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.

 vipoid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

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.

It's not just the number of rules but the fact that they're being put on what is ostensibly one of the most basic units in the game. Even 2 negative rules seems a bit much. Really, I'd think one negative rule would be enough. But maybe I just look at things weirdly.

Breng77 wrote:

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

No. Just no.

It is both unfluffy and screws over every IG unit except Conscripts.

Breng77 wrote:

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.

You're seriously underestimating how much this would hurt IG units.

Ok which units are really effected?

You need to do 4 wounds for this to start mattering at all at LD 8. At which point there is a 16% chance of losing 2 models. So really we are looking at units that can take more than 5 models (losing 5 models brings it to 33% chance of losing more than 1 model.)

So effected units are
Bullgryns - (in large squads) - This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Conscripts - These are the problem we are discussing, so no issue here
Infantry squads - hurts them a bit, as they are likely to lose 1 extra model on average to morale
Tempestus Scions (if taken in larger squads) - again multiple smaller squads are just as good as single larger squads, and these are likely out of your bubble anyway.
Ogryns - (in large squads)-This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Ratlings- only if you take larger squads, could instead take multiple small squads at no cost.
Rough riders - are they even staying near a commissar? That said, it is a break even for these squads as they are mutli-wound, so they were already losing 2 wounds. Worst case they lose 1 extra model (if one is wounded already) best case, they lose 0 models. Most common, they lose 1 model.
Special Weapons squads - hurt a bit, but not that much, if this squad has lost 4 models, losing 2 vs losing 1 is not a huge issue.
Veterans- Hurts them a bit, they lose an extra model on average.

So I'm confused where this hurts most of IG units? IT is a break even or buff for most units.

It is also not unfluffy, the unit start to run, commissar shoots 1 of the (up to 3 models) that are running, everyone else falls in line. Unless by unfluffy you mean that some units might have a model survive being shot.

As for 2 rules I actually fixed it with 1 negative rule on the Conscripts, but people didn't like taking extra wounds. You could do it with them not having issues with orders. Just have negative to falling back and no LD buff from commissar.

 daedalus wrote:


And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.

I think this is worth pointing out. Guard NEED a good screen. I would posit that the army would not even be competitive without one. All of your infantry folds to dedicated assault troops and once your opponent gets into the middle of your tanks they just aren't doing anything so without a good screen any sort of turn one assault can put you into an unwinnable position before you even get to take a turn.

 Marmatag wrote:

Drager wrote:
I don't mind conscripts so much, but it's probably because I play an army that can 1 turn wipe 50 for 200 points. And that 200 point unit is the core of my army anyway and I have multiple.

What unit is that, Khorne Berzerkers? Why doesn't your opponent delete units so you don't get a second fight phase? Or are you using a different unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 perilsensitive wrote:
What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.

This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.

that would be fine if they did that as well for armies that can spam bodies as well.

Razorflocks... 144 of them
Genestealer cult spam... no restriction.

I would gladly play against conscript spam then either of these two armies.
--- and that's because I have.


and btw... what makes conscript spam armies good is the ability to spam Touroxes...

 Marmatag wrote:

Drager wrote:
I don't mind conscripts so much, but it's probably because I play an army that can 1 turn wipe 50 for 200 points. And that 200 point unit is the core of my army anyway and I have multiple.

What unit is that, Khorne Berzerkers? Why doesn't your opponent delete units so you don't get a second fight phase? Or are you using a different unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 perilsensitive wrote:
What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.

This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.

I actually pointed this out earlier, but it's actually surprisingly hard to delete enough Conscripts to escape a Berzerker squad, especially if that squad attacks on a wide front. Because they consolidate 3" after inflicting casualties, and they only have to get one model within 1" to be "still in combat". So if there is one conscript within 4" of any one Berzerker model after casualties, they can consolidate and stick to you. And a conscript's base is only 2" wide.

It can vary quite a lot depending on how the Conscripts are placed and how the Berzerkers are placed, but in general, you have to remove a looooot of Conscripts to get them out of consolidation range. Especially if the Berzerkers had enough range on their charge+pile-in to really squeeze in there, or if the Conscripts are packed too tightly such that their second rank is still within 4" of the front line.

Tyel wrote:
Could someone math out the 700 points versus conscripts? I may be missing something (i.e. you may have factored in the Smite damage) but to my mind you would need more.

700 points worth of GKSS with storm bolters at 9.1-11.9" range:


You'd get about 40 on average, with the result being fairly consistent within +/- 5.

That's not counting smite. That's, like, 33.3 guys at 700 points. Lets toss two more in to make 7 squads of 5. You have about an 83.3% chance of getting the smite off if memory serves. You'd get about 6 smites off on average. They fail that morale test and the commissar blams 1, leaving 3 of them left. That's assuming that the 50 conscripts were somehow impossibly positioned around the commissar that you:

1. Can't shoot him with about half of those bullets.
2. Can't assault to him with ANY of those knights.

At that point, I scratch my head and ask why you kept shooting them well beyond the point of usefulness.

What I think fixes the majority of the cited problems with conscripts would actually be to remove assault from deep strike and let people start deep striking within 9" again. Gets rid of a lot of the first turn assault worries, and then the wall of conscripts suddenly becomes less useful when a drop pod can just dump meltaguns behind it.

tomguycot wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.

I think this is worth pointing out. Guard NEED a good screen. I would posit that the army would not even be competitive without one. All of your infantry folds to dedicated assault troops and once your opponent gets into the middle of your tanks they just aren't doing anything so without a good screen any sort of turn one assault can put you into an unwinnable position before you even get to take a turn.

No one disputes that you need a good screen.

The challenge is that either: (a) your screens are too effective, or (b) your firepower behind said screens is far too strong.

It's become clear that any kind of agreement is not going to be reached in this thread. I would never turn down a game against guard, but i will pull out the ravens.

tomguycot wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


The problem is that they are so cheap that you can field 150 of them and still have a functional army (1450 points), and at that point, armies can't just fly over them, cannot really assault through them super easily (they just fall back and screen again). IG is happy to get into a shooting match with basically everything, so having impenetrable assault defense is a pretty big deal. I'm not positive the need a fix, but I do think they are too powerful for their cost given their interaction with commissars, orders, and the fall back mechanic.

Yes you can still have a functional army but 150 conscripts is not a negligible cost. That plus the support commissar is at least 25% of your army in a 2000 point game and slightly more if you need or want a second commissar.

If we're talking about a shooting match and your opponent hasn't sunk 25% of his costs into ablative wounds you're going to be on the losing end of the exchange in all likelihood because that quarter of your army just isn't going to contribute.

In reference to backing out of assault I think you're overestimating how much room your going to have to do that. 150 conscripts takes up a lot of room and you're going to have to tightly pack up to keep them from just going over you and engaging the business part of your army Oh and you're also conceding the ability to pursue any win condition beyond tabling your opponent because if you aren't castling up your units going out to get objectives aren't benefitting from your screen or your spreading out and once again your opponent can just fly over the screen.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying conscripts are bad. They are definitely good. They just aren't game breaking.

Largely depends on terrain, IG is one of the only armies with a lot of barrage shooting. You are right that it isn't nothing, but you also don't need 150 conscripts to bubble wrap.

As for tabling the opponent. It depends on the mission, objective placement etc. It depends on how crippling the IG firepower is as well. If I can castle and stay safe for 2 turns, and during that time cripple your army, then move onto the objectives, I'll be fine with that. You say fly over the screen, if I stop that until your flyers are dead, how does that work?

If your opponent hasn't sunk any points into screening units then his shooting army loses to any assault elements. IG also has a ton of points efficient shooting, so it is entirely possible that many armies have no more shooting playing 25% higher points.

 Marmatag wrote:

 perilsensitive wrote:
What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.

This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.

Which is something I said was astonishingly brilliant and reasonable when it was suggested back on, like, page 1 or 2.

 Marmatag wrote:

tomguycot wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.

I think this is worth pointing out. Guard NEED a good screen. I would posit that the army would not even be competitive without one. All of your infantry folds to dedicated assault troops and once your opponent gets into the middle of your tanks they just aren't doing anything so without a good screen any sort of turn one assault can put you into an unwinnable position before you even get to take a turn.

No one disputes that you need a good screen.

The challenge is that either: (a) your screens are too effective, or (b) your firepower behind said screens is far too strong.

It's become clear that any kind of agreement is not going to be reached in this thread. I would never turn down a game against guard, but i will pull out the ravens.

I will agree the screen's firepower is too strong, but not that the screen is too strong in and of itself. As I pointed out earlier, considering their relative effectiveness compared to tactical marines, they're almost right on target. However, they drastically exceed marines under the effect of orders.

So altering their survivability to "bring them in line" as it were wouldn't solve the problem. Only their "buffed by Orders" state is in excess of Space Marines, so the power of their "buffed by Orders" state is what needs to change.

 daedalus wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 perilsensitive wrote:
What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.

This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.

Which is something I said was astonishingly brilliant and reasonable when it was suggested back on, like, page 1 or 2.

It isn't actually that effective unfortunately, as you can still spam like 5 ravens even with requiring 1 HQ and 1 Troop per. I had initially thought the same thing, but Cheap HQ + scouts is like 130 points, So for like 650 points you can get 2 Ravens, so you can get 5-6 at 2k. It helps a little, but not that much.

I think you need to go on top of that and restrict to a single patrol detachment.

- conscript spam armies are a challenge
- Brimstone horror spam is a challenge
- Razorflock spam is a challenge
- genestealer cult spam is a challenge

---- are any of these armies unbeatable ? nope.. can they be frustrating. Yea I guess.

These are generally competitive lists. I will gladly play against any one of them.

If anything I'd like to see GW take a look at regular squads of guardsmen. As it stands I don't know why I'd ever take them. They're too flimsy to really invest points into and not an efficient way to spend orders since you are at most affecting 1 heavy weapon and 1 special.

tomguycot wrote:
If anything I'd like to see GW take a look at regular squads of guardsmen. As it stands I don't know why I'd ever take them. They're too flimsy to really invest points into and not an efficient way to spend orders since you are at most affecting 1 heavy weapon and 1 special.

agree...

I see tons of mathhammer on shooting and assaulting.
This seems to be ok.
but
Mathhammer the efficiency of the order per unit and Conscipts make maximum efficiency of that said order.

....why is this a bad thing ?

Breng77 wrote:


I think you need to go on top of that and restrict to a single patrol detachment.

I'd go one step further and say that you need a mandatory patrol/battalion/brigade before you can take any of the other detachments, and that you can't take any of the smaller ones if you have enough stuff to take a larger one. I could be described as somehow hostile toward the current state of the FOC though.

 zedsdead wrote:
- conscript spam armies are a challenge
- Brimstone horror spam is a challenge
- Razorflock spam is a challenge
- genestealer cult spam is a challenge

---- are any of these armies unbeatable ? nope.. can they be frustrating. Yea I guess.

These are generally competitive lists. I will gladly play against any one of them.

It isn't that I wouldn't play these armies, just that I don't think they look fun to play against. As such I hope that GW addresses the balance issues with these units. I also think they should address those with units that are garbage. I really want to see variety in what is taken.

I think part of the reason conscripts are so ubiquitous is because the regular guardsman isn't viable. Without the ability to blob squad the regular guys you are always better off either "downgrading" to conscripts to get a blob and thus buff efficiency or upgrade to vets for better ballistic skill and four times as many special weapons.

Regular infantry squads are really solid in lists without vehicles because they're how you put together a durable firebase which forces the enemy to come to you. 8 to 10 squads with one lascannon each, backed by mortar heavy weapon squads and snipers, guarantee that I'm outshooting you from 48". You have to close with me to use assault cannons and bolters, and that makes it easy for my drop squads and assassins to find targets.

I do think it would be kind of nice if as a compromise, I could blob 2-3 regular guardsman squads together. Mostly I just want that so I can protect heavy weapons with wound allocation shenanigans though.

It would make a kind of nice progression, 50 conscripts, 20-30 guardsmen, 10 veterans. Or you could extend it further: 50 conscripts, 30 guardsmen, 20 veterans, 10 scions.

It sure looks nice on paper.

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


I think you need to go on top of that and restrict to a single patrol detachment.

I'd go one step further and say that you need a mandatory patrol/battalion/brigade before you can take any of the other detachments, and that you can't take any of the smaller ones if you have enough stuff to take a larger one. I could be described as somehow hostile toward the current state of the FOC though.

I disagree with that. A mandatory patrol borders on meaningless. Beyond that I think that the troops in this game are not balanced enough to make requiring them fun. Also how do you enforce "have enough stuff to take a larger one"? If you mean "own enough" that is not enforceable. If you mean have enough in your list, then the requirement serves no purpose. there is no advantage to say taking a patrol with 1 HQ and 2 troops, a vanguard with 2 HQ 1 troop, and 4 elites, over taking a Battalion. Now if you mean "if you have enough troops in your army you must field the larger detachment (this doesn't work for the brigade) then that could kind of work, but most of the time would have little effect.

Now if they made everyone actually have comparable troops, I might agree, but as written the Imperium benefits wildly from the "must take troop detachments." or everyone else must pay a tax of one detachment, 1 HQ and 1 troop.

 Marmatag wrote:

tomguycot wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.

I think this is worth pointing out. Guard NEED a good screen. I would posit that the army would not even be competitive without one. All of your infantry folds to dedicated assault troops and once your opponent gets into the middle of your tanks they just aren't doing anything so without a good screen any sort of turn one assault can put you into an unwinnable position before you even get to take a turn.

No one disputes that you need a good screen.

The challenge is that either: (a) your screens are too effective, or (b) your firepower behind said screens is far too strong.

It's become clear that any kind of agreement is not going to be reached in this thread. I would never turn down a game against guard, but i will pull out the ravens.

Go ahead and pull out the ravens, I don't run screens of conscripts or anything because superheavies don't need them. In fact, we'd be in a good spot against stormraven spam and have been in prior games (if spam = 3).

 Marmatag wrote:

Drager wrote:
I don't mind conscripts so much, but it's probably because I play an army that can 1 turn wipe 50 for 200 points. And that 200 point unit is the core of my army anyway and I have multiple.

What unit is that, Khorne Berzerkers? Why doesn't your opponent delete units so you don't get a second fight phase? Or are you using a different unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 perilsensitive wrote:
What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.

This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.

GSC stealers.

tomguycot wrote:
I think part of the reason conscripts are so ubiquitous is because the regular guardsman isn't viable. Without the ability to blob squad the regular guys you are always better off either "downgrading" to conscripts to get a blob and thus buff efficiency or upgrade to vets for better ballistic skill and four times as many special weapons.

I actually agree, I would have liked something like you can deploy up to 3 Infantry squads at once as a single unit.

Breng77 wrote:


I actually agree, I would have liked something like you can deploy up to 3 Infantry squads at once as a single unit.

Well this was pretty much how they worked prior to 8th so I'm not sure why they were changed. Yes it would have been good with autopass orders but so are conscripts, veterans and scions.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I will agree the screen's firepower is too strong, but not that the screen is too strong in and of itself. As I pointed out earlier, considering their relative effectiveness compared to tactical marines, they're almost right on target. However, they drastically exceed marines under the effect of orders.

So altering their survivability to "bring them in line" as it were wouldn't solve the problem. Only their "buffed by Orders" state is in excess of Space Marines, so the power of their "buffed by Orders" state is what needs to change.

Well, that and bring in to line some of the big guns that are a bit to point effective as far as artillery goes. I suppose it is, to me, more natural to leave guard with the best big guns for the points and merely an okay screen. It's also reasonable to leave them a great screen but bring the big guns in line with other armies.

But you really can't justify having the best big guns and the best screen. That's a bit much, and means you will eb the best army outside a handful of units.

tomguycot wrote:
I think part of the reason conscripts are so ubiquitous is because the regular guardsman isn't viable. Without the ability to blob squad the regular guys you are always better off either "downgrading" to conscripts to get a blob and thus buff efficiency or upgrade to vets for better ballistic skill and four times as many special weapons.

Which is an interesting argument.

I see a lot of people saying that conscripts at 4 ppm wouldn't change anything, because people would just use normal guardsman. Then I see others argue that normal guardsman don't work, as you can't take them in large enough squads (which ties back to the, guardsman are cheaper than equivalent units due to size issues thing).

It's a really interesting back and forth, and I wish people would start actually debating each other about it. People who actually paly as IG, and thus could better support either side of the argument than i would be able to.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I will agree the screen's firepower is too strong, but not that the screen is too strong in and of itself. As I pointed out earlier, considering their relative effectiveness compared to tactical marines, they're almost right on target. However, they drastically exceed marines under the effect of orders.

So altering their survivability to "bring them in line" as it were wouldn't solve the problem. Only their "buffed by Orders" state is in excess of Space Marines, so the power of their "buffed by Orders" state is what needs to change.

Well, that and bring in to line some of the big guns that are a bit to point effective as far as artillery goes. I suppose it is, to me, more natural to leave guard with the best big guns for the points and merely an okay screen. It's also reasonable to leave them a great screen but bring the big guns in line with other armies.

But you really can't justify having the best big guns and the best screen. That's a bit much, and means you will eb the best army outside a handful of units.

Aren't our big guns in line with everyone else's? What guns do you mean specifically? I can't think of any big gun that's ridiculously OP right now.

The one on the titan-killer Baneblade variant (I forget its name)... Shadowsword? That one's big.

And there's the Eldar Scorpion, which one shots even mid-size titans.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Aren't our big guns in line with everyone else's? What guns do you mean specifically? I can't think of any big gun that's ridiculously OP right now.

My guess would be the manticore. That things definitely kinda rough and is the main one that I see people complaining about.

tomguycot wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


I actually agree, I would have liked something like you can deploy up to 3 Infantry squads at once as a single unit.

Well this was pretty much how they worked prior to 8th so I'm not sure why they were changed. Yes it would have been good with autopass orders but so are conscripts, veterans and scions.

True, they probably should have made orders function like psychic powers, give each a value, roll 2D6 over that value for the order to take. In fact if you did something like make them easy rolls, but made them -1 modifier for every 10 models in a unit, that would work well. So FRFSRF goes of on a 4. For a 10 man unit it would need a 5+, 20 would need a 6+, 30 would need a 7+

So that would be 91% chance to go off (baring CP re-rolls), for say a 5 man squad, 83% for a 10 man squad, 72% for a 20 man squad, 58% for a 30 man squad, 42% for 40, 27% for 50. So the orders have more effect for larger squads but are harder to get off. You then could have built in rules to some characters that gave them "casting" bonuses, and give them a stratagem for 2 CP that auto-passes an order.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Aren't our big guns in line with everyone else's? What guns do you mean specifically? I can't think of any big gun that's ridiculously OP right now.

The manticore is the one people mention most often, I've also heard people say the wyvern generally outperforms similar options in other armies (though I don't even know for sure what is the equivelent to these weapons, besides maybe whirlwinds and orc lobbas). . Heavy weapon squads are another, but that's not really tied into screening given they can be easily killed by anything that can shoot them. .

Do you even know the statlines of those vehicles?