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.

 Quickjager wrote:
If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth was exhausting.

 Quickjager wrote:
If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.

It doesn't happen to everyone, but lots of people look at an objectivley weaker codex and decide it's just the player's fault.

Competition shows the worst of us, it seems.

 Quickjager wrote:
God forbid any of you IG players ever see a decent codex. All you do is dismiss anyone's claims with literally "boohoo space marines", at least try to act a bit better than wave serpent spammers.

Okay, I was a little uncivil there.

But the supposed defensive problem is pretty much only with Space Marines, and even then, I'm not sure, because Space Marines are winning anyway.


Let's go through this:
Sisters have no problems. Jump over with assault troops to lock the tanks, storm-bolter conscripts to death with other troops.
Tyranids have slight problem, namely that they have to spend a whole turn to kill them before killing the tanks. Oh, I feel so sorry we get a whole turn to shoot while they die, considering that whole turn I get is my first turn.
Harlequins have those little flying transport things and the troops within can jump over the gunline to melt the tanks.
Chaos has metal boxes of Berzerkers. 6 Attacks per model is scary, considering there's not much we can do to actually stop the turn 2 charge save soak it up and shoot back once the Conscripts are dead.
IG can rip them apart, and doesn't care anyway, since we can trade counter-battlery artillery fire and pretend they don't exist.
Necrons have concentrated shooting to remove them, and don't die, or will at least die very slowly, in response.
Orks can try for a turn 1 assault like the Tyranids, and can get it reasonably, but the rest of the army is stuck walking and they can't just take a metal box for protection. Probably not as good at handling it as Tyranids or Chaos, but with all that melee the IG would be hard pressed to truly deplete it before it hits the frontline.

I can't say for Dark Eldar and ordinary Eldar, because I haven't actually seen them play. I've seen lots of Harlequins, though. I'm guessing DE work like Harlequins, considering they've always had good antitank, fast vehicles, and their vehicles aren't as fragile now.

I've watched Harlequins and Necrons both beat Conscripts and Tanks. I had Tyranids break my own line, and if I hadn't seized the initiative that game and killed a third of his gaunts and the Swarmlord before he went, I would have lost for sure.


So I'm not convinced. I think that the actual problem is Space Marine players not being able to find a unit in their book that can wipe them out in a turn for similar cost. What, precisely, wiping them out in a turn for similar even does for a shooting Space Marine army besides making Space Marines OP is also beyond me, because it's not like you can fire over them with Lascannon Predators or something to cripple their support and whittle them down over 3 turns.

I've also never seed a board where you can hide a 2000 point list entirely of Manticores and have them completely invisible from all locations other than the backside of the IG deployment zone, so I think the fear about a crapload of invisible artillery is also unfounded.


There are two groups of Space Marines that probably have no good options: Deathwatch and Grey Knights. By their nature, they have few units, they're lacking in offensive output across the board, and don't have access to the entire line, or even half the line, compounded with the latter army being shafted by the Rule of 1 on psychic powers and paying for really, really overpriced units that can't use the psychic power they paid for.



However, I'm also willing to accept a reduction to orders efficiency, or even a reduction in squad size, because fundamentally, those are factors contributing to them over-performing in a region and role they aren't intended to be used in, and aren't often used in. A reduction to their survivability would just annoy me, because it doesn't fix any actual problems and only "fixes" a problem that not so much a legitimate problem with conscripts but is a problem with other players perceptions of their own army's capabilities.


I am legitimately concerned about lists consisting of 3 Baneblades, or nothing but Stormtroopers with Plasmaguns. Those lists are cheese of the worst kind. But a list with 50-100 Conscripts, some artillery and some tanks, and some guardsmen, is, in my opinion, fluffy and fairly balanced. I've played several games with lists like that, and they've all been fun and somewhat close. Against the Tyranids, it was pretty tense, and there was a little while there where, after watching a Shadowsword, Pask, and his friend kill a single Terminator, I thought for sure the Grey Knights were going to plow through my line into my armor, until he failed a short charge and was out of CP.

I don't deny that there are things in my army that are OP, I think that Conscripts are not one of them.

I'm doubly concerned about the OP lists because it's going to result in army wide nerfs, and nerfs that don't actually resolve the problem, and will instead just hurt units I actually like, such as Basilisks and Leman Russ tanks, which are under-performing as is. [Okay, I like Baneblades, but 3 of them is silly. One's a fun centerpiece, but seriously, 3 is asking for it.]

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
their survivability with a commissar is exactly in line with where it should be, relative to a tactical marine.

Now, that's entirely debatable and depends on whether we think conscripts just standing about should fall between space marines just standing about and space marines in cover (for their cost, as always). I find the argument more compelling than anything previously mentioned up till this point, but consider, for example, how absurdly tough a sisters of battle is for her points when we start assuming cover is a given.

So it's a point worthy of consideration, but I do not view it as a certainty either way

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It would just be annoying to us, and not make a difference in any way, shape, or form for space marine players [who are really the only problem here, because everyone else handles it just fine, and I don't have a problem if *gasp* Space Marines aren't #1 at everything and other armies are actually able to compete], which would result in a chain of continued nerfing until the unit is left unrecognizable.

Arguments like this don't exactly help, they just kinda make me start hoping the new codices are really overpowered and IG's comes dead last.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
So I'm not convinced. I think that the actual problem is Space Marine players not being able to find a unit in their book that can wipe them out in a turn for similar cost. What, precisely, wiping them out in a turn for similar even does for a shooting Space Marine army besides making Space Marines OP is also beyond me, because it's not like you can fire over them with Lascannon Predators or something to cripple their support and whittle them down over 3 turns.

Have any space marine classic players even been involved in this discussion? The only two who've mentioned they play any flavor are me, with CSM (which, for the record, makes the "now we get our chance" rhetoric even more hilarious) and the one dude who plays GKs. I use marines as a comparison point because those and guardsman are usually the comparison point everyone judges everything by (hence the terms GEQ and MEQ).

SilverAlien wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
their survivability with a commissar is exactly in line with where it should be, relative to a tactical marine.

Now, that's entirely debatable and depends on whether we think conscripts just standing about should fall between space marines just standing about and space marines in cover (for their cost, as always). I find the argument more compelling than anything previously mentioned up till this point, but consider, for example, how absurdly tough a sisters of battle is for her points when we start assuming cover is a given.

So it's a point worthy of consideration, but I do not view it as a certainty either way

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It would just be annoying to us, and not make a difference in any way, shape, or form for space marine players [who are really the only problem here, because everyone else handles it just fine, and I don't have a problem if *gasp* Space Marines aren't #1 at everything and other armies are actually able to compete], which would result in a chain of continued nerfing until the unit is left unrecognizable.

Arguments like this don't exactly help, they just kinda make me start hoping the new codices are really overpowered and IG's comes dead last.

We'd been pretty down low for a while, and we'll handle that just fine again.

And who are we kidding, they're absolutely going to be. That's how GW works. It's going to be a string of increasingly more powerful codecies, and halfway through they're going to release another marine book just to make sure they don't get eclipsed. I offer no vitrol to the Tau, or the Eldar.

SilverAlien wrote:


Have any space marine classic players even been involved in this discussion? The only two who've mentioned they play any flavor are me, with CSM (which, for the record, makes the "now we get our chance" rhetoric even more hilarious) and the one dude who plays GKs. I use marines as a comparison point because those and guardsman are usually the comparison point everyone judges everything by (hence the terms GEQ and MEQ).

I don't know.

Also, try Rhinos full of Berzerkers.

It takes 3 Manticores to kill a Rhino in a turn. Said Rhino doesn't even have to survive one of my shooting phases if you went first, which you will just over 2/3 of the time. Berzerkers are very scary units, put 20 of them into a Conscript squad and it will evaporate, and they can attack tanks too once they're out of Conscripts to fight.


Close Quarters Combat is the counterplay to Imperial Guard gunlines.

 Quickjager wrote:
God forbid any of you IG players ever see a decent codex. All you do is dismiss anyone's claims with literally "boohoo space marines", at least try to act a bit better than wave serpent spammers.

Many IG players including myself have already stated we are fine with conscripts being 4ppm. Understand however that means that infantry squads will then have to be 5ppm & heavy weapons teams will also increase in cost. So by increasing the cost of conscripts you just increased the cost of half the army. This isn't hyperbole. Conscripts cannot equal the same cost as infantry squads. It makes no sense. They do not have the proper training as infantry squads. Therefore by default, infantry squads must cost more than conscripts. Do not be surprised if these changes push IG back to its 7th edition power levels.

Again, I'm fine with them nerfing IG. I don't care. We are a resourceful bunch. I'm just tired of the coming to the forums everyday & being told how broken we are & we should all feel bad about playing IG. Emperor forbid we be remotely competitive for a month after languishing for years.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Many IG players including myself have already stated we are fine with conscripts being 4ppm. Understand however that means that infantry squads will then have to be 5ppm & heavy weapons teams will also increase in cost. So by increasing the cost of conscripts you just increased the cost of half the army. This isn't hyperbole. Conscripts cannot equal the same cost as infantry squads. It makes no sense. They do not have the proper training as infantry squads. Therefore by default, infantry squads must cost more than conscripts. Do not be surprised if these changes push IG back to its 7th edition power levels.

Again, I'm fine with them nerfing IG. I don't care. We are a resourceful bunch. I'm just tired of the coming to the forums everyday & being told how broken we are & we should all feel bad about playing IG. Emperor forbid we be remotely competitive for a month after languishing for years.

Well, again it's been put forth larger unit size offers certain advantages over smaller unit sizes (auras and other buffs mainly), which justifies say normal guardsman being cheaper than cultists and more effective than termagaunts or basically all the renegades and heretics infantry. The same logic can apply to conscripts.

Again, i have no idea if it is true, but it'd at least explain so of the odd pricing choices in 8th edition.

I really wish I could remember who originally gave me that as an explanation for why guard infantry are cheaper than termagaunts, as many times as I've paraphrased their argument.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Many IG players including myself have already stated we are fine with conscripts being 4ppm. Understand however that means that infantry squads will then have to be 5ppm & heavy weapons teams will also increase in cost. So by increasing the cost of conscripts you just increased the cost of half the army. This isn't hyperbole. Conscripts cannot equal the same cost as infantry squads. It makes no sense. They do not have the proper training as infantry squads. Therefore by default, infantry squads must cost more than conscripts. Do not be surprised if these changes push IG back to its 7th edition power levels.

Again, I'm fine with them nerfing IG. I don't care. We are a resourceful bunch. I'm just tired of the coming to the forums everyday & being told how broken we are & we should all feel bad about playing IG. Emperor forbid we be remotely competitive for a month after languishing for years.

Well, again it's been put forth larger unit size offers certain advantages over smaller unit sizes (auras and other buffs mainly), which justifies say normal guardsman being cheaper than cultists and more effective than termagaunts or basically all the renegades and heretics infantry. The same logic can apply to conscripts.

Again, i have no idea if it is true, but it'd at least explain so of the odd pricing choices in 8th edition.

I really wish I could remember who originally gave me that as an explanation for why guard infantry are cheaper than termagaunts, as many times as I've paraphrased their argument.

Larger units are more buff-efficient, and some units, like 'gaunts and orks, get buffs for being in huge units. It's not really a cause for Termagaunt's price, I think, which is a little high.

 Quickjager wrote:
If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.

Didn't they just win an ITC tournament?
None the less, conscripts receiving the rule that they lose D6 models from a commissar rather than 1 sounds fine to me. I don't see the need for nerfing orders on them since they do almost no damage even with orders so it's definitely the toughness that's the issue. I wouldn't mind conscripts being nerfed - though I run infantry squads over conscripts since I don't think conscripts are as great as people make them out to be. I've tried them and they're pretty good, but certainly not game breakingly good like everyone seems to think. I've got to ask - how have your games against them gone? Or, as I suspect, you haven't actually played against them yet and are whining mathhammer style, in which case I must respectfully ask you to please leave the thread.

 Intruder wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.

Didn't they just win an ITC tournament?
None the less, conscripts receiving the rule that they lose D6 models from a commissar rather than 1 sounds fine to me. I don't see the need for nerfing orders on them since they do almost no damage even with orders so it's definitely the toughness that's the issue. I wouldn't mind conscripts being nerfed - though I run infantry squads over conscripts since I don't think conscripts are as great as people make them out to be. I've tried them and they're pretty good, but certainly not game breakingly good like everyone seems to think. I've got to ask - how have your games against them gone? Or, as I suspect, you haven't actually played against them yet and are whining mathhammer style, in which case I must respectfully ask you to please leave the thread.

Or how about you just leave the thread, because calling me a liar is a great start.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Intruder wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.

Didn't they just win an ITC tournament?
None the less, conscripts receiving the rule that they lose D6 models from a commissar rather than 1 sounds fine to me. I don't see the need for nerfing orders on them since they do almost no damage even with orders so it's definitely the toughness that's the issue. I wouldn't mind conscripts being nerfed - though I run infantry squads over conscripts since I don't think conscripts are as great as people make them out to be. I've tried them and they're pretty good, but certainly not game breakingly good like everyone seems to think. I've got to ask - how have your games against them gone? Or, as I suspect, you haven't actually played against them yet and are whining mathhammer style, in which case I must respectfully ask you to please leave the thread.

Or how about you just leave the thread, because calling me a liar is a great start.

I'm not entirely sure on which point I called you a liar, so I'll just back up the whole reply.
Here are the results of the first 8th edition GT, Boise Cup GT: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/06/26/results-8th-edition-gt/
The the tourny data leading up to it, where grey knights have done quite well for themselves: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rkEukRKKxJK9ecUyZxXqn-trRd0gqoXIQb--BTyHdq8/edit#gid=741815058
When I said I don't think conscripts aren't game breakingly good, that was my opinion. I apologise if it seemed I was correcting you.
And my last note, asking how your games have gone against conscripts and commenting that I suspect you haven't played any is a bit insulting - if you had said you'd played any. Maybe I've missed it and if that is the case then I apologise again, but I don't believe you have. So I'm not entirely sure where I called you a liar?

Keeping to the topic on hand, nerfing conscripts points wise brings them inline to the Renegades & Heretics militia, whom I believe are overcosted for what they do.

 Intruder wrote:
I apologise if it seemed I was correcting you.

But... that is the whole point of a discussion/argument. Not everyone is equally right.

I'm still siding with the idea that conscript pricing is fine, but need to be worse at either orders or keeping their dudes when morale fails. Leaning more towards them being worse at orders, because it's fluffier than nerfing the Commissar.

 Selym wrote:

 Intruder wrote:
I apologise if it seemed I was correcting you.

But... that is the whole point of a discussion/argument. Not everyone is equally right.

I'm still siding with the idea that conscript pricing is fine, but need to be worse at either orders or keeping their dudes when morale fails. Leaning more towards them being worse at orders, because it's fluffier than nerfing the Commissar.

Fluffier, yes, but I'm not sure it's the right direction. They already do barely any damage. If I have a 50 man conscript squad on the frontline and want to shoot at something, some models will be in rapid fire range, some will be in normal range, some will be out of range and some won't even be in LOS. So stacking 50 FRFSRF conscipts damage already isn't ridiculous - but now think, how the hell does it even reach that point? Their toughness is the issue. With commissars they are too tough. Without commissars they are nigh on useless. So I'm thinking either points balancing, which would throw the whole points costs of AM infantry out, or an alternative method. My preferred option would be losing 1d3 or 1d6 conscripts instead of 1 (tack it on as a conscript rule). That way they're easier to kill but not excessively so.

 Intruder wrote:
They already do barely any damage.

I realise this is 40k we're talking about, but a unit can do other things than just kill. Conscripts are cannon fodder, lasgun-armed grots. They bubblewrap tanks, sit on objectives and generally waste your opponent's time while the killy units blow them up. That functionality makes much more sense to me than having them kill tons of marines, just because someone shouted at them to lasgun harder.

 Intruder wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

 Intruder wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.

Didn't they just win an ITC tournament?
None the less, conscripts receiving the rule that they lose D6 models from a commissar rather than 1 sounds fine to me. I don't see the need for nerfing orders on them since they do almost no damage even with orders so it's definitely the toughness that's the issue. I wouldn't mind conscripts being nerfed - though I run infantry squads over conscripts since I don't think conscripts are as great as people make them out to be. I've tried them and they're pretty good, but certainly not game breakingly good like everyone seems to think. I've got to ask - how have your games against them gone? Or, as I suspect, you haven't actually played against them yet and are whining mathhammer style, in which case I must respectfully ask you to please leave the thread.

Or how about you just leave the thread, because calling me a liar is a great start.

I'm not entirely sure on which point I called you a liar, so I'll just back up the whole reply.
Here are the results of the first 8th edition GT, Boise Cup GT: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/06/26/results-8th-edition-gt/
The the tourny data leading up to it, where grey knights have done quite well for themselves: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rkEukRKKxJK9ecUyZxXqn-trRd0gqoXIQb--BTyHdq8/edit#gid=741815058
When I said I don't think conscripts aren't game breakingly good, that was my opinion. I apologise if it seemed I was correcting you.
And my last note, asking how your games have gone against conscripts and commenting that I suspect you haven't played any is a bit insulting - if you had said you'd played any. Maybe I've missed it and if that is the case then I apologise again, but I don't believe you have. So I'm not entirely sure where I called you a liar?

Keeping to the topic on hand, nerfing conscripts points wise brings them inline to the Renegades & Heretics militia, whom I believe are overcosted for what they do.

Yes the Cup where GK aren't in? ... the cup that pretty much everyone agreed to not use as a basis for army power because it was so early in the game. Or the data that has few data points in it, which is why a community member decided to do a much larger sampling size that is still growing? Or maybe the fact you keep insisting that I'm lying about having played against IG? Yes that one seems to be the bit.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Bump their maximum numbers down to 20-30. They can still swarm, they're still cheap, but it makes their numbers more manageable. If you're having a problem dealing with T3/S5 infantry at that point then you're doing something wrong and need to take a look at your list.

Making them 1p more expensive makes them otherwise pointless next to Infantry Squads for anything less than spamming 50 of, which ironically might exacerbate the problem some.

No one cares about the toughness, everyone cares about the fact there isn't an efficient way to remove the sheer number of them. If you don't understand that then you probably don't have a history of play with or against horde armies.

Raven guard drop in a squad of 3 devestator centurions 9" away. 24 heavy bolter shots and 36 bolter shots follow. That kills about 25 of them (including blamming some sucker by the Commisar).

Preferably you snipe the Commisar out of the squad first with your Snipers of course.

 Quickjager wrote:
Or the data that has few data points in it, which is why a community member decided to do a much larger sampling size that is still growing?

Speaking of which:



There are a few more armies that participated in the records, but they have fewer than 20 games, causing their W/L ratios to be highly volatile an unrepresentative..

Just to say it again, I really don't think that increasing the cost of Conscripts is a good solution. There are too many other units (most - if not all - of which have not been shown to be OP) that will be affected by this, as their price is liable to go up as a result.

As a question though, what if Conscripts were 3.5pts per model? It wouldn't be my preferred solution but I'd be interested to hear what you guys think of the idea.

 Aesthete wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Aesthete wrote:

Why do you bring real actual games into this?

The fact that you actually asked that question is hilarious beyond belief. Do you play 40k via graph paper or something?

I'm glad you find it hilarious, as that was my goal. My post was in support of yours, though using what I intended to be the understated sarcasm that is the way of my people

Ah, in that case I apologise. I honestly hadn't realised that it was sarcasm.

 vipoid wrote:

As a question though, what if Conscripts were 3.5pts per model? It wouldn't be my preferred solution but I'd be interested to hear what you guys think of the idea.

Buying Conscripts in pre-assigned blobs makes some sense.

Buy in sets of ten:

10 = 35 pts
50 = 175 pts
100 = 350 pts

 Selym wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

As a question though, what if Conscripts were 3.5pts per model? It wouldn't be my preferred solution but I'd be interested to hear what you guys think of the idea.

Buying Conscripts in pre-assigned blobs makes some sense.

Buy in sets of ten:

10 = 35 pts
50 = 175 pts
100 = 350 pts

The problem is that even with a price increase to 4 points conscripts will still be to powerful. Well, not really powerful. People still will not be able to chew threw 150 of them.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Possibly orders are too efficient with Conscripts, but that's about the only thing they've got going on that strikes me as being particularly out of line with similar options.

There is a general problem with cheap low-toughness bad-save wounds in 8th, though. They are just too durable for their cost -- there's no way to efficiently deal with them. Conscripts are the standard example, but honestly regular Guardsmen are a problem too. Brimstone Horrors are 2 points for T3 4++ and so are even more durable than Conscripts. Razorwing Flocks are 7 points for T2 W4 7+, making them comparable to Conscripts against many weapons.

Meanwhile, no one actually has guns which are good for killing T3 5+ at their current prices. Lascannons murder multi-wound high-toughness good-save models -- they're several times more efficient against their preferred target than against single-wound infantry -- and they do it from far away. Rapid-firing plasma is ridiculously good against two-wound heavy infantry. Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons shred MEQs. There's nothing that's great at killing Conscripts. You would expect something like a lasgun to be good for this -- they're low-strength with no AP -- but actually lasguns expect to kill more points of Marines than points of Conscripts (significantly more; this is not close).

The state of the game right now is as if we had all of these new multi-wound vehicles at their current costs and not a single multi-damage weapon. For everything else in the game, there are options I can take which are excellent counters to it. If I'm running into armies that use a lot of some kind of unit, I can bring a lot of guns that are good against that kind of unit and be heavily favored to win. This is an important mechanism for achieving a balanced meta -- you don't need things to be balanced in some absolute, objective sense, you just need to reach an equilibrium where people are preferentially tailoring their lists against the stronger stuff out there. But you can't do this to deal with hordes of cheap wounds. Basically anything you might take is actually an anti-MEQ gun in disguise. One can imagine an equilibrium where hordes and lots of vehicles (with lots of anti-infantry guns) are both viable, but this would drive out MEQs almost entirely.

It's called assault units, they exist, and I've personally seen a unit of beserkers mow down conscripts easily.

Also twin linked heavy flamers or flamers wreck these units, along with any kind of massed bolter fire with a captain nearby.

 Quickjager wrote:
Yes the Cup where GK aren't in? ... the cup that pretty much everyone agreed to not use as a basis for army power because it was so early in the game. Or the data that has few data points in it, which is why a community member decided to do a much larger sampling size that is still growing? Or maybe the fact you keep insisting that I'm lying about having played against IG? Yes that one seems to be the bit.

You can't lie about playing against IG when you never said it in the first place.

I think the fix for conscripts would be the following

1.) Commissars kill 1D3 conscripts to auto-pass a morale test. This way they whittle down a little bit faster.

2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.

3.) If conscripts choose to fall back, Take a morale Check with a +4 modifier to your roll. Makes falling back damaging to conscripts.

These 3 things would go a long way to balancing concripts IMO. IF you take morale with them you on average will lose 2 models, if you fall back you lose another 2 models on average, and after falling back you have a 33% chance they will not get back into the fight.

Breng77 wrote:
2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.

They currently get the commissar's leadership afaik.

sossen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.

They currently get the commissar's leadership afaik.

True, so maybe then #4, conscripts cannot benefit from the LD of other units.

Breng77 wrote:
I think the fix for conscripts would be the following

1.) Commissars kill 1D3 conscripts to auto-pass a morale test. This way they whittle down a little bit faster.

2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.

3.) If conscripts choose to fall back, Take a morale Check with a +4 modifier to your roll. Makes falling back damaging to conscripts.

These 3 things would go a long way to balancing concripts IMO. IF you take morale with them you on average will lose 2 models, if you fall back you lose another 2 models on average, and after falling back you have a 33% chance they will not get back into the fight.

I like it, but it is very 7th edition in approach - adding three abilities/rules that bring two additional rolls in-game to the unit. Not sure how GW would receive that. I do like it, though' very on par with my earlier suggestion of Get back in line you rabble! (Instead of restricting casualties due to failed morale checks to one, Commissars and Lord Commissars using the Summary Execution rule halve (rounding up, to a minimum of one) all casualties caused by morale to Conscript units.)

I think either one addressing Conscripts' durability to morale loss when synergizing with a Commissar is the key to toning them down. While the others are right, and Orders do make them quite efficient it's also what makes them unique and unignorable as a screening unit/tarpit. Furthermore, I think most would find that even with Orders if Conscripts weren't so durable thanks to their virtual immunity through the Commissar they'd be easier to handle. Going from only ever losing 1 conscript in the morale phase to losing a handful every time you force a morale check means they'll get attritted down much more effectively than current.

GhostRecon wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I think the fix for conscripts would be the following

1.) Commissars kill 1D3 conscripts to auto-pass a morale test. This way they whittle down a little bit faster.

2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.

3.) If conscripts choose to fall back, Take a morale Check with a +4 modifier to your roll. Makes falling back damaging to conscripts.

These 3 things would go a long way to balancing concripts IMO. IF you take morale with them you on average will lose 2 models, if you fall back you lose another 2 models on average, and after falling back you have a 33% chance they will not get back into the fight.

I like it, but it is very 7th edition in approach - adding three abilities/rules that bring two additional rolls in-game to the unit. Not sure how GW would receive that. I do like it, though' very on par with my earlier suggestion of Get back in line you rabble! (Instead of restricting casualties due to failed morale checks to one, Commissars and Lord Commissars using the Summary Execution rule halve (rounding up, to a minimum of one) all casualties caused by morale to Conscript units.)

I think either one addressing Conscripts' durability to morale loss when synergizing with a Commissar is the key to toning them down. While the others are right, and Orders do make them quite efficient it's also what makes them unique and unignorable as a screening unit/tarpit. Furthermore, I think most would find that even with Orders if Conscripts weren't so durable thanks to their virtual immunity through the Commissar they'd be easier to handle. Going from only ever losing 1 conscript in the morale phase to losing a handful every time you force a morale check means they'll get attritted down much more effectively than current.

Very true on the extra rolls. Alternatively if you wanted to save on that you could give them gretchin like stats, maybe S2 T3, and a 6+ save (or S/T 2 with a 5+ save), and make the commissar do D3 wounds for ignoring morale. This would also significantly decrease their durability.

 sfshilo wrote:

It's called assault units, they exist, and I've personally seen a unit of beserkers mow down conscripts easily.

Also twin linked heavy flamers or flamers wreck these units, along with any kind of massed bolter fire with a captain nearby.

This doesn't actually engage with my post. As I explained, S4 attacks are more efficient against MEQs than GEQs, or these sorts of cheap wounds in general. Berzerkers put out a ton of S5 attacks and so are even more specialized than bolters for killing T4 instead of T3 and below. They get 3 attacks per fight and then their bolt pistols, I think? If enough of them get to charge just about anything, they'll shred it. Still, I would much rather throw a 10-man squad of Guardsmen in front of them than let them hit a 5-man Marine squad. I will happily surround them with Brimstone Horrors that they have to spend time digging through. I would strongly consider actually charging them with Razorwing Flocks, depending on support. Of course a very big squad of Berzerkers is much better against a Conscript horde than against most other single units, but that's only because they'll overkill other single units. They could multicharge and do much better against things other than GEQs. Conscripts are also particularly good at striking back at the Berzerkers because of their unit size and poor BS. They Overwatch relatively well and there will be a lot of them around to attack back. If I'm worried about Berzerkers getting to my gunline, that's a reason to take Conscripts or 10-man screener squads, not a reason to avoid them. Assault units countering Conscripts is such a weird idea. Literally the whole reason you bring Conscripts is to counter assault units that would otherwise be able to charge the stuff that you actually want kept safe.

Flamers are just S4 attacks. They're not templates anymore and work better on MEQs outside of cover than on GEQs. Heavy flamers are ridiculously inefficient against Conscripts compared to using them on just about any other sort of infantry. You might want to reread the post of mine that you think you're responding to.

GhostRecon wrote:

I like it, but it is very 7th edition in approach - adding three abilities/rules that bring two additional rolls in-game to the unit. Not sure how GW would receive that. I do like it, though' very on par with my earlier suggestion of Get back in line you rabble! (Instead of restricting casualties due to failed morale checks to one, Commissars and Lord Commissars using the Summary Execution rule halve (rounding up, to a minimum of one) all casualties caused by morale to Conscript units.)

I agree that the above is too many rules. However, your own rule basically goes against the entire point of taking commissars.

If he's having to kill that many models to keep order then he's a really awful commissar.

 vipoid wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

I like it, but it is very 7th edition in approach - adding three abilities/rules that bring two additional rolls in-game to the unit. Not sure how GW would receive that. I do like it, though' very on par with my earlier suggestion of Get back in line you rabble! (Instead of restricting casualties due to failed morale checks to one, Commissars and Lord Commissars using the Summary Execution rule halve (rounding up, to a minimum of one) all casualties caused by morale to Conscript units.)

I agree that the above is too many rules. However, your own rule basically goes against the entire point of taking commissars.

If he's having to kill that many models to keep order then he's a really awful commissar.

It really isn't too many rules. I can do it with 2 rules.

Which wouldn't be more than many other units. In fact it is pretty easy fix overall.

On the Commissar change Summary execution to the same rule as an ork warboss.

Summary Execution - if a Friendly Astra Millitarum unit fails a morale test within 6" of a friendly commissar, he can restore order with a display of violence. If he does so the unit loses D3 mortal wounds but the morale test is considered to be passed.

No added rules there just one changed. Most IG units would not have a huge issue with this because any unit within 6" is LD 8, and no non-conscript squad is larger than 10 models. So at LD 8, they lose 1 model on a 6 if they take 3 casualties, If they take 5 casualties they have a 50-50 shots of losing at least a single model. So it isn't quite as good as the current rule, but it is good enough for most purposes, yes if you lose 8 models the last 2 are probably dead, but I really don't think that is a huge issue.

Then on the conscripts who currently have 0 special rules you add

Unwilling Combatants - This unit must always use its own leadership. Further when falling back or taking orders this unit must take an morale test with a +4 modifier on the D6 roll.

So slightly different than the initial post, in this scenario they can always accept orders, but may take casualties to do so. But it adds all of 1 rule to a unit.