripts at 4). I just mention it for the "Well the guard should have the best GEQ" crowd. So they can see, yes at 5 points they still have guard which slightly edge out similar options in other armies who have a different focus.

If its any consolation I am a chaos player that believes that Gaurd should have the most points efficient GEQ becausd having GEQ access in a power armor army is a huge advantage in of itself, is fluffy, and also they should NOT be doing all the leg work of your list. At most a cultist squad is an expendable unit to be sacrificed for greater things like tying stuff up that could be killing actual marines (catching overwatch bullets before the charge or throwing their bodies into a melee they wont survive so that the marines dont get assaulted) or catching bullets captooring eet for kayoss. I hope they make that a reality on the FAQ.

I hope that we'll see Cultists that can be used as literal bullet sponges. They should grant cover to units behind them but in return take mortal wounds as a result. Either that or we'll see more cultist types once they diversify the codexs, not just the Tzaangor/Pox sort but a use for Cultists in general

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

Incorrect. It's necessary if the playtesting done beforehand wasn't 100% complete and perfect. The playtesting could've been crap, decent, good, or even great, and it's still not going to be perfect. Problems slip through and get caught after it's been sent to print. If those are caught after it's sent to print and before release, then a day 1 FAQ should be put out to fix those. It doesn't invalidate all playtesting done before or mean it was sloppy/pointless, it just means they didn't catch 100% of everything.

Do you really believe that testing is either perfect or pointless with no middle ground?

I'm not saying they did a great job with playtesting, I honestly don't know. But things will slip through even the best of testing. A quick FAQ at or shortly after release would tell us that they continued to test after sending the books to print, and that they've continued to try to improve the product instead of sitting around waiting for their customers to sort everything out after the fact.

I am not expecting playtesting or the proofreading to be 100% perfect and immaculate either. We are all humans and nothing is ever perfect. I am, however, expecting that abominations like IG Conscripts not to come through the playtesting phase.

I will have no issues if the faq has just a couple of rules clarification and errata to mistakes made during the printing process. That's fine. But I'll reserve judgement until Saturday to see if the FAQ comes at all.

Right, this is what gets me. I get what everyone's saying; playtesting is hard, they have limited resources, people will min/max in unforeseen ways, etc. etc. etc. All of that is true! The game wasn't going to be perfect. But conscript spam... was that so hard to predict that no one tried that out or thought about it? The new rules for blasts and flamers created a much lower ceiling for hits inflicted on hordes; that's pretty obvious. Why, then, wouldn't they try some games with the new weapons against huge hordes and see how effective they were on a per-point basis? Again, I get that corner cases are a thing, and I'm sure that in a month, the community will find really interesting, niche things to exploit. That's fine, and it seems like GW may do some patching to keep this stuff from getting out of hand. What I don't get is how people simultaneously believe the game will be mostly balanced (or have minimal issues) AND defend GW on the basis that playtesting is hard and are expecting wrinkles, criticizing anyone frustrated with GW's behavior.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
What I don't get is how people simultaneously believe the game will be mostly balanced (or have minimal issues) AND defend GW on the basis that playtesting is hard and are expecting wrinkles, criticizing anyone frustrated with GW's behavior.

First, you're making the mistake of reading things online and attributing it all to one big person. Many of us do not at all do both of those things, allowing for mistakes and assuming it'll be perfect at once. But assuming it'll be better balanced than 7th is one HELL of a ways away from assuming it's perfect.

"criticizing anyone frustrated with GW's behaviour" like it's someone just sort of sitting there like a victim, taking this unreasonable flack. It's people coming out raging like GW are monsters for missing anything, and being put back down.

Is it hard to miss that Conscript blobs are strong? Yes it just might be, actually. It's a very hard thing to balance. One point the wrong way, and they're useless. How prevalent and useful are Snipers is a very big factor in how good conscripts will be, and this needs to be tested in practice. One of hundreds of such things across all armies. If you can pick off a Commissar quickly, then they won't be very good at all. How well does other strategies work. Maybe in their games they managed to force the blobs to tarpit somehow.

Yes, it is excusable that something this hard to balance gets through. I think a lot of really good suggestions have been made here to how you could balance them. I've also seen some pointless ones. Either way, it's very easy to be smart about it now that we're starting to see how it's shaking out among people actually playing it.

At the same time, there are threads on this forum from just days ago about how useless the Astra Militarum are now in the new edition. It's not as obvious as it looks in hindsight.

Pete foley was on twitch. Something interesting? Did he speak about faqs/ readjustment points or future codex?

 Purifier wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its weird to me because I have yet to see games with conscript spam its just been mathhammer.

I faced 2 units of 50. They bubbled for a turn, but died pretty easily. Didn't see them at all as game changing.

Did you manage to take out the commissars early or how did you deal with them?

Just mass damage to whittle down the units, didn't have snipers. 10 units of 5 would take just as many shots to kill, most armies have something like that. Obviously there are nuances, but people are going crazy over the fact that you don't get morale kills on them. A unit of 3 Crisis suits with 9 flamers and drones killed about 30 in 1 round, nothing nearby was capable of charging that, the next turn it finished the unit and the Commie. In another game they did win out vs 30 Termagants (identical points). But that included shooting and Commie support, so it wasn't in a vacuum like online number crunching. They were sufficiently reduced that the Warriors behind finished them off, killing the Commie before the last morale check.

 Purifier wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
What I don't get is how people simultaneously believe the game will be mostly balanced (or have minimal issues) AND defend GW on the basis that playtesting is hard and are expecting wrinkles, criticizing anyone frustrated with GW's behavior.

First, you're making the mistake of reading things online and attributing it all to one big person. Many of us do not at all do both of those things, allowing for mistakes and assuming it'll be perfect at once. But assuming it'll be better balanced than 7th is one HELL of a ways away from assuming it's perfect.

"criticizing anyone frustrated with GW's behaviour" like it's someone just sort of sitting there like a victim, taking this unreasonable flack. It's people coming out raging like GW are monsters for missing anything, and being put back down.

Is it hard to miss that Conscript blobs are strong? Yes it just might be, actually. It's a very hard thing to balance. One point the wrong way, and they're useless. How prevalent and useful are Snipers is a very big factor in how good conscripts will be, and this needs to be tested in practice. One of hundreds of such things across all armies. If you can pick off a Commissar quickly, then they won't be very good at all. How well does other strategies work. Maybe in their games they managed to force the blobs to tarpit somehow.

Yes, it is excusable that something this hard to balance gets through. I think a lot of really good suggestions have been made here to how you could balance them. I've also seen some pointless ones. Either way, it's very easy to be smart about it now that we're starting to see how it's shaking out among people actually playing it.

At the same time, there are threads on this forum from just days ago about how useless the Astra Militarum are now in the new edition. It's not as obvious as it looks in hindsight.

These are all good points, especially on the balance issue; there's not a lot of maneuverability at 4 ppm, and you're probably right that balancing attempts were made, they just may have settled on something imperfect.

I'll be honest, the thing that really frustrates me more than the balance issues are the typos and omissions. GW is a very large company that charges high prices for high quality product (the indices notwithstanding). THEY NEED MORE EDITORS!! What *does* a Dunecrawler do when it has 6 wounds remaining? How can a Meka-Dread take Rokkit Bomms? Why can't a Malanthrope fly? I just don't see any excuse for this gak. If they really, really need to, heck, raise the prices a couple more dollars; they're already high. But these stupid errors are just inexcusable. Are they a huge deal? Of course not. But as a customer who spends a lot of money on their products, the fact that they don't care about the easy-to-fix stuff doesn't give me much confidence that they care about fixing the hard-to-fix stuff.

Anyway, I know that's a tangent.

xmbk wrote:
10 units of 5 would take just as many shots to kill, most armies have something like that.

In most armies 10 units of 5 is pretty much the whole army. Not 200 points.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Anyway, I know that's a tangent.

Maybe, but if nothing else it's a very valid point. I too want something that has been properly proof read at the very least. I'm much quicker to excuse balance misses that honestly anyone could have made than to excuse just straight up copy pasting wrong.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
GW is a very large company that charges high prices for high quality product (the indices notwithstanding). THEY NEED MORE EDITORS!! What *does* a Dunecrawler do when it has 6 wounds remaining? How can a Meka-Dread take Rokkit Bomms? Why can't a Malanthrope fly? I just don't see any excuse for this gak. If they really, really need to, heck, raise the prices a couple more dollars; they're already high. But these stupid errors are just inexcusable. Are they a huge deal? Of course not. But as a customer who spends a lot of money on their products, the fact that they don't care about the easy-to-fix stuff doesn't give me much confidence that they care about fixing the hard-to-fix stuff.

Anyway, I know that's a tangent.

Very well said.

And though yes, it may be a tangent, it can be enough to make people question themselves as to why they are paying premium price for something that comes with so many flaws straight out of the print. Additionally, as I've said earlier in this post, it also shows a lot about how the standards are slowly being lowered that this seems to not only be acceptable, but expected. And I'm not saying this from the 40k crowd or the GW crowd or the wargaming crowd. I'm saying in general.

Think about it, what does it say of us if we say that day one FAQs/patches are expected or even intended as I've read elsewhere on the web. We already expect premium-priced products to come flawed. This speaks loads.

Expecting a product to be absolutely perfect on release for any sort of product is the only thing that is flawed.

No matter who they are, no company can text for and expect and reveal everything.

Especially with GW's new proactive stance. You guys are expecting the impossible with unrealistic expectations.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
GW is a very large company that charges high prices for high quality product (the indices notwithstanding). THEY NEED MORE EDITORS!! What *does* a Dunecrawler do when it has 6 wounds remaining? How can a Meka-Dread take Rokkit Bomms? Why can't a Malanthrope fly? I just don't see any excuse for this gak. If they really, really need to, heck, raise the prices a couple more dollars; they're already high. But these stupid errors are just inexcusable. Are they a huge deal? Of course not. But as a customer who spends a lot of money on their products, the fact that they don't care about the easy-to-fix stuff doesn't give me much confidence that they care about fixing the hard-to-fix stuff.

Anyway, I know that's a tangent.

Very well said.

And though yes, it may be a tangent, it can be enough to make people question themselves as to why they are paying premium price for something that comes with so many flaws straight out of the print. Additionally, as I've said earlier in this post, it also shows a lot about how the standards are slowly being lowered that this seems to not only be acceptable, but expected. And I'm not saying this from the 40k crowd or the GW crowd or the wargaming crowd. I'm saying in general.

Think about it, what does it say of us if we say that day one FAQs/patches are expected or even intended as I've read elsewhere on the web. We already expect premium-priced products to come flawed. This speaks loads.

Again you're basically saying that if it's not perfect it's gak. Yeah the typos and inconsistencies are disappointing, but ANY game system is going to be flawed at initial release. A day 1 FAQ is a GOOD thing because it would mean fixing the flaws ASAP instead of letting them sit. Feel free to criticize the number of flaws, but the fact that there are flaws at all doesn't "speak loads", nor would fixing those flaws sooner rather than later.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
GW is a very large company that charges high prices for high quality product (the indices notwithstanding). THEY NEED MORE EDITORS!! What *does* a Dunecrawler do when it has 6 wounds remaining? How can a Meka-Dread take Rokkit Bomms? Why can't a Malanthrope fly? I just don't see any excuse for this gak. If they really, really need to, heck, raise the prices a couple more dollars; they're already high. But these stupid errors are just inexcusable. Are they a huge deal? Of course not. But as a customer who spends a lot of money on their products, the fact that they don't care about the easy-to-fix stuff doesn't give me much confidence that they care about fixing the hard-to-fix stuff.

Anyway, I know that's a tangent.

Very well said.

And though yes, it may be a tangent, it can be enough to make people question themselves as to why they are paying premium price for something that comes with so many flaws straight out of the print. Additionally, as I've said earlier in this post, it also shows a lot about how the standards are slowly being lowered that this seems to not only be acceptable, but expected. And I'm not saying this from the 40k crowd or the GW crowd or the wargaming crowd. I'm saying in general.

Think about it, what does it say of us if we say that day one FAQs/patches are expected or even intended as I've read elsewhere on the web. We already expect premium-priced products to come flawed. This speaks loads.

Again you're basically saying that if it's not perfect it's gak. Yeah the typos and inconsistencies are disappointing, but ANY game system is going to be flawed at initial release. A day 1 FAQ is a GOOD thing because it would mean fixing the flaws ASAP instead of letting them sit. Feel free to criticize the number of flaws, but the fact that there are flaws at all doesn't "speak loads", nor would fixing those flaws sooner rather than later.

Highlighting is mine,

No I'm not, stop twisting my words to fit your purpose. As I have said in the post you quoted but clearly didn't read through to understand, I have no issue with a product coming with a couple of typos but a product with so many flaws straight out of the print is not acceptable for a premium-price.

And yes, it does speak loads that you're willing to sit down and defend a semi-finished product - it speaks of either blind loyalty or a gakky standard. Pick your poison and enjoy your GW4evah-goggles.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
GW is a very large company that charges high prices for high quality product (the indices notwithstanding). THEY NEED MORE EDITORS!! What *does* a Dunecrawler do when it has 6 wounds remaining? How can a Meka-Dread take Rokkit Bomms? Why can't a Malanthrope fly? I just don't see any excuse for this gak. If they really, really need to, heck, raise the prices a couple more dollars; they're already high. But these stupid errors are just inexcusable. Are they a huge deal? Of course not. But as a customer who spends a lot of money on their products, the fact that they don't care about the easy-to-fix stuff doesn't give me much confidence that they care about fixing the hard-to-fix stuff.

Anyway, I know that's a tangent.

Very well said.

And though yes, it may be a tangent, it can be enough to make people question themselves as to why they are paying premium price for something that comes with so many flaws straight out of the print. Additionally, as I've said earlier in this post, it also shows a lot about how the standards are slowly being lowered that this seems to not only be acceptable, but expected. And I'm not saying this from the 40k crowd or the GW crowd or the wargaming crowd. I'm saying in general.

Think about it, what does it say of us if we say that day one FAQs/patches are expected or even intended as I've read elsewhere on the web. We already expect premium-priced products to come flawed. This speaks loads.

Again you're basically saying that if it's not perfect it's gak. Yeah the typos and inconsistencies are disappointing, but ANY game system is going to be flawed at initial release. A day 1 FAQ is a GOOD thing because it would mean fixing the flaws ASAP instead of letting them sit. Feel free to criticize the number of flaws, but the fact that there are flaws at all doesn't "speak loads", nor would fixing those flaws sooner rather than later.

I don't know about that -- focusing in on the typos, how many Magic: the Gathering cards have typos on them? Sure, WotC is probably bigger than GW, but they also put out a ton more cards, and in a faster window than GW does. Not only do you not see typos on Magic cards, they also have CRYSTAL clear rules, with no ambiguity. Sometimes balance is lacking, yes, and they release OP or weak or boring crap. But you don't see them leave flying off creatures with the Bird type, or anything comparable to the errors we've seen in the indices.

 Purifier wrote:

xmbk wrote:
10 units of 5 would take just as many shots to kill, most armies have something like that.

In most armies 10 units of 5 is pretty much the whole army. Not 200 points.

Can't agree. Pretty much every army can do this for 400 points, max - plus they get extra CP out of it. MEQ maybe not, but of course all the Imperium armies can intermingle.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
GW is a very large company that charges high prices for high quality product (the indices notwithstanding). THEY NEED MORE EDITORS!! What *does* a Dunecrawler do when it has 6 wounds remaining? How can a Meka-Dread take Rokkit Bomms? Why can't a Malanthrope fly? I just don't see any excuse for this gak. If they really, really need to, heck, raise the prices a couple more dollars; they're already high. But these stupid errors are just inexcusable. Are they a huge deal? Of course not. But as a customer who spends a lot of money on their products, the fact that they don't care about the easy-to-fix stuff doesn't give me much confidence that they care about fixing the hard-to-fix stuff.

Anyway, I know that's a tangent.

Very well said.

And though yes, it may be a tangent, it can be enough to make people question themselves as to why they are paying premium price for something that comes with so many flaws straight out of the print. Additionally, as I've said earlier in this post, it also shows a lot about how the standards are slowly being lowered that this seems to not only be acceptable, but expected. And I'm not saying this from the 40k crowd or the GW crowd or the wargaming crowd. I'm saying in general.

Think about it, what does it say of us if we say that day one FAQs/patches are expected or even intended as I've read elsewhere on the web. We already expect premium-priced products to come flawed. This speaks loads.

Again you're basically saying that if it's not perfect it's gak. Yeah the typos and inconsistencies are disappointing, but ANY game system is going to be flawed at initial release. A day 1 FAQ is a GOOD thing because it would mean fixing the flaws ASAP instead of letting them sit. Feel free to criticize the number of flaws, but the fact that there are flaws at all doesn't "speak loads", nor would fixing those flaws sooner rather than later.

Highlighting is mine,

No I'm not, stop twisting my words to fit your purpose. As I have said in the post you quoted but clearly didn't read through to understand, I have no issue with a product coming with a couple of typos but a product with so many flaws straight out of the print is not acceptable for a premium-price.

And yes, it does speak loads that you're willing to sit down and defend a semi-finished product - it speaks of either blind loyalty or a gakky standard. Pick your poison and enjoy your GW4evah-goggles.

its not a premium price, the Rulebook and Army books cost less than a typical GW mono army codex, they're $25 each, and a codex is around $40-50

Gw has flat out said these rules and books are to get people playing when 8th is released with the full intention of releasing army codecies down the line.

Again you're making an unreasonable demand and he is not twisting your words at all. The intention of these army books is not to be the final product, they never were advertised as that.

xmbk wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

xmbk wrote:
10 units of 5 would take just as many shots to kill, most armies have something like that.

In most armies 10 units of 5 is pretty much the whole army. Not 200 points.

Can't agree. Pretty much every army can do this for 400 points, max - plus they get extra CP out of it. MEQ maybe not, but of course all the Imperium armies can intermingle.

Sooo... some armies can do it by using not that army? And 400 points is more than twice the price, so even at that price, it's way more than conscripts. I don't even know where to start disassembling this argument as it's basically not making any sense at all. Let's look at Mechanicus. cheapest unit is 10p, so 500p minimum. That's a big leap from "400 max."

And if all we're doing is matching numbers in a vacuum, then let's ignore the commie that's making them strong, and we're now at 150p vs 500.

So what exactly is your point? That offering up my 500p of skitarii is the same as offering up 150p of conscripts and that it has the same impact on the game?

I've definitely seen some minor oddities in the ork codex so far. For example:

Burna upgrades for kommandos are 100% free? (Burna wargear costs 0 points)

Same for boss nob upgrades for units? There is no matched play price for a boss nob.

That's all I can think of, but both seem a bit odd.

No match play price for a boss nob is pretty bad, is it just that one piece of equipment or the whole data entry?

 Purifier wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

xmbk wrote:
10 units of 5 would take just as many shots to kill, most armies have something like that.

In most armies 10 units of 5 is pretty much the whole army. Not 200 points.

Can't agree. Pretty much every army can do this for 400 points, max - plus they get extra CP out of it. MEQ maybe not, but of course all the Imperium armies can intermingle.

Sooo... some armies can do it by using not that army? And 400 points is more than twice the price, so even at that price, it's way more than conscripts. I don't even know where to start disassembling this argument as it's basically not making any sense at all. Let's look at Mechanicus. cheapest unit is 10p, so 500p minimum. That's a big leap from "400 max."

And if all we're doing is matching numbers in a vacuum, then let's ignore the commie that's making them strong, and we're now at 150p vs 500.

So what exactly is your point? That offering up my 500p of skitarii is the same as offering up 150p of conscripts and that it has the same impact on the game?

First point is that 400 points is not "pretty much the whole army". Second is that I said max. Orks, Tau, and Nids are all examples of armies that can do it for considerably less, just off the top of my head. The ones who pay more also get more, but no matter what they can easily put down cheap MSU units. My third, and original, point is that Conscripts are not some gamebreaking unit. The worse thing that can be said about them is that an army of conscripts without regulars is fluff breaking. I've faced them twice, with different armies. They didn't do anything disproportionately powerful, though I suppose if I was stupid or had an unbalanced army they might have.

xmbk wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

xmbk wrote:
10 units of 5 would take just as many shots to kill, most armies have something like that.

In most armies 10 units of 5 is pretty much the whole army. Not 200 points.

Can't agree. Pretty much every army can do this for 400 points, max - plus they get extra CP out of it. MEQ maybe not, but of course all the Imperium armies can intermingle.

Sooo... some armies can do it by using not that army? And 400 points is more than twice the price, so even at that price, it's way more than conscripts. I don't even know where to start disassembling this argument as it's basically not making any sense at all. Let's look at Mechanicus. cheapest unit is 10p, so 500p minimum. That's a big leap from "400 max."

And if all we're doing is matching numbers in a vacuum, then let's ignore the commie that's making them strong, and we're now at 150p vs 500.

So what exactly is your point? That offering up my 500p of skitarii is the same as offering up 150p of conscripts and that it has the same impact on the game?

First point is that 400 points is not "pretty much the whole army". Second is that I said max. Orks, Tau, and Nids are all examples of armies that can do it for considerably less, just off the top of my head. The ones who pay more also get more, but no matter what they can easily put down cheap MSU units. My third, and original, point is that Conscripts are not some gamebreaking unit. The worse thing that can be said about them is that an army of conscripts without regulars is fluff breaking. I've faced them twice, with different armies. They didn't do anything disproportionately powerful, though I suppose if I was stupid or had an unbalanced army they might have.

I honestly still have no idea where you're going with this. So, some few armies can build blocks of crap that can almost make up the same numbers as conscripts. Ok, now what. How does that affect fighting against conscripts? If you have to send 3 fully kitted pride of the god damn Tau and some Firewarriors for two turns to wipe out a single unit of conscripts, I'd say they've more than done their job. I do not see it as "dying pretty easily." If you managed to hold the rest of the battlefield still, that's great, but it doesn't really sound like they were easy to handle considering their price tag.

That said, I'm not at all claiming they're game changing. I have yet to face them, I was just hoping for some kind of insight into how to deal with them, but yours sounds like "throw a lot more than they're worth at them and they die." Which I sort of expected would work already.

Earth127 wrote:
No match play price for a boss nob is pretty bad, is it just that one piece of equipment or the whole data entry?

It's the sergeant upgrade that every other army also got for free (Not to be confused with Nob squads)