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.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
So far as I can see, it's not the hordes themselves that are OP. It's the buffs which can be provided to hordes, especially in the morale phase, that are OP.

3 ppm conscripts shouldn't be virtually immune to the battle shock phase. That's just unfair.

Why not? They've always been effectively so.

In fact, in 7e, regular guardsmen can come in 50-man blobs, are basically morale-proof, and are even more devastating in shooting. I've shot to pieces Tervigons using Bring it Down! and evaporated terminators with First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE!.

Conscripts and their characteristics are nothing new, and even getting their 5+ save they're not particularly survivable. As I said, the right gun for the job can absolutely rip through them.

Compared to a 50-man block of regular guardsmen, conscripts are cheaper but offer much poorer shooting and assault, but the same survivability. And that's the point. They're really not 200 points worth of destructive power. Also, compared to other things that are resilient and 200 points, like a Leman Russ Punisher Tank, they have about equal firepower, at best, at full strength. The Lasguns are mostly harmless. The conscripts, at full strength, in rapid fire range, can deal about 10 wounds a turn to Necron Warriors, which is pretty fair for 200 points. They won't beat the warriors if they do't get first salvo, but they can if they do. Marines will survive better than Necrons against conscripts, and chew through them fairly quickly too. Worth mention, so will Orks, and Tyranids, extremely quickly. Falling back from combat and getting "Get Back in the Fight" isn't a big deal because 1: the resulting devastated unit isn't really worth the order compared to "First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE!" on an intact unit, and 2: it's a consolation prize for what's left of the unit.

There is no right gun for the right job, all anti infantry guns are bad at killing conscripts.

Don't eldar and tau both get reasonable sniper units? Orks are gimped in the sniping department for no good reason (Think of the awesome conversions that would fit an Ork's idea of a sniper weapon), Necrons get snipers, Dark eldar get snipers, Chaos are also randomly without snipers, though their sorcerers can target characters for mortal wounds to do a little bit of character damage.

It really just seems like Orks and Chaos that are out of luck here. And GW should probably see about fixing that as there is no reason they should be :/

 Jaxler wrote:


There is no right gun for the right job, all anti infantry guns are bad at killing conscripts.

Really? I sound like the people who were telling me not to expect so much out of the Russ-tanks now, but I didn't have a problem taking out a number of them with a Punisher. Really, just old-fashioned shooting them up worked fine.

And from my statistical modelling, Hand Flamers on Seraphim ought to do the trick. So should a big unit of Orks, or 'gaunts.

I'm sure you can fish up a good unit in whatever army you play.

The reel reason hordes are OP, everything can hurt everything and the game uses D6's.

All your conscripts need to do is roll enough 6's and they can kill anything.

Warlord titan, roll a couple of hundred 6's and turn and wait for it to roll 1's for it's saves.

How many conscript blobs can you get for the cost of a warlord?

 Tamereth wrote:
The reel reason hordes are OP, everything can hurt everything and the game uses D6's.

All your conscripts need to do is roll enough 6's and they can kill anything.

Warlord titan, roll a couple of hundred 6's and turn and wait for it to roll 1's for it's saves.

How many conscript blobs can you get for the cost of a warlord?

1150 conscripts, 22CC's, and 6 Commissars.

They could hypothetically deal 40 wounds on average a turn to the thing, if it were actually possible to fit 1150 conscripts within 12" of it. It is, unfortunately, entirely impossible to do that.

I've found that conscripts are basically harmless. They just can't get within 12" of an enemy that doesn't want to be within 12".

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:
Don't eldar and tau both get reasonable sniper units? Orks are gimped in the sniping department for no good reason (Think of the awesome conversions that would fit an Ork's idea of a sniper weapon), Necrons get snipers, Dark eldar get snipers, Chaos are also randomly without snipers, though their sorcerers can target characters for mortal wounds to do a little bit of character damage.

It really just seems like Orks and Chaos that are out of luck here. And GW should probably see about fixing that as there is no reason they should be :/

Ork snipers should be Grot Snipers - Ratlings with BS4+, and S2 T2. Points cost would be interesting to place; but I'd be fine with 7ppm as per Ratlings.

I'd totally take them - hilarious, fun, and fulfills a niche roll. Grot troops are notable for actually being able to hit things (4+ vs 5+), so it make sense they'd be the Ratling equivalent.

Or a gatling gun with a bunch of useless scopes strapped to it wielded by a flashgit? Long range, high rate of fire, but poor accuracy? Heavy 6 sniper?

There are just too many cool ways to do this that it is criminal that they haven't!

Heck, what about a gun that shoots grot ninjas at characters? Or a teleporter gun that swaps the enemy character's brain with a squig's?

For the record, ILK:

Here are the numbers on the punisher cannon vs. conscripts:

20/1 (number of attacks) X 1/2 (chance to hit) X 2/3 (chance to wound) X 2/3 (chance to bypass saves) = 80/18 or 40/9

That's less than five unsaved wounds. If there is a commissar present, that might not even require you to BLAM one of your conscripts. But even if you do BLAM a conscript, that is less than 6 conscripts. 18 points worth of models or less.

Do you know how much the punisher cannon does to space marines out of cover?

20/1 X 1/2 X 2/3 X 1/3 = 40/18, or 20/9.

2 dead marines. That's 26 points worth of models.

The fact that conscripts are now equally resilient against S4 and S5 shooting, as well as the fact that conscripts will get their armor save most of the time, massively increases their durability, especially combined with the fact that they are virtually immune to morale.

This is a problem.

 Traditio wrote:
For the record, ILK:

Here are the numbers on the punisher cannon vs. conscripts:

20/1 (number of attacks) X 1/2 (chance to hit) X 2/3 (chance to wound) X 2/3 (chance to bypass saves) = 80/18 or 40/9

That's less than five unsaved wounds. If there is a commissar present, that might not even require you to BLAM one of your conscripts. But even if you do BLAM a conscript, that is less than 6 conscripts. 18 points worth of models or less.

Do you know how much the punisher cannon does to space marines out of cover?

20/1 X 1/2 X 2/3 X 1/3 = 40/18, or 20/9.

2 dead marines. That's 26 points worth of models.

The fact that conscripts are now equally resilient against S4 and S5 shooting, as well as the fact that conscripts will get their armor save most of the time, massively increases their durability, especially combined with the fact that they are virtually immune to morale.

This is a problem.

Further demonstrating why you're a meme. He specifically used tank commanders for his example for multiple times in this thread. Yet you continue use a normal LRBT with 4+ BS so you can underplay the gun in order to make it fit into your argument.
Lies by omission.

Conscrips shouldn't take orders. They are conscrips and not trained guardsmen for a reason.


And Comissar should be reworked for something as others have said like 1 guy killed for every 10 guys in the unit to ignore morale (So if you have 50 conscripts, lose 10, the Comisar kills 4 and you end with 46 conscripts)

That way you have still the most point-efficient tartip and chaff in the game, but they have weaknessess.

Zewrath:

Even if we assume BS 3+ shooting, this is the result:

20/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 160/27

That's slightly less than 6 dead conscripts, and slightly less than 7 if the commissar BLAMS a conscript.

Do you want to assume BS 2+ shooting?

20/1 X 5/6 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 400/54 or 200/27

That's less than 8 dead conscripts, less than 9 if the commissar BLAMS a conscript.

Do you want to assume shooting that automatically hits?

20/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 80/9

That's slightly less than 9 dead conscripts, slightly less than 10 if the commissar BLAMS a conscript.

So no, even if you had the magical supreme anti-conscript flamer weapon of death as described in the last set of calculations...

...you STILL aren't getting through those conscripts.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What about Raptors? Aren't they basically assault marines? Points-for-points, Assault Marines seem to work out pretty okay.

You're guys are good at it. They're really good at it. But they're also paying a lot of points for the utility against heavy troops, which makes them less points-efficient.

Being good against marines is incredibly relevant, because you pay points for the versatility. You pay a lot.

1.) Can't bring raptors in a TS detachment.

2.) That 436 point squad would kill 11 marines a turn, you can kill 12 with 170 points of guardsman and orders in a turn.

3.) Its totally irrelevant, you can bring 11 conscripts for the cost of 1 Rubric with a warp flamer, if I brought a 20 man squad you could put 220+ models on the table. Does that seem balanced to you at all? that 20 wounds to your over 200.

You know what?

It occurs to me.

Do conscripts even have a model?

If not, then conscripts should just be squatted.

If you want infantry, bring guardsmen. And those guardsmen should cost at least 5 ppm, not 4.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What about Raptors? Aren't they basically assault marines? Points-for-points, Assault Marines seem to work out pretty okay.

You're guys are good at it. They're really good at it. But they're also paying a lot of points for the utility against heavy troops, which makes them less points-efficient.

Being good against marines is incredibly relevant, because you pay points for the versatility. You pay a lot.

1.) Can't bring raptors in a TS detachment.

2.) That 436 point squad would kill 11 marines a turn, you can kill 12 with 170 points of guardsman and orders in a turn.

3.) Its totally irrelevant, you can bring 11 conscripts for the cost of 1 Rubric with a warp flamer, if I brought a 20 man squad you could put 220+ models on the table. Does that seem balanced to you at all? that 20 wounds to your over 200.

Oh, definitely. Even if the a Rubric would be the equal of 5 Conscripts it would be unfair.

But seriously, how many people bring 200+ models to a bloody game? For die-hard WAAC people, I can perhaps see the allure, but they would have used the most broken things anyway. If Rhinos were the most OP units in the game, they would bring nothing but Rhinos. I love using infantry hordes to play, and I would never be willing to use more than 100-120 infantry models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
You know what?

It occurs to me.

Do conscripts even have a model?

If not, then conscripts should just be squatted.

If you want infantry, bring guardsmen. And those guardsmen should cost at least 5 ppm, not 4.

The Infantry Squads don't have models either. They are Cadian Shock Troops, or Steel Legion Squads or whatever. Neither do Tank Commanders, or Rough Riders.

Seriously, don't start this discussion. If they were to be squatted it should be for balance and not for a lack of models.

Aenarian wrote:The Infantry Squads don't have models either. They are Cadian Shock Troops, or Steel Legion Squads or whatever. Neither do Tank Commanders, or Rough Riders.

Seriously, don't start this discussion. If they were to be squatted it should be for balance and not for a lack of models.

I think that both are relevant.

The negative reason to squat conscripts is because they don't have models. If conscripts get squatted, nobody would find themselves with a bunch of conscripts models that they can't use. Why? Those models don't exist. And any model that you use to represent a conscript could just as easily represent a guardsman.

The positive reason to squat conscripts is because they are too points efficient, and not only that, but they are conceptually redundant. Infantry squads already exist.

 Traditio wrote:
Zewrath:

Even if we assume BS 3+ shooting, this is the result:

20/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 160/27

That's slightly less than 6 dead conscripts, and slightly less than 7 if the commissar BLAMS a conscript.

Do you want to assume BS 2+ shooting?

20/1 X 5/6 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 400/54 or 200/27

That's less than 8 dead conscripts, less than 9 if the commissar BLAMS a conscript.

Do you want to assume shooting that automatically hits?

20/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 80/9

That's slightly less than 9 dead conscripts, slightly less than 10 if the commissar BLAMS a conscript.

So no, even if you had the magical supreme anti-conscript flamer weapon of death as described in the last set of calculations...

...you STILL aren't getting through those conscripts.

Do you pride yourself on terrible examples? Why are you ignoring the stormbolter and the 3 heavybolters/heavyflamers on the tank? Why do you read "punisher tank vs conscripts" and then proceed to ignore 3/4 of the guns on the punisher. This baffles the mind.

Also, what exactly are you advocating for here? Units for ~ 150 points should be easily capable of wiping 50 bodies? Because unless the option doesn't cost EXACTLY the same as the conscripts, you instantly dismiss it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
You know what?

It occurs to me.

Do conscripts even have a model?

If not, then conscripts should just be squatted.

If you want infantry, bring guardsmen. And those guardsmen should cost at least 5 ppm, not 4.

Zewrath wrote:

That's how much a cultist costs. Guardsmen shouldn't be cheaper than cultists. At the very least, they should cost the same.

 Traditio wrote:

Zewrath wrote:

That's how much a cultist costs. Guardsmen shouldn't be cheaper than cultists. At the very least, they should cost the same.

I actually agree with you on that. I was laughing at the idea of squatting conscripts because you don't think they have models.... which they do..

Zewrath wrote:I actually agree with you on that. I was laughing at the idea of squatting conscripts because you don't think they have models.... which they do..

Could you provide a link to a product on the GW webstore that can represent a conscript but cannot represent a "normal" guardsman?

 Traditio wrote:

Zewrath wrote:I actually agree with you on that. I was laughing at the idea of squatting conscripts because you don't think they have models.... which they do..

Could you provide a link to a product on the GW webstore that can represent a conscript but cannot represent a "normal" guardsman?

If we get blobs back, I think 5pt guardsmen are fair. As for models that can represent conscripts but not normal guardsmen, that depends on what you mean by represent, as people can get very creative with that one.

With enough work (and sometimes surprisingly little), you can make anything from WHFB models to GSC cultists represent normal guardsmen. For a reasonable definition of represent, though, the snap-fit cadians perfectly represent all the wargear options for conscripts, while lacking even the mandatory sergeant needed for regular guard infantry, and so DO represent conscripts, but as-is, do not represent infantry squads. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Imperial-Guard-Cadians-5-models

 Traditio wrote:

Zewrath wrote:I actually agree with you on that. I was laughing at the idea of squatting conscripts because you don't think they have models.... which they do..

Could you provide a link to a product on the GW webstore that can represent a conscript but cannot represent a "normal" guardsman?

Imperial Guard codex. Made official by GW. I don't care that you don't like the fact they can't also represent a normal Guardsman, this is the official model by GW.

 Traditio wrote:
Could you provide a link to a product on the GW webstore that can represent a conscript but cannot represent a "normal" guardsman?

By this ridiculous argument we can squat most of the marine codex. Your sternguard? You can use them as tactical marines, squatted. Shiny new primaris marines? Tactical squads, squatted. Razorback/Predator? You can take the turret off and use it as Rhino, squatted. Devastators? Yep, you got it, squatted and used as tactical marines. And you certainly aren't going to have special characters, chapter special rules, etc, anymore.

Yeah, the "if something is OP, just delete it" isn't a very good argument...

Units should be deleted from the rules if they present a problem from a thematical or faction-balance/redundance standpoint. But not because they are OP. If they are OP, just fix them.

If theres a argument to squat Conscripts is because redundance in the Imperial Guard faction. But I think they can be balanced agains't other chaff in the game and again'st normal guardsmen.

The Punisher tank commander with heavy bolters does this:

20*2/3*2/3*2/3= Just shy of 6 kills.
9*2/3*2/3*5/6=3.33
So about 9-10 kills, Commissar kills one.

40 lasgun shots back (20+FRFSRF)
40*1/3*1/6*1/3=0.74 wounds.
1.5 wounds if you are somehow within 12" (and there is no real reason the tank needs to allow you this close in this scenario).

In other words over 3 turns the tank will mow through the conscripts while they can only tickle it.

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:
Don't eldar and tau both get reasonable sniper units?

Dark Eldar certainly don't. They have one (the Hexrifle), which was bad in 5th and has been nerfed in every edition since.

- In 5th it was an Assault 1 36" AP4 Sniper weapon. A model that suffered an unsaved wound had to pass a characteristic test based on its remaining wounds or else be removed from play. The odds certainly weren't in your favour for most units worth firing at, however, it wasn't too expensive, could be fired on the move and got round Eternal Warrior.

- In 7th it changed such that a to-hit roll of 6 caused Instant Death. The trouble was, this rarely coincided with getting a to-wound of 6 (for AP2). So in that one turn when you roll a 6 to hit, the character or MC you're firing at still gets their normal armour save. And if you are firing at a character, they get their LoS roll as well. It was also irritating in that the Haemonculus's BS5 was basically irrelevant (since all that really mattered was whether you rolled a 6). This was also the edition that brought in Gargantuan Creatures and made them basically immune to sniper weapons.

- In 8th, not only have they removed the Instant Death part, they've also made it a Heavy 1 weapon.

Here's the thing - this might have been a passable weapon if it was available on a unit. The trouble is, it's only ever been available on an HQ and on a single model in a melee unit. But I guess doing anything else would have required GW to actually give the slightest damn about DE.

Actually, here's an idea:

I've said before that I think the real worry here is that there's basically just no gun you can take which actually specializes your unit or army towards killing hordes, given their point costs. The things that you might think are good for this are actually better at killing Marines, for cost. Certainly relative to past editions hordes are now hugely more durable against things like small arms and heavy bolters, while Marines are now actually more vulnerable to the usual anti-horde heavy weapons like heavy bolters. I said earlier that it's hard to see how to make an anti-horde weapon without special rules, but I was wrong.

So here's what I want: a gun with positive AP.

S3 AP+1 is a genuinely anti-horde profile. It's relatively efficient against T3 and relatively efficient against bad saves (except that it doesn't care about the difference between a 3+ and a 2+). S2 AP+1 would be even more specialized as far as infantry are concerned, but given how many shots such a gun would need it probably ends up being weirdly effective against T8 2+ where it's functionally S4 AP-.

Dionysodorus wrote:
better at killing Marines, for cost.

Hollow argument
This is just saying that Marines cost more points.

Necron Immortals also have 4 Toughness and +3 Saves, and they are rated at 8ppm.
So around 8ppm is how much Marines pay for survivability. The other 5 points they are paying for other advantages such as ATSKNF.

 Talamare wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
better at killing Marines, for cost.

Hollow argument
This is just saying that Marines cost more points.

Necron Immortals also have 4 Toughness and +3 Saves, and they are rated at 8ppm.
So around 8ppm is how much Marines pay for survivability. The other 5 points they are paying for other advantages such as ATSKNF.

Huh? No. Immortals are not 8 points per model. You're confused because the cost of an Immortal is split between its body and its gun. They actually cost 17 points per model regardless of wargear choice and so are generally significantly more fragile than tactical marines per point.

Just to be sure we're on the same page: obviously the way that prices are split between wargear-less models and their mandatory wargear does not represent some attempt to come up with a "balanced" price for the body sans gun. Why would GW even bother to try to do this? Instead their approach appears to be that, where possible, wargear should cost 0. Sometimes, however, other units' choices require giving certain wargear a non-zero cost, and then this has to carry over to units where the wargear is mandatory. So their naked price gets reduced to compensate. So with Immortals, the issue is that Tomb Blades can also choose between the same two guns as well as a particle beamer, and then Canoptek Spyders are allowed but not required to take particle beamers. So the particle beamers have to be priced appropriately for the Spyders as an option, but then they have to have the same price for the Tomb Blades. This means that the tesla carbine and gauss blaster need to be priced appropriately in comparison, but then they have to cost the same for the Immortals. If either Tomb Blades or Canoptek Spyders didn't exist, then the Immortals' guns would probably just cost 0 and their bodies would cost 17.

Tactical marines are actually one of the more efficient ways of getting a T4 3+ profile, because their gun is relatively bad.

 Traditio wrote:

Assault marines are not a viable option. I don't need to look at your charts to know this. Ask anyone who has used assault marines vs. 8th edition conscripts, and he'll tell you exactly what I am telling you:

Assault marines vs. conscripts are not only wasted points, but it's downright suicidal.

Only if you use them in the way you propose. You'll note my original scenario was sending Assault Marines against a Whirlwind and Bolter depleted Conscript squad. Whirlwinds look like a good buy, and a Marine army ought to have Bolters a-plenty to spend on Conscripts while Heavy Weapons (now splitting fire) are hitting something else.

In your scenario featuring five guys in Rhino, not only did you choose a poor unit combo to engage the conscript unit with, you cocked it up by not charging with the Rhino first to soak overwatch.

10 Assault Marines makes two Combat Squads for two Frags.

Flamers 3.1 Unsaved wounds.
Frags 2.3 Unsaved Wounds
Bolt Pistols 1.7 Unsaved Wounds

Charge some other unit in to screen Overwatch.

Chainswords+2 Flamer guys 5.6 Unsaved Wounds. (slightly more if you count a fancy weapon on the Champion)

By my math a smart engagement gives you 12.7 kills. (Then another +1 for the morale) So as long as you've done your duty and killed some of the 30 man blob with supporting bolter/whirlwind/whatever fire, a well used Assault Squad will bring it home.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
better at killing Marines, for cost.

Hollow argument
This is just saying that Marines cost more points.

Necron Immortals also have 4 Toughness and +3 Saves, and they are rated at 8ppm.
So around 8ppm is how much Marines pay for survivability. The other 5 points they are paying for other advantages such as ATSKNF.

Huh? No. Immortals are not 8 points per model. You're confused because the cost of an Immortal is split between its body and its gun. They actually cost 17 points per model regardless of wargear choice and so are generally significantly more fragile than tactical marines per point.

Just to be sure we're on the same page: obviously the way that prices are split between wargear-less models and their mandatory wargear does not represent some attempt to come up with a "balanced" price for the body sans gun. Why would GW even bother to try to do this? Instead their approach appears to be that, where possible, wargear should cost 0. Sometimes, however, other units' choices require giving certain wargear a non-zero cost, and then this has to carry over to units where the wargear is mandatory. So their naked price gets reduced to compensate. So with Immortals, the issue is that Tomb Blades can also choose between the same two guns as well as a particle beamer, and then Canoptek Spyders are allowed but not required to take particle beamers. So the particle beamers have to be priced appropriately for the Spyders as an option, but then they have to have the same price for the Tomb Blades. This means that the tesla carbine and gauss blaster need to be priced appropriately in comparison, but then they have to cost the same for the Immortals. If either Tomb Blades or Canoptek Spyders didn't exist, then the Immortals' guns would probably just cost 0 and their bodies would cost 17.

Tactical marines are actually one of the more efficient ways of getting a T4 3+ profile, because their gun is relatively bad.

I'm pretty sure he's using immortals as an example for exactly that reason: they have no free weapon, so they're crystal clear about how much they're paying for their model, and how much they're paying for their weapon.

A Marine gets a bolter and bolt pistol for free, which on a model that doesn't get them for free is 1 point each. Those 2 points are baked into the space marine's base cost. A space marine with a lasgun would theoretically cost 10 points. ATSKNF goes into it, S4 goes into it, WS3+ and BS3+ go into it, LD goes into it, though we obviously don't know how much each individually contributes (some are probably only worth fractions of a point).

For example, the only difference between Conscripts, Guardsmen, and Veterans is their WS and BS scores (5+/4+/3+ respectively). This allows us to isolate what WS and BS are worth in GW's eyes: going from 5/5 to 4/4 is worth 1 point to them, going from 4/4 to 3/3 is worth 2 points. So a 5/5 space marine with a lasgun would theoretically cost 7 points, while still being T4/3+ along with S4, LD7, and ATSKNF.

Basically, the reason conscripts are so good at putting wounds on the table is that they're min-maxed to do exactly that. They're one T3/5+ wound with a gun and not much else. The only model that min-maxes that parameter harder is brimstone horrors, because they sacrifice having a ranged weapon to squeeze down to 2 points (though obviously, having no ranged weapon at all compromises their offense pretty severely). When you pick up other features, of course you sacrifice wound-per-point efficiency because those other features raise your cost without increasing your wounds.

It's just that with the change to templates and the wound chart, "putting wounds on the table" now happens to be a strong parameter to optimize for.