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.

sossen wrote:

Well this simply isn't true, tactical marines can be taken down 36'' away by Kastelan Robots costing only slightly more than twice as much. We are comparing the optimal answers in each given army, not a random one.

Right, but Tactical Marines fulfill more roles than conscripts. Conscripts are basically only a CC screen. They don't do much damage, they require babysitting, you can just shoot past them. You pay for warm bodies, and bodies is the only thing that you get.

You can keep making the argument "they're op because they take more effort to kill", I just won't buy it until I see these armies sweeping tournaments. As I pointed out prior, if you're taking lots of models (marines) to begin with, you can slaughter the conscripts with what most people consider a "tax".

 Blackie wrote:
I agree with Melissia, rhinos are clearly more OP than conscripts.

Dark eldar raiders are T5 with a 4+ save and cost 115 points

Orks trukks are T6 with a 4+ save and cost 82 points.

Rhinos are T7 with 3+ save and cost 72 points.

Conscripts are quite hard to remove thanks to their numbers but you won't lose the game thanks to their survivability or their shooting. Just focus on the game guys, score the points you need to win. Tons of cheap plasma deep striking shots that obliterate some of your most valuable units in turn 1 are way more broken than conscripts for example and even easier to buy/assemble/paint/transport.

Those are also a big problem.

 Insectum7 wrote:

sossen wrote:

Well this simply isn't true, tactical marines can be taken down 36'' away by Kastelan Robots costing only slightly more than twice as much. We are comparing the optimal answers in each given army, not a random one.

Right, but Tactical Marines fulfill more roles than conscripts. Conscripts are basically only a CC screen. They don't do much damage, they require babysitting, you can just shoot past them. You pay for warm bodies, and bodies is the only thing that you get.

You can keep making the argument "they're op because they take more effort to kill", I just won't buy it until I see these armies sweeping tournaments. As I pointed out prior, if you're taking lots of models (marines) to begin with, you can slaughter the conscripts with what most people consider a "tax".

I don't know if this is referring to the hypothetical conscripts without orders, but assuming that you aren't: I don't think tactical marines can do any single role better than conscripts can, except for capping objectives with enemy models nearby. Conscripts can be used as a more efficient firebase than tac marines if you want to use them that way - they are not simply restricted to acting as bubblewrap. The math has been done multiple times across these threads: Bolter marines are doing less damage than conscripts of an equal cost (including support) when the marines are in rapid-fire range and the conscripts aren't. Even with special/heavy weapons and considering the difficulty of getting that many conscripts in range their numbers will still be similar against any target.

If you are using them as bubblewrap then you probably won't be getting efficient damage out of them, but then you are getting the value from the way they shield the real gunline. In a matchup where the opponent simply ignores the conscripts and shoots past them you will be able to use their firepower to as good effect as an SM army could use tac marines.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Very little you post is mathematically accurate or feasible from a practical standpoint. 100 wounds that are immune to morale for 400 points is busted. There's several reasons for this that have been outlined in this thread. You just ignore them all.

Because every single reason came down to "I cannot remove this entire unit in a turn with equal or less points so it is broken". Try applying more points to them for a turn and see what happens.

It turns into an autowin for the IG. What you suggest plays right into their hands. I understand you don't get it and can't see it, but that's not really my problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
A 150 point unit should not take over 800 points to remove. In no universe does that make sense. That kind of scale doesn't work for any other unit in this game.

By this logic, a 70 point unit shouldn't take 400 poitns to remove.

But even though you try to talk about how "no other unit" does this apply to, you don't use this logic for any other unit. Because if you did, your entire argument would fall apart. You just say "Well nothing else is like it" ignoring all the other things like it.

Hell, to take down a single 65 point tactical marine squad in cover in a single turn takes 330 points of conscripts and support characters and the 100 conscripts involved to be given the chance to all move in to place to FRFSRF the squad. Clearly this means tactical marines are overpowered and shouldn't be as durable as they are.

Fun fact is? Both these examples-- Rhinos and Tacticals-- have the same ratio of points the unit costs vs points it takes to eliminate the unit in one turn as the ratio you mentioned for conscripts. But you don't care, because you have a hate-boner on for conscripts and you won't be dissuaded from calling them OP even if by YOUR OWN LOGIC your own units must be OP.

This is why I bowed out of the other thread, and why I bowed out earlier in this thread. Even as you claim I'm not here to listen to what you have to say, you're not willing to pay attention to anyone else's argument. You aren't even listening to your own argument... I'm out, again.

I don't know how often you play marines, but in practice, this is a false equivalence. Go play some games against good IG players to find out why.

Tactical marines can be armed with heavy and special wapons, and therefore are better anti-vehicle than conscripts. And since they dont need Comissars or orders, they cost less.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tactical marines can be armed with heavy and special wapons, and therefore are better anti-vehicle than conscripts. And since they dont need Comissars or orders, they cost less.

That's true, but they're still far less effective at taking up space and soaking bullets. In fact, every gun you give tac marines makes them less good at soaking bullets. This has always been a critical flaw.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tactical marines can be armed with heavy and special wapons, and therefore are better anti-vehicle than conscripts. And since they dont need Comissars or orders, they cost less.

The cost of the support is included, as always, in every comparison. Just like the cost of additional weapons has to be included.

sossen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tactical marines can be armed with heavy and special wapons, and therefore are better anti-vehicle than conscripts. And since they dont need Comissars or orders, they cost less.

The cost of the support is included, as always, in every comparison. Just like the cost of additional weapons has to be included.

Five marines with a Lascannon is 90 points. They average 1.28 wounds on a T7, 3+ sv. target, not including bolters.

90 points of conscripts (without Comissar) averages .56 wounds on the same target.

That's half the damage, at half the potential range.

Full squad of Conscripts, with Comissar, is 180 points. The marines can get a second squad with Lascannon for that. If you want to say they're firing at 12" away and using orders, I'm bringing Combi-meltas and adding the math for bolters and Krak.

 Insectum7 wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tactical marines can be armed with heavy and special wapons, and therefore are better anti-vehicle than conscripts. And since they dont need Comissars or orders, they cost less.

The cost of the support is included, as always, in every comparison. Just like the cost of additional weapons has to be included.

Five marines with a Lascannon is 90 points. They average 1.28 wounds on a T7, 3+ sv. target, not including bolters.

90 points of conscripts (without Comissar) averages .56 wounds on the same target.

That's half the damage, at half the potential range.

Full squad of Conscripts, with Comissar, is 180 points. The marines can get a second squad with Lascannon for that. If you want to say they're firing at 12" away and using orders, I'm bringing Combi-meltas and adding the math for bolters and Krak.

If you want to improve your numbers you should change from tactical marines to devastator marines. They get a free +1 to hit for one marine per turn. Against a T7 target you are better off using a plasma cannon, it's cheaper and more TAC.

Still, you aren't using orders in this example. I agree that conscripts without orders are way more restricted. I would also make sure to keep the example at the correct scale, 50 conscripts + commissar + commander would be the base combo imo, even though it can be more efficient. Rapid fire range is hardly representative and I doubt that the marines would want to do that with those heavy weapons.

sossen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tactical marines can be armed with heavy and special wapons, and therefore are better anti-vehicle than conscripts. And since they dont need Comissars or orders, they cost less.

The cost of the support is included, as always, in every comparison. Just like the cost of additional weapons has to be included.

Five marines with a Lascannon is 90 points. They average 1.28 wounds on a T7, 3+ sv. target, not including bolters.

90 points of conscripts (without Comissar) averages .56 wounds on the same target.

That's half the damage, at half the potential range.

Full squad of Conscripts, with Comissar, is 180 points. The marines can get a second squad with Lascannon for that. If you want to say they're firing at 12" away and using orders, I'm bringing Combi-meltas and adding the math for bolters and Krak.

If you want to improve your numbers you should change from tactical marines to devastator marines. They get a free +1 to hit for one marine per turn. Against a T7 target you are better off using a plasma cannon, it's cheaper and more TAC.

Still, you aren't using orders in this example. I agree that conscripts without orders are way more restricted. I would also make sure to keep the example at the correct scale, 50 conscripts + commissar + commander would be the base combo imo, even though it can be more efficient. Rapid fire range is hardly representative and I doubt that the marines would want to do that with those heavy weapons.

The challengs was with Tacticals, so I used Tacticals.

In order to get comparable numbers with conscripts, they need the support and a more contrived situation (like all of them being within 12"). Without it their numbers don't work well in the vehicle case. btw, if you run a similar scenario against Terminator equivalents, and you give the Tacs a grav cannon, the tacss outstrip the conscripts further.

The point is that Tacs armed appropriately, and used appropriately, fare better than the conscripts put in a similar situation.

 Insectum7 wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tactical marines can be armed with heavy and special wapons, and therefore are better anti-vehicle than conscripts. And since they dont need Comissars or orders, they cost less.

The cost of the support is included, as always, in every comparison. Just like the cost of additional weapons has to be included.

Five marines with a Lascannon is 90 points. They average 1.28 wounds on a T7, 3+ sv. target, not including bolters.

90 points of conscripts (without Comissar) averages .56 wounds on the same target.

That's half the damage, at half the potential range.

Full squad of Conscripts, with Comissar, is 180 points. The marines can get a second squad with Lascannon for that. If you want to say they're firing at 12" away and using orders, I'm bringing Combi-meltas and adding the math for bolters and Krak.

If you want to improve your numbers you should change from tactical marines to devastator marines. They get a free +1 to hit for one marine per turn. Against a T7 target you are better off using a plasma cannon, it's cheaper and more TAC.

Still, you aren't using orders in this example. I agree that conscripts without orders are way more restricted. I would also make sure to keep the example at the correct scale, 50 conscripts + commissar + commander would be the base combo imo, even though it can be more efficient. Rapid fire range is hardly representative and I doubt that the marines would want to do that with those heavy weapons.

The challengs was with Tacticals, so I used Tacticals.

In order to get comparable numbers with conscripts, they need the support and a more contrived situation (like all of them being within 12"). Without it their numbers don't work well in the vehicle case. btw, if you run a similar scenario against Terminator equivalents, and you give the Tacs a grav cannon, the tacss outstrip the conscripts further.

The point is that Tacs armed appropriately, and used appropriately, fare better than the conscripts put in a similar situation.

I agree in both cases, the conscripts are not as good against vehicles or 2+ saves and can't be modified to make them better against those targets than certain builds of tac marines can be. The conscripts are doing a bit more than half of what the grav cannon tacticals are doing vs 3+ tanks and 2/3 of what they are doing vs terminators, at a shorter range as well given the difficulty of getting that many conscripts in 24'' range. Tac marines which are specialized to deal with good saves or tanks will outdo conscripts against such targets. So I will amend my earlier statement: Conscripts are better at everything tactical marines can do, except for holding objectives when there are more enemy models close by, or kill targets with high T/good saves when the tac marines are specialized to kill such targets.

In the case where you use tactical marines with heavy weapons you have also further reduced their relative survivability, their mobility goes down given the heavy weapons and their ability to kill low T/bad save targets like ork boyz or GEQ is still far worse than that of the conscripts. The conscripts are specialized to kill regular infantry, just like the tac squad in this case is specialized to kill tanks (to the point where it would be better as a dev squad). The conscripts will be better at killing such targets no matter what a tactical squad brings, and aren't meant to shoot at other targets in an AM list since they have other specialized units for that role.

sossen wrote:

I agree in both cases, the conscripts are not as good against vehicles or 2+ saves and can't be modified to make them better against those targets than certain builds of tac marines can be. The conscripts are doing a bit more than half of what the grav cannon tacticals are doing vs 3+ tanks and 2/3 of what they are doing vs terminators, at a shorter range as well given the difficulty of getting that many conscripts in 24'' range. Tac marines which are specialized to deal with good saves or tanks will outdo conscripts against such targets. So I will amend my earlier statement: Conscripts are better at everything tactical marines can do, except for holding objectives when there are more enemy models close by, or kill targets with high T/good saves when the tac marines are specialized to kill such targets.

In the case where you use tactical marines with heavy weapons you have also further reduced their relative survivability, their mobility goes down given the heavy weapons and their ability to kill low T/bad save targets like ork boyz or GEQ is still far worse than that of the conscripts. The conscripts are specialized to kill regular infantry, just like the tac squad in this case is specialized to kill tanks (to the point where it would be better as a dev squad). The conscripts will be better at killing such targets no matter what a tactical squad brings, and aren't meant to shoot at other targets in an AM list since they have other specialized units for that role.

Agreed, the conscripts are good at killing basic infantry. And that's where overall army composition and strategy comes in. Marines can take their TLAC Razors for extra anti-infantry firepower, to cover for the Tactical squads lack in that department. They could probably screen Tac squads from massed conscripts by positioning their squad behind and to the side of the Razorback, stuff like that, which sounds satisfyingly like some sort of tactic. The Guard make up for conscripts lack of AT by taking their own vehicles etc. and everybody throws down.

Don't get me wrong, I think conscripts are a powerful tool in the box, I just don't see them as game breaking even with orders and Commissars. Maybe if you took not 50, but hundreds of them. That would be a bear. If anything, I'd be fine with limiting the number of squads one could take, but that's a little beyond my interest in the conversation. I'd like to know what happens to that guy who's bringing like 400 or something to a tournament.

 Insectum7 wrote:

sossen wrote:

I agree in both cases, the conscripts are not as good against vehicles or 2+ saves and can't be modified to make them better against those targets than certain builds of tac marines can be. The conscripts are doing a bit more than half of what the grav cannon tacticals are doing vs 3+ tanks and 2/3 of what they are doing vs terminators, at a shorter range as well given the difficulty of getting that many conscripts in 24'' range. Tac marines which are specialized to deal with good saves or tanks will outdo conscripts against such targets. So I will amend my earlier statement: Conscripts are better at everything tactical marines can do, except for holding objectives when there are more enemy models close by, or kill targets with high T/good saves when the tac marines are specialized to kill such targets.

In the case where you use tactical marines with heavy weapons you have also further reduced their relative survivability, their mobility goes down given the heavy weapons and their ability to kill low T/bad save targets like ork boyz or GEQ is still far worse than that of the conscripts. The conscripts are specialized to kill regular infantry, just like the tac squad in this case is specialized to kill tanks (to the point where it would be better as a dev squad). The conscripts will be better at killing such targets no matter what a tactical squad brings, and aren't meant to shoot at other targets in an AM list since they have other specialized units for that role.

Agreed, the conscripts are good at killing basic infantry. And that's where overall army composition and strategy comes in. Marines can take their TLAC Razors for extra anti-infantry firepower, to cover for the Tactical squads lack in that department. They could probably screen Tac squads from massed conscripts by positioning their squad behind and to the side of the Razorback, stuff like that, which sounds satisfyingly like some sort of tactic. The Guard make up for conscripts lack of AT by taking their own vehicles etc. and everybody throws down.

Don't get me wrong, I think conscripts are a powerful tool in the box, I just don't see them as game breaking even with orders and Commissars. Maybe if you took not 50, but hundreds of them. That would be a bear. If anything, I'd be fine with limiting the number of squads one could take, but that's a little beyond my interest in the conversation. I'd like to know what happens to that guy who's bringing like 400 or something to a tournament.

You proved in this post you're ignoring part of the problem in the same way Eldar apologists did in the past with Wave Serpents and Scatterbikes.

"Maybe if you took not 50, but hundreds of them"

Remember how some of the apologists for Scatterbikes and Serpents said, "Well nobody is going to bring that many anyway, so it isn't an issue"? How about the Gladius apologists who were like, "Nobody is gonna bring that many Razorbacks, so you can relax", when a 5 year old could convert any Rhino into a Razorback? How about when they just brought the Rhinos anyway, because a firing port for a Grav Cannon can be pretty darn useful?

You're deciding it isn't a problem because, "Who would actually do it?" Lots of people will.

How are we 18 pages into this thread and people are still saying "oh, IF they bring 100 or IF they all have orders..."

Yeah, no, that's the whole point. That's the whole problem. That's why this is an 18 page long thread and why there are multiple long threads on the topic.

50 man units benefit disproportionately from buffs. Conscripts are a really effective meat shield at 3ppm, but they're totally fine on their own. At 4ppm (counting buff models as part of their cost), they gain 4+ BS, double the shots (or the ability to fall back and still shoot), and immunity to morale. That's why they're OP.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

sossen wrote:

I agree in both cases, the conscripts are not as good against vehicles or 2+ saves and can't be modified to make them better against those targets than certain builds of tac marines can be. The conscripts are doing a bit more than half of what the grav cannon tacticals are doing vs 3+ tanks and 2/3 of what they are doing vs terminators, at a shorter range as well given the difficulty of getting that many conscripts in 24'' range. Tac marines which are specialized to deal with good saves or tanks will outdo conscripts against such targets. So I will amend my earlier statement: Conscripts are better at everything tactical marines can do, except for holding objectives when there are more enemy models close by, or kill targets with high T/good saves when the tac marines are specialized to kill such targets.

In the case where you use tactical marines with heavy weapons you have also further reduced their relative survivability, their mobility goes down given the heavy weapons and their ability to kill low T/bad save targets like ork boyz or GEQ is still far worse than that of the conscripts. The conscripts are specialized to kill regular infantry, just like the tac squad in this case is specialized to kill tanks (to the point where it would be better as a dev squad). The conscripts will be better at killing such targets no matter what a tactical squad brings, and aren't meant to shoot at other targets in an AM list since they have other specialized units for that role.

Agreed, the conscripts are good at killing basic infantry. And that's where overall army composition and strategy comes in. Marines can take their TLAC Razors for extra anti-infantry firepower, to cover for the Tactical squads lack in that department. They could probably screen Tac squads from massed conscripts by positioning their squad behind and to the side of the Razorback, stuff like that, which sounds satisfyingly like some sort of tactic. The Guard make up for conscripts lack of AT by taking their own vehicles etc. and everybody throws down.

Don't get me wrong, I think conscripts are a powerful tool in the box, I just don't see them as game breaking even with orders and Commissars. Maybe if you took not 50, but hundreds of them. That would be a bear. If anything, I'd be fine with limiting the number of squads one could take, but that's a little beyond my interest in the conversation. I'd like to know what happens to that guy who's bringing like 400 or something to a tournament.

You proved in this post you're ignoring part of the problem in the same way Eldar apologists did in the past with Wave Serpents and Scatterbikes.

"Maybe if you took not 50, but hundreds of them"

Remember how some of the apologists for Scatterbikes and Serpents said, "Well nobody is going to bring that many anyway, so it isn't an issue"? How about the Gladius apologists who were like, "Nobody is gonna bring that many Razorbacks, so you can relax", when a 5 year old could convert any Rhino into a Razorback? How about when they just brought the Rhinos anyway, because a firing port for a Grav Cannon can be pretty darn useful?

You're deciding it isn't a problem because, "Who would actually do it?" Lots of people will.

Thats disingenuous, im not ignoring anything. Im saying many squads of them would be a pain, and im waiting to see how that turns out in tournament settings. Im not convinced that spending
1000 points on conscripts will actually work out that well.

"Sigh" I am going to use small words this time.

In 6th and 7th the big five could expect to remove a unit of Conscripts within a single turn or two using the same points level or less. Or any other weaker armies unit for that matter.
This was bad.
In 8th you can no longer remove the unit that quickly with that little commitment.
If you commit only the Conscripts points to removing them then both the Conscripts and your unit will do very little to each other until someone commits something more.
What you need to do is commit more points than the conscripts to remove them.
Or just ignore them and go around them.

 Deathypoo wrote:
How are we 18 pages into this thread and people are still saying "oh, IF they bring 100 or IF they all have orders..."

Yeah, no, that's the whole point. That's the whole problem. That's why this is an 18 page long thread and why there are multiple long threads on the topic.

50 man units benefit disproportionately from buffs. Conscripts are a really effective meat shield at 3ppm, but they're totally fine on their own. At 4ppm (counting buff models as part of their cost), they gain 4+ BS, double the shots (or the ability to fall back and still shoot), and immunity to morale. That's why they're OP.

And yet we still have the same people with the impossible list that can't fight snipers or whatever.

The whole problem is that people keep creating untenable scenarios where the Conscripts are always going to be at an advantage. It doesn't work that way.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And yet we still have the same people with the impossible list that can't fight snipers or whatever.

The whole problem is that people keep creating untenable scenarios where the Conscripts are always going to be at an advantage. It doesn't work that way.

What advantages?

The issue with conscripts is that they are hard to kill and with orders have great damage output. The combination is the issue.
Tbh though, this is true for IG generally.

People seem loathe to say it but I expect IG will be the new Eldar for the next six months. They have so many good units.
Which is great in a way, because Guard have been garbage for years. I feel a bit bad - because I would love to collect a new Guard army (its been a 15 or so year ambition) but the current range is crap. I guess I could go full DKoK but I am not really sold.

Currently though, RG is acting as the Riptide. He is so ludicrously broken that I expect marines will win most tournaments.

Running the numbers, 100 conscript shots averages slightly less than 1 wound on a Land Raider. If the meta suddenly shifted to hundreds of conscripts, i think my first move would be to try out some Land Raider walls to block LOS and engage them on favorable terms.

Tonnes the big issue with conscripts is the commissar can make them functionally immune to morale checks for the cost of removing a single model a turn.

If the commissar's ability triggered a re-roll instead of negating the consequences, this would be much more manageable because even with a re-roll, the conscripts unit is likely going to face heavy casualties in the morale phase.

Higher leadership/lower body units like regular Guard, Veterans and Tempestus would still benefit from the re-roll as they likely lost a lot less initially.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:
How are we 18 pages into this thread and people are still saying "oh, IF they bring 100 or IF they all have orders..."

Yeah, no, that's the whole point. That's the whole problem. That's why this is an 18 page long thread and why there are multiple long threads on the topic.

50 man units benefit disproportionately from buffs. Conscripts are a really effective meat shield at 3ppm, but they're totally fine on their own. At 4ppm (counting buff models as part of their cost), they gain 4+ BS, double the shots (or the ability to fall back and still shoot), and immunity to morale. That's why they're OP.

And yet we still have the same people with the impossible list that can't fight snipers or whatever.

The whole problem is that people keep creating untenable scenarios where the Conscripts are always going to be at an advantage. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, "Untenable scenarios" like the Guard player putting his officers behind a tank or two. What kind of guard players have tanks on the field right? Totally unrealistic.

I can't speak to every example here, but all the examples I've given are from real games and people still brush it off as "that would never happen" without explaining why not. Like... this did happen to me. No matter how hard you argue that it's unlikely, I have the actual experience (as well as the math, which I've posted all over the place, and even a freaking diagram of the board I posted somewhere) showing that it HAPPENED so obviously it's likely enough. I've seen a half dozen people complaining about conscripts and describing their battles and the IG players are always like "well no WONDER you lost playing on that kind of board," but I mean those are clearly the kinds of boards we're playing on, we didn't all agree in pm's to throw a fit about conscripts and lie about what boards we're playing on.

Strategies for ignoring the conscripts lose because of their ridiculous firepower, and strategies for killing them lose because of their ridiculous durability, and every time we go around this circle the IG defenders accuse us of "moving the goalposts." It drives me bonkers.

 master of ordinance wrote:
"Sigh" I am going to use small words this time.

In 6th and 7th the big five could expect to remove a unit of Conscripts within a single turn or two using the same points level or less. Or any other weaker armies unit for that matter.
This was bad.
In 8th you can no longer remove the unit that quickly with that little commitment.
If you commit only the Conscripts points to removing them then both the Conscripts and your unit will do very little to each other until someone commits something more.
What you need to do is commit more points than the conscripts to remove them.
Or just ignore them and go around them.

Spoiler:

In all honesty this thread has really reminded me why I started using two ships in BFG starter games that I ran.
When there was only one Cruiser under each players control the game just dragged on with the two ships cutting back and forth, dancing across the board and doing no real damage to each other for turn after turn. It usually took about eight turns worth of shooting before something noticeable happened, and by that point the beginner was well and truly bored (and I was yawning as well). Bringing two ships aside livened up the game, allowed the teaching of basic fleet manoeuvres and meant that the game went a lot quicker.

That's what IG players want. You are not posting in good faith at all. Please stop it. The position that conscripts put the opponent in is this: a) commit the points you are talking about and lose the match or b) try to play around the conscripts and lose the match.

 Deathypoo wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:
How are we 18 pages into this thread and people are still saying "oh, IF they bring 100 or IF they all have orders..."

Yeah, no, that's the whole point. That's the whole problem. That's why this is an 18 page long thread and why there are multiple long threads on the topic.

50 man units benefit disproportionately from buffs. Conscripts are a really effective meat shield at 3ppm, but they're totally fine on their own. At 4ppm (counting buff models as part of their cost), they gain 4+ BS, double the shots (or the ability to fall back and still shoot), and immunity to morale. That's why they're OP.

And yet we still have the same people with the impossible list that can't fight snipers or whatever.

The whole problem is that people keep creating untenable scenarios where the Conscripts are always going to be at an advantage. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, "Untenable scenarios" like the Guard player putting his officers behind a tank or two. What kind of guard players have tanks on the field right? Totally unrealistic.

I can't speak to every example here, but all the examples I've given are from real games and people still brush it off as "that would never happen" without explaining why not. Like... this did happen to me. No matter how hard you argue that it's unlikely, I have the actual experience (as well as the math, which I've posted all over the place, and even a freaking diagram of the board I posted somewhere) showing that it HAPPENED so obviously it's likely enough. I've seen a half dozen people complaining about conscripts and describing their battles and the IG players are always like "well no WONDER you lost playing on that kind of board," but I mean those are clearly the kinds of boards we're playing on, we didn't all agree in pm's to throw a fit about conscripts and lie about what boards we're playing on.

Strategies for ignoring the conscripts lose because of their ridiculous firepower, and strategies for killing them lose because of their ridiculous durability, and every time we go around this circle the IG defenders accuse us of "moving the goalposts." It drives me bonkers.

How do they gain 4+ BS?

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
"Sigh" I am going to use small words this time.

In 6th and 7th the big five could expect to remove a unit of Conscripts within a single turn or two using the same points level or less. Or any other weaker armies unit for that matter.
This was bad.
In 8th you can no longer remove the unit that quickly with that little commitment.
If you commit only the Conscripts points to removing them then both the Conscripts and your unit will do very little to each other until someone commits something more.
What you need to do is commit more points than the conscripts to remove them.
Or just ignore them and go around them.

Spoiler:

In all honesty this thread has really reminded me why I started using two ships in BFG starter games that I ran.
When there was only one Cruiser under each players control the game just dragged on with the two ships cutting back and forth, dancing across the board and doing no real damage to each other for turn after turn. It usually took about eight turns worth of shooting before something noticeable happened, and by that point the beginner was well and truly bored (and I was yawning as well). Bringing two ships aside livened up the game, allowed the teaching of basic fleet manoeuvres and meant that the game went a lot quicker.

That's what IG players want. You are not posting in good faith at all. Please stop it. The position that conscripts put the opponent in is this: a) commit the points you are talking about and lose the match or b) try to play around the conscripts and lose the match.

Or C) Commit the points levels, delete the Conscripts (or leave them so dead that even with the Commissar there and orders they are no longer a threat) or D) Just ignore the Conscripts, kill the tings that can actually hurt your units and then deal with the conscripts later, or E) use sniper/Barrage weapons to remove the buff units, or F) use terrain and Rhino's/tanks to block LoS and force an engagement on your terms.

Or of course there is always plan Y) nerf the Conscripts into the ground, along with Rhino's and a few other "op" units. But I guess the Marine players are screaming for plan Z) Nerf the pitiful upstarts back into the dirt where they belong HOW DARE THEY HURT MAH MAWEENZ!111!

 Deathypoo wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:
How are we 18 pages into this thread and people are still saying "oh, IF they bring 100 or IF they all have orders..."

Yeah, no, that's the whole point. That's the whole problem. That's why this is an 18 page long thread and why there are multiple long threads on the topic.

50 man units benefit disproportionately from buffs. Conscripts are a really effective meat shield at 3ppm, but they're totally fine on their own. At 4ppm (counting buff models as part of their cost), they gain 4+ BS, double the shots (or the ability to fall back and still shoot), and immunity to morale. That's why they're OP.

And yet we still have the same people with the impossible list that can't fight snipers or whatever.

The whole problem is that people keep creating untenable scenarios where the Conscripts are always going to be at an advantage. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, "Untenable scenarios" like the Guard player putting his officers behind a tank or two. What kind of guard players have tanks on the field right? Totally unrealistic.

A Leman Russ is 3 inches wide, not counting sponson width.
A Chimera is roughly the same width.
Both are also roughly 5 inches long; a bit longer if you have dozer blades on them.

If a Guard player has his officer behind a tank, then that's cut 3 inches off of their Order radius from the get-go.
And no, you can't tell me that Vox-Casters solve it--because Vox-Casters require the unit receiving the Order to have one, and Conscripts can't have one.

I can't speak to every example here, but all the examples I've given are from real games and people still brush it off as "that would never happen" without explaining why not. Like... this did happen to me. No matter how hard you argue that it's unlikely, I have the actual experience (as well as the math, which I've posted all over the place, and even a freaking diagram of the board I posted somewhere) showing that it HAPPENED so obviously it's likely enough. I've seen a half dozen people complaining about conscripts and describing their battles and the IG players are always like "well no WONDER you lost playing on that kind of board," but I mean those are clearly the kinds of boards we're playing on, we didn't all agree in pm's to throw a fit about conscripts and lie about what boards we're playing on.

Or you're not learning the point that is being made. It's like the complaints about Tau in 6th/7th where there was virtually no terrain on the board or the terrain was concentrated in one small area, allowing for a gunline to effectively concentrate on a killzone.

Strategies for ignoring the conscripts lose because of their ridiculous firepower, and strategies for killing them lose because of their ridiculous durability, and every time we go around this circle the IG defenders accuse us of "moving the goalposts." It drives me bonkers.

Putting it bluntly, you've repeatedly moved the goalposts or given scenarios that you should know are going to get laughed at from anyone with a lick of common sense when it comes to this discussion.

Insectum7 wrote:
How do they gain 4+ BS?

Searchlights.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:
How are we 18 pages into this thread and people are still saying "oh, IF they bring 100 or IF they all have orders..."

Yeah, no, that's the whole point. That's the whole problem. That's why this is an 18 page long thread and why there are multiple long threads on the topic.

50 man units benefit disproportionately from buffs. Conscripts are a really effective meat shield at 3ppm, but they're totally fine on their own. At 4ppm (counting buff models as part of their cost), they gain 4+ BS, double the shots (or the ability to fall back and still shoot), and immunity to morale. That's why they're OP.

And yet we still have the same people with the impossible list that can't fight snipers or whatever.

The whole problem is that people keep creating untenable scenarios where the Conscripts are always going to be at an advantage. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, "Untenable scenarios" like the Guard player putting his officers behind a tank or two. What kind of guard players have tanks on the field right? Totally unrealistic.

A Leman Russ is 3 inches wide, not counting sponson width.
A Chimera is roughly the same width.
Both are also roughly 5 inches long; a bit longer if you have dozer blades on them.

If a Guard player has his officer behind a tank, then that's cut 3 inches off of their Order radius from the get-go.
And no, you can't tell me that Vox-Casters solve it--because Vox-Casters require the unit receiving the Order to have one, and Conscripts can't have one.

I can't speak to every example here, but all the examples I've given are from real games and people still brush it off as "that would never happen" without explaining why not. Like... this did happen to me. No matter how hard you argue that it's unlikely, I have the actual experience (as well as the math, which I've posted all over the place, and even a freaking diagram of the board I posted somewhere) showing that it HAPPENED so obviously it's likely enough. I've seen a half dozen people complaining about conscripts and describing their battles and the IG players are always like "well no WONDER you lost playing on that kind of board," but I mean those are clearly the kinds of boards we're playing on, we didn't all agree in pm's to throw a fit about conscripts and lie about what boards we're playing on.

Or you're not learning the point that is being made. It's like the complaints about Tau in 6th/7th where there was virtually no terrain on the board or the terrain was concentrated in one small area, allowing for a gunline to effectively concentrate on a killzone.

Strategies for ignoring the conscripts lose because of their ridiculous firepower, and strategies for killing them lose because of their ridiculous durability, and every time we go around this circle the IG defenders accuse us of "moving the goalposts." It drives me bonkers.

Putting it bluntly, you've repeatedly moved the goalposts or given scenarios that you should know are going to get laughed at from anyone with a lick of common sense when it comes to this discussion.

1) In a 50 man unit, taking a couple of models for use as "tails" to the officer is not a big deal. No, losing 2 conscripts (only when actually necessary, which it often isn't) doesn't have an appreciable impact on the unit's ability to deal or soak damage. This isn't a mystical magical technique for use in theory only, it's what I play against in real life all the time. No one said anything about Vox-casters.

2) What's funny is that while *my* experiences and problems are on more open table, there are other people complaining about all of guard's indirect fire options and how they can't see them due to too many los-blocking features, and those people are getting told how *their* tables are bad. Seems like IG adapts pretty well to either local meta. Also, "change your local club's terrain policies" is just a bad answer to begin with.

Side Note: The only time I've ever played on a table that looked anything like what's in the GW books is when I was lucky enough to play in the basement of a millionaire - and he had more square footage devoted to 40k than I have square footage in my entire apartment. I have a big apartment.

3) Respectfully disagree with your definitions of moving goalposts or common sense scenarios. From my perspective, you are making baseless claims about my scenarios (which again, are often real-life experiences backed with math to show they're not anomalies) being laughable. I honestly don't know how to make them more realistic. You won't even give concrete examples about what you mean. Tell me what perfect terrain looks like, and how it helps me.

Curious what people would think of giving Conscripts a new/separate 'variant' of Lasgun - could be 'Crude Lasgun' or 'Mass Produced Lasgun'.

24" S3 AP0 DM1 Heavy 2

Inspired in part as I was watching Enemy At The Gates - giving them a weapon with the 'Heavy' attribute forgoes the need to reduce their BS. Instead, equipped with 'Heavy'-attributed weapons they can shoot decently (BS5+) if they stand still; however, if they try moving and firing they're reduced to BS6+. Of course, you can use 'Take Aim!' to try and help mitigate that - but BS6+ with re-rolls on 1's on a Heavy 2 weapon isn't going to be huge. At least, not FRFSRF huge with Rapid Firing lasguns.

Heavy 2 does give them a 24" bubble where they pepper things with a pretty good weight of Lasgun-strength fire; however, by being Heavy it means any movement at all would drastically reduce their firepower - and Orders won't be able to mitigate that problem well... and using 'Take Aim!' means they aren't getting any other Orders.

Furthermore, taking away the actual Rapid Fire lasguns helps reduce the effectiveness of Orders somewhat without having to give them abilities to reduce/remove Orders directly (by making them only work on a 3+ or 4+ as has been mentioned, or outright negating the ability) - particularly in nullifying their ability to utilize FRFSRF - but allows the IG player to still use other Orders on his Conscripts if deemed necessary.

Just food for thought. I know in a big thread like this my posts always get lost anyway (they have in the past conscript discussions, certainly!) but like I said - came into mind watching the conscript wave attack in Enemy at the Gates.

1) If the 50 man unit is devoting models to a "tail" then the chances are that those models are not firing at you, or will not be able to fire effectively as they will be outside of the volley square.
2) Okay, so you admit it. You are fighting massed volley's on an open battlefield. Here is a hint: use terrain. indirect barrages fire? Deepstrike or outflank. Conscripts bubblewrapping those barrage vehicles? Nothing to stop you from charging across the board then. Conscript block appears? Shoot/charge it and laugh as it crumbles to naught. Conscripts have a Commissar buffing them? Shoot him. He is hiding behind the Conscripts? Use a sniper weapon or bring your own barrages. Conscripts firing massed volleys with FRFSRF? Laugh, they are firing at BS5+. They might kill two MEQ's at best. FRFSRF volleys still rustling your jimmies? Target the officer. Officer hidden behind conscripts? Sniper or Barrage. Officer hiding behind tanks? Deepstrike or Outflank.... Want me to go on?
3) Actually it is the anti-Conscripts faction that has constantly been moving the goalposts to the point that we now have the Schrodinger's Conscripts. According to you lot Conscripts are:
-Always taken in at least two 50 man blobs, and usually 3
-Always within range of a Commissar so they dont run away
-Always receiving orders no matter what and always within range to receive them
-Always within 12" of your infantry and formed up for a perfect volley (I would love to see this BTW - as well as the look on my opponents face when 50 infantry form up into a square at point blank range)
-Always bubblewrapping the Commissar
-Always bubblewrapping the Company Commander
-Who is always hidden behind cover and/or tanks
-Always bubblewrapping the artillery and tanks
-Always spread out so that moving past them is impossible
-Always camping the objectives, so taking them is impossible
-Always lined up along the rear edge, so outflanking is impossible
-Always dispersed amongst the vulnerable body of the army, so Deepstriking is impossible
-Always have room to fall back from out of combat
-Always FRFSRF no matter what
-Always formed at full 50 man strength when they fire, no matter how many casualties they have suffered
-Never take casualties despite being T laughable and wearing cardboard for armour
-Will destroy anything that faces them, even though statistically they struggle to put A wound on a Rhino, even with FRFSRF

You know, this does sound a lot like a red herring, and this case like that of rustled jimmies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, do searchlights buff our BS now? I must have missed that, but all my tanks will see a whole new lease of life now.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Also, do searchlights buff our BS now? I must have missed that, but all my tanks will see a whole new lease of life now.

Unfortunately for your tanks, I believe the searchlights only work on infantry units. But yes, they raise BS.

Also, conscripts can spread out and bubble wrap against CC armies and they can move in tight blocks to exchange shots vs. shooty armies and we can complain about their superb effectiveness at both things. Just because we're complaining about both things doesn't mean that we think they can do all the things all the time.

GhostRecon wrote:
Curious what people would think of giving Conscripts a new/separate 'variant' of Lasgun - could be 'Crude Lasgun' or 'Mass Produced Lasgun'.

24" S3 AP0 DM1 Heavy 2

Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deathypoo wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Also, do searchlights buff our BS now? I must have missed that, but all my tanks will see a whole new lease of life now.

Unfortunately for your tanks, I believe the searchlights only work on infantry units. But yes, they raise BS.

So again, your ideal situation requires more support units and ignores any potential support units on the part of whatever is firing at the Conscripts.

Also, conscripts can spread out and bubble wrap against CC armies and they can move in tight blocks to exchange shots vs. shooty armies and we can complain about their superb effectiveness at both things. Just because we're complaining about both things doesn't mean that we think they can do all the things all the time.

Considering the sheer amount of misinformation given in this and other threads regarding the Orders system, MoO has a point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deathypoo wrote:

1) In a 50 man unit, taking a couple of models for use as "tails" to the officer is not a big deal. No, losing 2 conscripts (only when actually necessary, which it often isn't) doesn't have an appreciable impact on the unit's ability to deal or soak damage. This isn't a mystical magical technique for use in theory only, it's what I play against in real life all the time. No one said anything about Vox-casters.

You're talking about someone hiding Officers behind a tank.

I'm telling you that there is a range issue doing so. The only way to alleviate it is weird wraparounds with the "tail" you keep talking about or Vox-Casters.

2) What's funny is that while *my* experiences and problems are on more open table, there are other people complaining about all of guard's indirect fire options and how they can't see them due to too many los-blocking features, and those people are getting told how *their* tables are bad. Seems like IG adapts pretty well to either local meta. Also, "change your local club's terrain policies" is just a bad answer to begin with.

If your local club's terrain policies are that bad to begin with, find another club.

Side Note: The only time I've ever played on a table that looked anything like what's in the GW books is when I was lucky enough to play in the basement of a millionaire - and he had more square footage devoted to 40k than I have square footage in my entire apartment. I have a big apartment.

You don't need a board that looks like something out of GW's books using their kits.

But whatever. Maybe I'm weird in that I enjoy building scenery, and thus have a good amount...

3) Respectfully disagree with your definitions of moving goalposts or common sense scenarios. From my perspective, you are making baseless claims about my scenarios (which again, are often real-life experiences backed with math to show they're not anomalies) being laughable. I honestly don't know how to make them more realistic. You won't even give concrete examples about what you mean. Tell me what perfect terrain looks like, and how it helps me.

"Perfect terrain" is going to be dependent upon you and your opponent.

But sure. Keep pretending that my claims are baseless or that you have the monopoly on all the information.