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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Never once did I say guard aren't OP. In fact, if you'd like, I can quote you a post in this very thread where I say guard are overperforming in 8th.

I just don't think the problem is conscripts.

Okay, that's fair. I apologize, honestly I haven't read the entire thread.

I'll just go back to saying I trust GW to balance it out based on what they did with Raven Spam.

I hope you guys can appreciate how frustrating it is, with an assault army, to *never* make it to the tanks. Ever. You'd think that at least every now and then i'd get a tank in melee before my force was entirely crippled.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Never once did I say guard aren't OP. In fact, if you'd like, I can quote you a post in this very thread where I say guard are overperforming in 8th.

I just don't think the problem is conscripts.

Okay, that's fair. I apologize, honestly I haven't read the entire thread.

I'll just go back to saying I trust GW to balance it out based on what they did with Raven Spam.

I hope you guys can appreciate how frustrating it is, with an assault army, to *never* make it to the tanks. Ever. You'd think that at least every now and then i'd get a tank in melee before my force was entirely crippled.

Now you understand how frustrating it was to play an armoured company in 5th were tanks couldn't score, insta-died to assaults, and assaults were fairly easy to get.

My Leman Russes lost damn near every game of 5th, even when I brought a Baneblade, that I ever played.

But I kept slogging through, because seeing the models on the table and making little ppprrrbbtttt noises while they moved around was fun enough for me. (that last bit is a joke, by the way )

I do hope things get fixed so the game is less frustrating to play for you, while also still giving guard a way to screen their tanks so they get at least 3 turns of firing before being permalocked.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Never once did I say guard aren't OP. In fact, if you'd like, I can quote you a post in this very thread where I say guard are overperforming in 8th.

I just don't think the problem is conscripts.

Sorry, I was just going with your post here, didn't know you'd already agreed to that.

For what it's worth, I also think conscripts would be fine if they didn't have orders.

 Deathypoo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Never once did I say guard aren't OP. In fact, if you'd like, I can quote you a post in this very thread where I say guard are overperforming in 8th.

I just don't think the problem is conscripts.

Sorry, I was just going with your post here, didn't know you'd already agreed to that.

For what it's worth, I also think conscripts would be fine if they didn't have orders.

Good, yeah, Katherine's math I think decisively demonstrates that Conscripts with Orders are ridiculous. In a bad way, not a funny way.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How many points per model should a lasgun cost? After all, as you say, it's not nothing. 1PPM? 2?

A Commissar's entire function is to increase their leadership, that's his job... and as Katherine demonstrated with math earlier (I feel like I am repeating myself for some reason) with the Commissar's points cost taken into account they're about on par with tactical marines for durability-per-point. Isn't that balance?

Considering that was "marines in cover" no. It isn't. I've said this like five times now. Which is why you keep repeating yourself, because you've yet to explain why standing it in the open deserves the same durability as one using the terrain. It was a point worthy of consideration, it is not and was not a given, and considering I've yet to hear any explanation, I'm currently leaning towards no.

On the other hand, a commissar boosting three units of guardsmen is comparable in durability to space marines, albeit still slightly harder to kill.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How many points per model should a lasgun cost? After all, as you say, it's not nothing. 1PPM? 2?

A Commissar's entire function is to increase their leadership, that's his job... and as Katherine demonstrated with math earlier (I feel like I am repeating myself for some reason) with the Commissar's points cost taken into account they're about on par with tactical marines for durability-per-point. Isn't that balance?

Considering that was "marines in cover" no. It isn't. I've said this like five times now. Which is why you keep repeating yourself, because you've yet to explain why standing it in the open deserves the same durability as one using the terrain.

Because Conscripts are never going to get cover in the current game rules, and Marines can very very very easily.

Also, conscripts aren't paying for a pistol.

Also the Conscripts aren't paying for Combat Squads.

Also the Conscripts aren't paying for krak grenades.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How many points per model should a lasgun cost? After all, as you say, it's not nothing. 1PPM? 2?

A Commissar's entire function is to increase their leadership, that's his job... and as Katherine demonstrated with math earlier (I feel like I am repeating myself for some reason) with the Commissar's points cost taken into account they're about on par with tactical marines for durability-per-point. Isn't that balance?

Considering that was "marines in cover" no. It isn't. I've said this like five times now. Which is why you keep repeating yourself, because you've yet to explain why standing it in the open deserves the same durability as one using the terrain.

Because Conscripts are never going to get cover in the current game rules, and Marines can very very very easily.

Also, conscripts aren't paying for a pistol.

Also the Conscripts aren't paying for Combat Squads.

Also the Conscripts aren't paying for krak grenades.

So again, this is a unit that can be fielded in huge units great for screening... but shouldn't have any of the disadvantages associated with being a huge unit used for screening? They shouldn't have issues with morale, which marines combat squad to avoid. Shouldn't be disadvantaged for not being able to take cover, even though that's not a given for even smaller units, and most armies can't screen and be in cover.

Maybe some of the conscripts' weaknesses shouldn't be totally invalidated?

Also, space marines being better in melee is compensated for by conscripts being better at range. Yes, spread out this advantage isn't as noticeable, but they aren't going to get much usage from their melee prowess sitting in cover shooting.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How many points per model should a lasgun cost? After all, as you say, it's not nothing. 1PPM? 2?

A Commissar's entire function is to increase their leadership, that's his job... and as Katherine demonstrated with math earlier (I feel like I am repeating myself for some reason) with the Commissar's points cost taken into account they're about on par with tactical marines for durability-per-point. Isn't that balance?

Considering that was "marines in cover" no. It isn't. I've said this like five times now. Which is why you keep repeating yourself, because you've yet to explain why standing it in the open deserves the same durability as one using the terrain.

Because Conscripts are never going to get cover in the current game rules, and Marines can very very very easily.

Also, conscripts aren't paying for a pistol.

Also the Conscripts aren't paying for Combat Squads.

Also the Conscripts aren't paying for krak grenades.

So again, this is a unit that can be fielded in huge units great for screening... but shouldn't have any of the disadvantages associated with being a huge unit used for screening? They shouldn't have issues with morale, which marines combat squad to avoid. Shouldn't be disadvantaged for not being able to take cover, even though that's not a given for even smaller units, and most armies can't screen and be in cover.

Maybe some of the conscripts' weaknesses shouldn't be totally invalidated?

Also, space marines being better in melee is compensated for by conscripts being better at range. Yes, spread out this advantage isn't as noticeable, but they aren't going to get much usage from their melee prowess sitting in cover shooting.

I will be okay with removing Conscript's immunity to morale losses so long as it happens for the other hordes in the game: Orks and Tyranids. Literally every other horde has some way of becoming more resistant to morale if not outright immune.

And they are disadvantaged by not being able to take cover? I don't really get your point. Not being able to take cover is a disadvantage.

And conscripts aren't better at range without orders, as Katherine mentioned. They're about the same.

Yeah I really don't think any of the hordes deserve morale immunity. It's like "what the hell is the point of morale?" at this point. Everyone either takes minimum squads that can't fail, one model units that obviously can't fail, or has an ignore-morale mechanic.

I have yet to see anything relevant happen due to morale in this edition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I will be okay with removing Conscript's immunity to morale losses so long as it happens for the other hordes in the game: Orks and Tyranids. Literally every other horde has some way of becoming more resistant to morale if not outright immune.

And they are disadvantaged by not being able to take cover? I don't really get your point. Not being able to take cover is a disadvantage.

And conscripts aren't better at range without orders, as Katherine mentioned. They're about the same.

Well no. Kroot can't, cultists can't, demons can't, etc. Most can't in fact. If you follow up with "well those aren't horde armies and every army can't do everything" I'd point AM is by no means restricted to hordes. Ogryns, scions, cavalry, vehicles of every flavor under the sun, plus being part of the imperium, the literal grab bag of infinite possibilities. So it's not like IG has any real restrictions on what sort of army they can field.

Honestly? I'd prefer morale immunity be an ork and tyranid only thing, the only armies where it makes sense and is currently balanced with.

Yes it is, but not if their point cost is so low they are already as durable to other units in cover. That's not a disadvantage.

They are only worse if we assume they can't all be in range. Four lasguns at 5+>1 boltgun at 3+. And if you say Schrodinger's conscripts, who just brought up marines benefiting from cover followed by marines better at fighting in melee?

If conscripts had no morale resistance at all they'd be a joke though.

Consider this thought experiment:
Let's say, somehow or other, we did make it so that Tactical Marines with bolters could reliably shoot Conscripts off the table point-for-point. What then happens if said tactical marines shoot and assault?

The Tactical Marines will have more likely than not already done more damage than the Conscripts could have expected to return in shooting (because for the purposes of the experiment, we have nerfed them until this was the case). Now they have also charged in the same turn, meaning the Conscripts won't get to shoot, they'll have to respond with their much weaker melee (or if they use an order, with half the shooting they could have had otherwise). Plus, those conscripts are taking additional casualties from the assault.

So, by making conscripts "equal" at shooting, we have in fact made them drastically inferior when the tactical marines exercise the simple expedient of not ignoring half their kit.

Is this a desirable outcome?

 ross-128 wrote:
Is this a desirable outcome?

The desirable outcome is IG not getting three free turns of shooting their guns because they took conscripts tbh.

SilverAlien wrote:

The desirable outcome is IG not getting three free turns of shooting their guns because they took conscripts tbh.

But those turns are the only shooting they get, because once you get into melee, the IG stop playing and start packing up their army, a few casualties at a time. This is much more profoundly evident in 8th edition than previous ones, particularly with vehicles. Orders mitigate that somewhat, but only for limited units.

So what is the desirable outcome?

Then you're the new Tau, enjoy everything that entails.

SilverAlien wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Is this a desirable outcome?

The desirable outcome is IG not getting three free turns of shooting their guns because they took conscripts tbh.

Are those turns really free when the player is literally sacrificing units to get them?

A tank or artillery piece typically needs about three turns to get its points back, give or take one depending on how well it rolls. And since part of the lists' cost is taken up by its screen, the armor generally needs enough time to do a bit more than its own points in damage to make up for that.

So if an IG player could only expect two turns of shooting at most, no matter how hard they tried to stall, before the game devolved into a brawl what do you think that would mean for them?

 Quickjager wrote:
Then you're the new Tau, enjoy everything that entails.

The new Tau? You mean the old AM?

 daedalus wrote:
But those turns are the only shooting they get, because once you get into melee, the IG stop playing and start packing up their army, a few casualties at a time. This is much more profoundly evident in 8th edition than previous ones, particularly with vehicles. Orders mitigate that somewhat, but only for limited units.

So what is the desirable outcome?

In previous editions, once a melee unit was in combat it was there till either it or the other side won. With fall back being a thing, those units which were previously "safe" once they hit conscripts are now getting shot every turn regardless if they make it into combat. Shooting lists have a lot more options to work with now, they don't need this sort of absurd level of screening as well. Not to mention you have melee units as well. Also flyers.

Packing up once they get in melee range isn't and shouldn't be a given, but you don't need conscripts to accomplish that. Maybe we could move away from one dimensional lists as a whole?

 ross-128 wrote:
Are those turns really free when the player is literally sacrificing units to get them?

A tank or artillery piece typically needs about three turns to get its points back, give or take one depending on how well it rolls. And since part of the lists' cost is taken up by its screen, the armor generally needs enough time to do a bit more than its own points in damage to make up for that.

So if an IG player could only expect two turns of shooting at most, no matter how hard they tried to stall, before the game devolved into a brawl what do you think that would mean for them?

I think they'd have to learn to play like literally every other shooty army does? Which is still perfectly viable, and they have the tools to do so?

 daedalus wrote:
The new Tau? You mean the old AM?

Tau are currently at old CSM/Ork/Nid level, which sis till way below where guard ever were. Remember, guard hasn't ever actually been on the bottom.

SilverAlien wrote:

In previous editions, once a melee unit was in combat it was there till either it or the other side won. With fall back being a thing, those units which were previously "safe" once they hit conscripts are now getting shot every turn regardless if they make it into combat. Shooting lists have a lot more options to work with now, they don't need this sort of absurd level of screening as well. Not to mention you have melee units as well. Also flyers.

Packing up once they get in melee range isn't and shouldn't be a given, but you don't need conscripts to accomplish that. Maybe we could move away from one dimensional lists as a whole?

I was referring to the fact that you can multiassault tanks, and so long as you can keep doing it with at least a model, they have literally no meaningful presence in the game at that point.

To be fair to our "melee options", I need to mathhammer the ogryn variants. I expect they're going to be severely lacking for screening purposes even compared to infantry squads, and rough riders are definitely ineffective for those purposes, and not going to be taken seriously by anyone until GW starts producing a model for them, because we all knows what happens to stuff that doesn't have an active model produced for it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Never once did I say guard aren't OP. In fact, if you'd like, I can quote you a post in this very thread where I say guard are overperforming in 8th.

I just don't think the problem is conscripts.

Okay, that's fair. I apologize, honestly I haven't read the entire thread.

I'll just go back to saying I trust GW to balance it out based on what they did with Raven Spam.

I hope you guys can appreciate how frustrating it is, with an assault army, to *never* make it to the tanks. Ever. You'd think that at least every now and then i'd get a tank in melee before my force was entirely crippled.

Now you understand how frustrating it was to play an armoured company in 5th were tanks couldn't score, insta-died to assaults, and assaults were fairly easy to get.

My Leman Russes lost damn near every game of 5th, even when I brought a Baneblade, that I ever played.

But I kept slogging through, because seeing the models on the table and making little ppprrrbbtttt noises while they moved around was fun enough for me. (that last bit is a joke, by the way )

I do hope things get fixed so the game is less frustrating to play for you, while also still giving guard a way to screen their tanks so they get at least 3 turns of firing before being permalocked.

I'd settle for a change that required guard players to actually use tactics, rather than flopping their models on the table and automatically winning against anything that isn't top-tier, which is what is happening now.

I don't care about anything that happened in a previous edition, to be honest, this is supposed to be the balanced edition, but currently imperial guard is totally broken.

 daedalus wrote:
I was referring to the fact that you can multiassault tanks, and so long as you can keep doing it with at least a model, they have literally no meaningful presence in the game at that point.

To be fair to our "melee options", I need to mathhammer the ogryn variants. I expect they're going to be severely lacking for screening purposes even compared to infantry squads, and rough riders are definitely ineffective for those purposes, and not going to be taken seriously by anyone until GW starts producing a model for them, because we all knows what happens to stuff that doesn't have an active model produced for it.

Then don't take tons of slow moving ranged only options? Take a mixture. Have some mobile firepower it's hard for the enemy to keep tied down, have some deepstrike ready to bail your tanks out. Have some flyers who can't be easily tied up. Run some melee units who don't mind getting stuck in and can hit back while you target other units.

I see no reason a really singular list without much variation shouldn't have obvious counters that they will never win against. That's the downside of spam armies.

SilverAlien wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Are those turns really free when the player is literally sacrificing units to get them?

A tank or artillery piece typically needs about three turns to get its points back, give or take one depending on how well it rolls. And since part of the lists' cost is taken up by its screen, the armor generally needs enough time to do a bit more than its own points in damage to make up for that.

So if an IG player could only expect two turns of shooting at most, no matter how hard they tried to stall, before the game devolved into a brawl what do you think that would mean for them?

I think they'd have to learn to play like literally every other shooty army does? Which is still perfectly viable, and they have the tools to do so?

Tau is currently the only other army that leans as heavily on shooting as Guard does, and they rely on the abundance of Fly units in their battlesuits to get them out of melee. They're also not doing so great right now, so clearly it's not working very well.

You might not have noticed, but Guard don't have very many Fly units. Unless you're trying to suggest that all IG players should just spam Vultures. The only form of assault mitigation that IG has other than screening is Get Back in the Fight, which doesn't work on vehicles.

I suppose theoretically if conscripts were completely gutted we could just make our lists entirely out of Vultures, plasma scions, and superheavies that can shoot out of melee. But I have a feeling that you'd be distinctly unhappy about that too.

SilverAlien wrote:

Then don't take tons of slow moving ranged only options? Take a mixture. Have some mobile firepower it's hard for the enemy to keep tied down, have some deepstrike ready to bail your tanks out. Have some flyers who can't be easily tied up. Run some melee units who don't mind getting stuck in and can hit back while you target other units.

I see no reason a really singular list without much variation shouldn't have obvious counters that they will never win against. That's the downside of spam armies.

The guard lack mobility more than anything. People think they're supposed to be fragile, but really, mobility is what has always been their biggest weakness. There's not really any mobile firepower, except for valkyries and hellhounds, and only one of those would I really feel right using the word "firepower" to describe. The only thing that can be "deepstrike ready to bail your tanks out" is rough riders, and they don't have a model right now, and can only come in from deepstrike 7" from a table edge, and then they still have nothing helping them get into melee. The only flyer we have is the Valkyrie which, putting it kindly, isn't that good. You could go out to FW and get some interesting options, but then the mention of FW triggers quite a few people, including several here on the "conscripts go away!" side of things, so THAT'S not an option.

I mean, I can't honestly figure out what specifically you're recommending here with what we have available.

 ross-128 wrote:
Tau is currently the only other army that leans as heavily on shooting as Guard does, and they rely on the abundance of Fly units in their battlesuits to get them out of melee. They're also not doing so great right now, so clearly it's not working very well.

You might not have noticed, but Guard don't have very many Fly units. Unless you're trying to suggest that all IG players should just spam Vultures. The only form of assault mitigation that IG has other than screening is Get Back in the Fight, which doesn't work on vehicles.

I suppose theoretically if conscripts were completely gutted we could just make our lists entirely out of Vultures, plasma scions, and superheavies that can shoot out of melee. But I have a feeling that you'd be distinctly unhappy about that too.

Okay now what if, and bear with me cause I know this is crazy, what if you used the things you mentioned and some artillery units being screened at the same time. What if maybe the solution was to have different ways of mitigating the issue, so it wasn't all or nothing?

Also, you mentioned three things that have actual counter play, that don't turn the game into pure attrition with no thoughts or tactics. Those would be an improvement.

It's not a question of swinging it the other way and making conscripts worthless, it's about making them worthwhile but not impossible obstacles for some armies. How to go about making that change is not obvious and doesn't necessarily mean that they should only change the conscripts.

 daedalus wrote:
The guard lack mobility more than anything. People think they're supposed to be fragile, but really, mobility is what has always been their biggest weakness. There's not really any mobile firepower, except for valkyries and hellhounds, and only one of those would I really feel right using the word "firepower" to describe. The only thing that can be "deepstrike ready to bail your tanks out" is rough riders, and they don't have a model right now, and can only come in from deepstrike 7" from a table edge, and then they still have nothing helping them get into melee. The only flyer we have is the Valkyrie which, putting it kindly, isn't that good. You could go out to FW and get some interesting options, but then the mention of FW triggers quite a few people, including several here on the "conscripts go away!" side of things, so THAT'S not an option.

I mean, I can't honestly figure out what specifically you're recommending here with what we have available.

Most of your firepower is mobile, but in particular russes (particularly with tank commanders) have both mobility and can fire on the move with reduced penalties. The taurox carrying around some scions works as well. You can deepstrike scions between your tank and the enemy after the tank falls back, depending on which tank and how wounded it is. Then rapid fire plasma. Or use drop troops with flamers. Rough riders are a good option as well, though less reliable with deepstrike.Your flyer is solid, and the flyer wing means it's pretty trivial to mix and match. You've even got ranged firepower that doesn't roll over and die when something is in melee, like your various super heavies who can keep fighting. Or run more infantry that can fall back and shoot, and less points on the static guns.

Seriously, so many other things you can do.

This math:

Even with no armor, it still takes 112 BS 4 shots of str 4-5 or 90 shots of BS 4 Str 6+ to kill them. To kill 150 pts of stuff. Really? Cheap immunity to battleshock is HUGE. I have to bring special characters for that.

is the fundamental problem.

Why shouldn't it take that many shots?

They're a unit designed quite literally to soak up fire.

Can we please get over this incessant need to easily kill every single unit in a single turn? This isn't 7th edition.

 Melissia wrote:
Why shouldn't it take that many shots?

They're a unit designed quite literally to soak up fire.

Can we please get over this incessant need to easily kill every single unit in a single turn? This isn't 7th edition.

Because that's too many shots for a 150 pt unit. It may be designed to soak up fire, but it's doing it too well and too cheaply. The quadratap return fire is just icing on the cake.

In a 2K game, my BA are unable to remove say two of these squads because of their cost/wound ratio. I just don't have the spare shots while I'm engaging the rest of the list. That's two objectives guaranteed I will never score no matter what I do. Forget one turn, I can't remove them over the course of a game. Not in practice. Because there's around 1600 pts of other stuff trying to murder me. Efficient stuff, I might add.

Also, that math was for NO armor. Divide by .66666 for bolters.

Martel732 wrote:
Because that's too many shots for a 150 pt unit

No, it's really not.

It's a unit purpose-made to absorb fire through taking tons of damage. And even its ability to absorb damage can be crippled by playing smart.

And again, there's no need to obsess over being able to wipe out every single unit in a single turn.

There is such a thing as doing things too efficiently; Imperial Guard has a lot of that this edition.