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.
2017/08/01 00:44:29
Subject: How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
Melissia wrote: He's reading your arguments, they're just crappy and unconvincing.
Just like yours are, just on the other side of the issue.
EDIT: Anyway I brought some of my friends conscripts today to a match just for gaks and giggles, 2 x 30 man units, 2 Lord Commissars. Cheap easy to slot in. They held the CSM forces off admirably in the Fate of Konor campaign battle, they bought me enough time to destroy his forces in localized areas before moving to the next. Just Grey Knights on my own wouldn't have been able to do that. But for 250ish points I got 64 wounds; it's great.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 00:50:38
The difference is with a commissar five 10 man units are significantly worse than a single 50 man unit as I can force 5 casualties in a turn instead of one. It is also less overwatch, likely little to no retaliatory attacks in close combat
I would disagree on the overwatch part.
Units that have some way of negating overwatch are becoming a very real thing. Reivers can throw a grenade before charging and shut down overwatch from a unit of Conscripts, for example.
Which means at worst their equal, usually conscipts are still better.
I likely won't get 5, but I will likely get more than 1 and with a commissar their LD is the same. As for the mixed blessing it depends on how many units Incan charge with, can I hit or pile into more than 1 squad, can I shoot the rear squad and charge the front? For regular conscripts you will remove the front if I shoot resulting in a longer charge. All those squads also
Count as kill points now which could
Be a huge difference.
Kill points is a valid argument. This also makes guard go last even against other hordes.
Overwatch may or may not even be a thing. The reasonable marine player would charge a rhino into the conscript squad first. With a commissar, you'd have to kill at least 5 of them to have a 50% chance at losing another. You'd have to kill 3 of them in each squad minimum even force them to have the chance to fail the leadership. That's 30 guardsmen. It's definitely doable, but if it's doable, so is killing conscripts!
Ultimately, at the end of the day, we're talking about 0-4 extra wounds (per 50) assuming a commissar, and you're saying that's those extra 4 potential wounds would make the difference between conscripts and infantry. This is the point where I say again that if you need the extra four wounds to make a difference, you're probably going to wind up having problems with massed infantry regardless.
4 casualties a turn can add up. Especially when you are starting with fewer models. It isn't huge, but anything speeds up the process it doesn't hurt.
Look at it this way if you had to take infantry squads and not conscripts it would be akin to these nerfs/buffs to conscripts
1.) Before the start of turn 1 kill 25% of all conscripts
2.) Issuing orders to this unit requires 1 order per 10 models
3.) Commissars reduce casualties to 1 per 10 models
4.) give conscripts +1 BS/WS
I'm pretty sure that would get shouted down as too severe if I suggested it.
Another important note is that smaller squads means always removing casualties near the attacking unit, which makes bubble wrap less effective.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/01 02:00:56
2017/08/01 01:49:53
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
Once again you show that you aren't bothering to read the context for the posts you reply to or supply any mathhammer to support your conclusions.
What context? Thusfar it has all come down to "We used to rofl stomp Guard units off the map but now they are presenting a slight challange - OH NO'S!"
There's no point in arguing when you throw out baseless claims like these. Rhinos require at least 3x their own cost in AT?
Someone else did the math, but it takes something in the range of nine lascannon teams IIR. Look back a few pages.
Wrong, plasma scion command squad does it at 1.5x.
Someone else did the math and it comes in at two points shy of 3 times. I humbly apologise.
You want IG to be the new top dog, that is your opinion and it's fine, just use honest arguments instead.
Not going to lie, I would love an edition where we just wiped the table with everything, but this is not it. This is the edition of players overreacting to tanky wound sponges being tanky wound sponges for the first time in I dont know. If it was my choice then Guard tanks would be amazing, Chimeras would be a lot cheaper and have their abilities back and Veterans would be troops, have doctrines and be a lot cheaper.
Ironically it was the self same players whom are now complaining about Guard infantry hordes whom insisted that the only real theme the Guard could have was to be a mass of cheap, faceless infantry. No, the wishes and dreams of the actual Guard players where denounced as "wrong" and we where repeatedly told that our army was not allowed to have anything like variation outside of the horde. And now we have this, the Marine players have won, the Guard players are staring in disgust and trying to make the best of a monodex build and at the same time having the self same "you dont know anything, your army is only allowed to be a faceless horde" faction whining incessantly about how the Guard infantry horde is overpowered.
Thou hath sown and now thou must reap.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
2017/08/01 02:03:51
Subject: How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
4 casualties a turn can add up. Especially when you are starting with fewer models. It isn't huge, but anything speeds up the process it doesn't hurt.
It's been determined that requiring multiple turns to go through a conscript squad is too slow. As such, it sounds like this will still be equally effective.
And those 4 casualties are also, again, assuming that you've dealt 15-20 wounds across all the guardsmen, and the guard player rolls all 5s and 6s on the leadership. Literally the worst possible case for the guard player at that point. Average case sees maybe 1 casualty from that situation, more if you do more damage, but doing damage is something that apparently can't be reasonably done to conscripts, so I don't think it can be reasonably done here either.
Look at it this way if you had to take infantry squads and not conscripts it would be akin to these nerfs/buffs to conscripts
1.) Before the start of turn 1 kill 25% of all conscripts
2.) Issuing orders to this unit requires 1 order per 10 models
3.) Commissars reduce casualties to 1 per 10 models
4.) give conscripts +1 BS/WS
I'm pretty sure that would get shouted down as too severe if I suggested it.
Another important note is that smaller squads means always removing casualties near the attacking unit, which makes bubble wrap less effective.
5.) Let them take special/heavy weapons.
That may or may not be useful if you're doing layers of thin bubble wrap. Lets you fill up a couple battalions (or whatever the +9 CP one is) damn quick too. And it's closer to 33% of all conscripts, in number 1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying getting rid of conscripts is the ideal, desired, or reasonable thing. I'm just saying that I would expect that the lists that had problems with one would have problems with a similar amount of the other, even with the point difference in mind.
master of ordinance wrote: What context? Thusfar it has all come down to "We used to rofl stomp Guard units off the map but now they are presenting a slight challange - OH NO'S!"
master of ordinance wrote: What context? Thusfar it has all come down to "We used to rofl stomp Guard units off the map but now they are presenting a slight challange - OH NO'S!"
Which is funny because Tau did NOT have the tournament showings to justify that. Chaos Daemons and Renegades and Heretics were the two most dominant factions in the last phase of 7th with Eldar being about equal to Chaos Daemons in the 2nd/3rd slot.
2017/08/01 03:51:26
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
Let's chillax a little. Please. I doubt there's ever going to be a reconciliation of ideals here, but getting snippy at each other isn't going to head in any direction but a lock, followed by someone remaking this same thread within the next 48 hours, and, ya know, I mean, I've seen it happen again and again. With eldar, with IG in 5th, with grey knights. It's the same tired pattern over and over again, and I don't really know what anyone gets out of it, now that I stop and think. But like a train wreck in slow motion, I just can't turn away. Maybe that's just who I am.
I need to find time for that game. I'll show, step by step, that this can be solved with the worst unit in the SM codex (according to some) and, well, it probably won't solve anything at all. Even when I show that it's within average results. But I'm gonna try. And maybe I'll be wrong. But then I'll have a chance to reconcile my view, and that's worth a lot as far as the game goes.
..and "screw" is REALLY not that bad. I said "damn" earlier (and now) and no one's jumping my gak about it. And I'm sure I've had worse than that squeak by the censors here. But I'm the guy in favor of dissolving the filters, so YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I think I've defending the residing champion every time. Even Eldar, which I don't own a single model of.
...except heldrakes. Those things should go away forever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 06:24:11
ross-128 wrote: While one squad of regular plasma scions does get rid of the Tempestor Primes, it still only has 4 plasma guns, so it's not likely to kill the Rhino in one turn. It theoretically can, if everything hits, everything wounds, and nothing saves, but... not likely. The hot-shot lasguns will contribute a wound or two probably, but they're no plasma guns.
So you're going to need two squads, which will run you 248 points (12 of which are hot-shot lasguns, they cost 1 point). Without said primes to make them reroll 1s you'll probably lose one or two scions to Gets Hot in the process.
A 10-man and a 5-man with 6 plasma guns might have a chance of pulling it off for 186 points (somewhere between 2.6x and 2.7x) depending on just how much work the hot-shot lasguns put in, but you'll be cutting it close and losing one guy to Gets Hot.
You would be using one scion command squad, one tempestor prime and one scion squad. 163 pts by my count.
Once again you show that you aren't bothering to read the context for the posts you reply to or supply any mathhammer to support your conclusions.
What context? Thusfar it has all come down to "We used to rofl stomp Guard units off the map but now they are presenting a slight challange - OH NO'S!"
There's no point in arguing when you throw out baseless claims like these. Rhinos require at least 3x their own cost in AT?
Someone else did the math, but it takes something in the range of nine lascannon teams IIR. Look back a few pages.
Wrong, plasma scion command squad does it at 1.5x.
Someone else did the math and it comes in at two points shy of 3 times. I humbly apologise.
You want IG to be the new top dog, that is your opinion and it's fine, just use honest arguments instead.
Not going to lie, I would love an edition where we just wiped the table with everything, but this is not it. This is the edition of players overreacting to tanky wound sponges being tanky wound sponges for the first time in I dont know. If it was my choice then Guard tanks would be amazing, Chimeras would be a lot cheaper and have their abilities back and Veterans would be troops, have doctrines and be a lot cheaper.
Ironically it was the self same players whom are now complaining about Guard infantry hordes whom insisted that the only real theme the Guard could have was to be a mass of cheap, faceless infantry. No, the wishes and dreams of the actual Guard players where denounced as "wrong" and we where repeatedly told that our army was not allowed to have anything like variation outside of the horde. And now we have this, the Marine players have won, the Guard players are staring in disgust and trying to make the best of a monodex build and at the same time having the self same "you dont know anything, your army is only allowed to be a faceless horde" faction whining incessantly about how the Guard infantry horde is overpowered.
Thou hath sown and now thou must reap.
You are ignoring the context once again. It should be clear to anyone reading this thread properly that you are trying your best to ignore the basis for any post that contradicts your view.
2017/08/01 09:28:05
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
master of ordinance wrote: In all honesty I just want to fell like the glory factions did over the past few years.
And that's why you shouldn't be allowed to be in these threads.
"You're saying things I disagree with, you shouldn't be allowed to do that"
Already a classic position in 2017
He literally just said, feth balance I want to be OP. You can't spin that, just like Melissa said the same thing in a different thread.
They're becoming toxic because they want to win so badly they are willing to say, SCREW BALANCE.
As though all members of the "nerf-conscripts" camp are nothing but paragons of civility. . .
I see you're typing in a controlled tone here, btw
Anyhoo. Looking at the tournament lists as posted, the thing I'd be inclined to look at is the Scions, not the Conscripts.
I wasn't aware I was in the civil conscripts thread, where we were always civil. And if you want to chide me on tone, you better get glasses that aren't one way after how you've been acting to sossen.
4 casualties a turn can add up. Especially when you are starting with fewer models. It isn't huge, but anything speeds up the process it doesn't hurt.
It's been determined that requiring multiple turns to go through a conscript squad is too slow. As such, it sounds like this will still be equally effective.
And those 4 casualties are also, again, assuming that you've dealt 15-20 wounds across all the guardsmen, and the guard player rolls all 5s and 6s on the leadership. Literally the worst possible case for the guard player at that point. Average case sees maybe 1 casualty from that situation, more if you do more damage, but doing damage is something that apparently can't be reasonably done to conscripts, so I don't think it can be reasonably done here either.
Look at it this way if you had to take infantry squads and not conscripts it would be akin to these nerfs/buffs to conscripts
1.) Before the start of turn 1 kill 25% of all conscripts
2.) Issuing orders to this unit requires 1 order per 10 models
3.) Commissars reduce casualties to 1 per 10 models
4.) give conscripts +1 BS/WS
I'm pretty sure that would get shouted down as too severe if I suggested it.
Another important note is that smaller squads means always removing casualties near the attacking unit, which makes bubble wrap less effective.
5.) Let them take special/heavy weapons.
That may or may not be useful if you're doing layers of thin bubble wrap. Lets you fill up a couple battalions (or whatever the +9 CP one is) damn quick too. And it's closer to 33% of all conscripts, in number 1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying getting rid of conscripts is the ideal, desired, or reasonable thing. I'm just saying that I would expect that the lists that had problems with one would have problems with a similar amount of the other, even with the point difference in mind.
I did not include th addition of special and heavy weapons because then you end up with even less bodies. You will also really only get to 1 brigade because of all the other requirements you might get 1 and a battalion, but the 3 each or elite, fast, and heavy will eat your points quick.
As such I would disagree with your assertion that people would have the same issue with more expensive bubble wrap models because it would be fewer models or way more points. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be better.
2017/08/01 12:31:00
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
Xenomancers wrote: This isn't a hard problem to solve - increase their points cost and remove their ability to take orders.
How about no? They are already only a point cheaper than regular Guardsmen and quite frankly increasing the points cost would nerf them too hard. Likewise, do not remove their ability to take orders.
How about this: Instead of whining, adapt. Stop expecting to remove a blob unit taken solely for its tankiness in a single turn or less without a significant commitment - and no, that does not mean "its own points cost or less", it means 2 to 3 times its points cost. Start thinking. You know, that thing that Guard players had to do back when we where being stomped all the time? Try it.
Or if we nerf Conscripts then how about nerfing the Rhino as well? After all the Rhino is even more survivable than the Conscripts and requires at least three times its points cost in dedicated AT gear to bring down and can transport units safely within its self and can completely negate overwatch by charging first. It is much better than the Conscripts.
a conscript should not cost less than a termagant - it's better than a termagant.
Then maybe the problem lies not with the Conscripts but with the Termagaunts?
There should also be no situation in the entire game where a melle unit like hormagaunts loses to equal points of shooty hordes
This is just plain stupid. Melee should be inherently a lot more situational than shooting, and require skill to get close, but once it gets there should be good.
What If I told you...The guardsmen is also undercosted? Except it's not as easy to exploit because of it's max squad size. Plus why exploit it because you can just exploit conscripts? It is clear to me - and probably everyone at this point that in order to fix conscripts you will also have to increase the cost of a guardsmen.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/08/01 14:52:12
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
master of ordinance wrote: In all honesty I just want to fell like the glory factions did over the past few years.
And that's why you shouldn't be allowed to be in these threads.
"You're saying things I disagree with, you shouldn't be allowed to do that"
Already a classic position in 2017
He literally just said, feth balance I want to be OP. You can't spin that, just like Melissa said the same thing in a different thread.
They're becoming toxic because they want to win so badly they are willing to say, SCREW BALANCE.
As though all members of the "nerf-conscripts" camp are nothing but paragons of civility. . .
I see you're typing in a controlled tone here, btw
Anyhoo. Looking at the tournament lists as posted, the thing I'd be inclined to look at is the Scions, not the Conscripts.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side. Just like how the "nerf-Scatterbike" side had unreasonable people from time to time (like Martel suggesting to bump up the lasers to 20 frickin points), except we are also dealing with people now who are power hungry and therefore don't even care.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 14:52:40
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2017/08/01 15:03:12
Subject: How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
That was the proper cost of a scatbike; 37 pts. 17 + 20 =37, 32 was still too cheap. It was NOT unreasonable in the context of C:CWE. People would still have used them at 37, but some would have given up. That's where a unit is balanced. They were still autotake at 32. Given what they look like in 8th, I think GW agreed with me in the end.
But yes, the IG crowd is now basically power-mad, just like Eldar/Tau. Yes, I know Daemons, but they were so fundamentally broken they weren't even worth discussing in 7th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 15:03:49
2017/08/01 15:14:13
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
What If I told you...The guardsmen is also undercosted? Except it's not as easy to exploit because of it's max squad size. Plus why exploit it because you can just exploit conscripts? It is clear to me - and probably everyone at this point that in order to fix conscripts you will also have to increase the cost of a guardsmen.
Termagaunts are BS4+ and WS4+, which is likely why they share their point cost with Guardsmen.
The only real issue with them seems to be that there's not really enough room at the low end of the point scale to represent the difference between a spike rifle and a lasgun. There is a difference, obviously, but when a lasgun is already 0 points, well... you've gone and run out of room.
The thing is, with that particular combination of stats and weapons, those three units (conscripts, guardsmen, and gaunts) cannot ever be perfectly balanced against each other in the current points system. They're too similar to each other, and their point cost is so low that one point in either direction creates too large a swing.
What is it about termagaunts that makes them the gold standard of balance for you, anyway? Why should the whole of 40k revolve around that one particular unit?
And for that matter, why should Imperial Guard shooting be made as bad as Tyranid shooting? Tyranids hardly bother to shoot at all!
Now, if the only real problem you have is "it's possible for my Space Marines to lose to Guard, and I don't like that", then raising conscripts to be "more than a termagaunt" and adjusting every other infantry unit in the codex accordingly would fix that "problem".
After all, "more than a termagaunt" would put Conscripts at 5ppm, Guardsmen at a minimum of 6ppm, and Veterans at 7ppm. Certainly wouldn't have to worry about ever losing to Guardsmen then. You might not even see a single guardsman on the table after that, people would just stop using them entirely.
But nuking half the codex from orbit is far from an elegant solution.
2017/08/01 15:16:57
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side. Just like how the "nerf-Scatterbike" side had unreasonable people from time to time (like Martel suggesting to bump up the lasers to 20 frickin points), except we are also dealing with people now who are power hungry and therefore don't even care.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has just as many unreasonable people as the other side does, quite frankly.
Nonsense like "it should cost multiple Orders" or the awful comparisons made by some posters of Orders to Auras should tell you everything you need to know.
2017/08/01 15:18:23
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
I did not include th addition of special and heavy weapons because then you end up with even less bodies. You will also really only get to 1 brigade because of all the other requirements you might get 1 and a battalion, but the 3 each or elite, fast, and heavy will eat your points quick.
As such I would disagree with your assertion that people would have the same issue with more expensive bubble wrap models because it would be fewer models or way more points. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be better.
Like I said, the weapons may or may not be useful.
I guess that's a fair point about the 3 other slots. The brigades still hand out a ton of CP, which might get useful when the codex happens (assuming that everything isn't totally revamped).
Okay, okay. Looking at that winning list, you change the two basilisks into more earthshakers, and suddenly you've freed up 56 points. You lose a couple heavy bolters, but functionally, not really too much changes in that list as far as the firepower. That buys you another 10 more infantry (with change). You're at 100 infantry now.
I think he had an Primaris psyker in there right? Downgrade the primaris to an astropath, and I think you're one point shy of having another squad. That puts you 10 infantry under where you were before, you can still keep the commissars bubbling the important squads, and little actually changes, because your limiting factor is attacks, apparently.
Actual changes? You lost some maneuverability with some guns you weren't going to move anyway, smite got a little harder, you have 10 less infantry in your apparently unassailable wall, you have to try just a teensy bit harder with the commissars, and you can't order every single guardsman.
Oh, and the actual difference in orders, when you take BS into account?
(assuming 12-24" range for all guardsmen and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 140 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 4+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
(assuming 12-24" range for all conscripts and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 240 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 5+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
So the infantry have a 63% to do 20-27 wounds, and the conscripts have a 63% to do 22-30. It's about a 10% reduction in firepower.
Again, this isn't to show you they're identical. I'm not going to convince anyone of that, because it's not true. All I'm trying to show is that even if conscripts didn't exist, it doesn't significantly cripple that list.
Horde is strong this edition. Either the meta shifts to deal with that (applying the IG theory to SM, lots of cheap disposable 11 point scouts) or you're just going to have to nerf guard back into third tier again so that literally ANY combination of SM units becomes competitive. Even if you do the latter, you're never going to get rid of facesmash lists though. They'll just shift into whatever form becomes most effective.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side. Just like how the "nerf-Scatterbike" side had unreasonable people from time to time (like Martel suggesting to bump up the lasers to 20 frickin points), except we are also dealing with people now who are power hungry and therefore don't even care.
You realize that there have been several solutions posted to this same thread with solutions for how SM deal with this? You realize that they came with math? You realize the only refutation they received was the equivalent of "No, it won't work."?
Sometimes people might get "unreasonable" when they're faced with people who's primary argument comes from overzealous belief.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 15:24:42
What If I told you...The guardsmen is also undercosted? Except it's not as easy to exploit because of it's max squad size. Plus why exploit it because you can just exploit conscripts? It is clear to me - and probably everyone at this point that in order to fix conscripts you will also have to increase the cost of a guardsmen.
Termagaunts are BS4+ and WS4+, which is likely why they share their point cost with Guardsmen.
The only real issue with them seems to be that there's not really enough room at the low end of the point scale to represent the difference between a spike rifle and a lasgun. There is a difference, obviously, but when a lasgun is already 0 points, well... you've gone and run out of room.
The thing is, with that particular combination of stats and weapons, those three units (conscripts, guardsmen, and gaunts) cannot ever be perfectly balanced against each other in the current points system. They're too similar to each other, and their point cost is so low that one point in either direction creates too large a swing.
What is it about termagaunts that makes them the gold standard of balance for you, anyway? Why should the whole of 40k revolve around that one particular unit?
And for that matter, why should Imperial Guard shooting be made as bad as Tyranid shooting? Tyranids hardly bother to shoot at all!
Now, if the only real problem you have is "it's possible for my Space Marines to lose to Guard, and I don't like that", then raising conscripts to be "more than a termagaunt" and adjusting every other infantry unit in the codex accordingly would fix that "problem".
After all, "more than a termagaunt" would put Conscripts at 5ppm, Guardsmen at a minimum of 6ppm, and Veterans at 7ppm. Certainly wouldn't have to worry about ever losing to Guardsmen then. You might not even see a single guardsman on the table after that, people would just stop using them entirely.
But nuking half the codex from orbit is far from an elegant solution.
I never said they should cost more. I just said that scripts are better than a termagaunt and cost 3 instead of 4. At the same point cost the unit seems more even. Though it's arguably better for a horde unit to have a 5+ save over a 6+ save because their job is to absorb fire/take - they aren't supposed to deal a lot of damage. The termagant has more movement and can take different weapon options which adds to it's value.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/08/01 16:01:36
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
I did not include th addition of special and heavy weapons because then you end up with even less bodies. You will also really only get to 1 brigade because of all the other requirements you might get 1 and a battalion, but the 3 each or elite, fast, and heavy will eat your points quick.
As such I would disagree with your assertion that people would have the same issue with more expensive bubble wrap models because it would be fewer models or way more points. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be better.
Like I said, the weapons may or may not be useful.
I guess that's a fair point about the 3 other slots. The brigades still hand out a ton of CP, which might get useful when the codex happens (assuming that everything isn't totally revamped).
Okay, okay. Looking at that winning list, you change the two basilisks into more earthshakers, and suddenly you've freed up 56 points. You lose a couple heavy bolters, but functionally, not really too much changes in that list as far as the firepower. That buys you another 10 more infantry (with change). You're at 100 infantry now.
I think he had an Primaris psyker in there right? Downgrade the primaris to an astropath, and I think you're one point shy of having another squad. That puts you 10 infantry under where you were before, you can still keep the commissars bubbling the important squads, and little actually changes, because your limiting factor is attacks, apparently.
Actual changes? You lost some maneuverability with some guns you weren't going to move anyway, smite got a little harder, you have 10 less infantry in your apparently unassailable wall, you have to try just a teensy bit harder with the commissars, and you can't order every single guardsman.
Oh, and the actual difference in orders, when you take BS into account?
(assuming 12-24" range for all guardsmen and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 140 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 4+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
(assuming 12-24" range for all conscripts and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 240 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 5+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
So the infantry have a 63% to do 20-27 wounds, and the conscripts have a 63% to do 22-30. It's about a 10% reduction in firepower.
Again, this isn't to show you they're identical. I'm not going to convince anyone of that, because it's not true. All I'm trying to show is that even if conscripts didn't exist, it doesn't significantly cripple that list.
Horde is strong this edition. Either the meta shifts to deal with that (applying the IG theory to SM, lots of cheap disposable 11 point scouts) or you're just going to have to nerf guard back into third tier again so that literally ANY combination of SM units becomes competitive. Even if you do the latter, you're never going to get rid of facesmash lists though. They'll just shift into whatever form becomes most effective.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side. Just like how the "nerf-Scatterbike" side had unreasonable people from time to time (like Martel suggesting to bump up the lasers to 20 frickin points), except we are also dealing with people now who are power hungry and therefore don't even care.
You realize that there have been several solutions posted to this same thread with solutions for how SM deal with this? You realize that they came with math? You realize the only refutation they received was the equivalent of "No, it won't work."?
Sometimes people might get "unreasonable" when they're faced with people who's primary argument comes from overzealous belief.
1. Those solutions were basically list tailoring. No that isn't a solution.
2. I'm speaking as a Necrons, Skitarii, and CSM as well. Good to assume I speak for Space Marines though, huh?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2017/08/01 16:09:09
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
1. Those solutions were basically list tailoring. No that isn't a solution.
2. I'm speaking as a Necrons, Skitarii, and CSM as well. Good to assume I speak for Space Marines though, huh?
Why were they list tailoring? They had a lot of flamers in the one, granted, but I'm pretty sure you could do well without them even. I'd run the numbers, but people don't really seem concerned with silly things like that, and it's a particular amount of work for me to set it up.
I'm pretty sure the first SM method would work for CSM. Maybe you should go look at it. I'm not familiar enough with Necrons or Skitariii to tell you how to play your army though. Maybe someone in the tactics subforum can?
I did not include th addition of special and heavy weapons because then you end up with even less bodies. You will also really only get to 1 brigade because of all the other requirements you might get 1 and a battalion, but the 3 each or elite, fast, and heavy will eat your points quick.
As such I would disagree with your assertion that people would have the same issue with more expensive bubble wrap models because it would be fewer models or way more points. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be better.
Like I said, the weapons may or may not be useful.
I guess that's a fair point about the 3 other slots. The brigades still hand out a ton of CP, which might get useful when the codex happens (assuming that everything isn't totally revamped).
Okay, okay. Looking at that winning list, you change the two basilisks into more earthshakers, and suddenly you've freed up 56 points. You lose a couple heavy bolters, but functionally, not really too much changes in that list as far as the firepower. That buys you another 10 more infantry (with change). You're at 100 infantry now.
I think he had an Primaris psyker in there right? Downgrade the primaris to an astropath, and I think you're one point shy of having another squad. That puts you 10 infantry under where you were before, you can still keep the commissars bubbling the important squads, and little actually changes, because your limiting factor is attacks, apparently.
Actual changes? You lost some maneuverability with some guns you weren't going to move anyway, smite got a little harder, you have 10 less infantry in your apparently unassailable wall, you have to try just a teensy bit harder with the commissars, and you can't order every single guardsman.
Oh, and the actual difference in orders, when you take BS into account?
(assuming 12-24" range for all guardsmen and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 140 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 4+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
(assuming 12-24" range for all conscripts and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 240 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 5+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
So the infantry have a 63% to do 20-27 wounds, and the conscripts have a 63% to do 22-30. It's about a 10% reduction in firepower.
Again, this isn't to show you they're identical. I'm not going to convince anyone of that, because it's not true. All I'm trying to show is that even if conscripts didn't exist, it doesn't significantly cripple that list.
Horde is strong this edition. Either the meta shifts to deal with that (applying the IG theory to SM, lots of cheap disposable 11 point scouts) or you're just going to have to nerf guard back into third tier again so that literally ANY combination of SM units becomes competitive. Even if you do the latter, you're never going to get rid of facesmash lists though. They'll just shift into whatever form becomes most effective.
Just a note, while you picked the ranges for 63% of wound to fall if you look at the percentages in those ranges they skew on the lower end for Infantry and the higher end for Conscripts. For instance 52% of that 63% for Infantry will be between 20-23, whereas only 42% of the 63% is 22-25 for the Conscripts. Infantry Squads also only have a 38.7% chance of doing 25 or more wounds, vs 65.4% chance for Conscripts. Similarly Conscripts only have a 27% chance of doing less than 23 wounds, where that chance is 52% for infantry squads.
2017/08/01 16:36:24
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
Just a note, while you picked the ranges for 63% of wound to fall if you look at the percentages in those ranges they skew on the lower end for Infantry and the higher end for Conscripts. For instance 52% of that 63% for Infantry will be between 20-23, whereas only 42% of the 63% is 22-25 for the Conscripts. Infantry Squads also only have a 38.7% chance of doing 25 or more wounds, vs 65.4% chance for Conscripts. Similarly Conscripts only have a 27% chance of doing less than 23 wounds, where that chance is 52% for infantry squads.
So, my line of thinking was to pick the clear point of highest non-zero probability, and then add that whichever one adjacent to it is the higher number up until I get to about 65% or so. I don't like adding too many on, because then you have a wider swing of outcomes. I suppose if I went up to 31 on the conscripts, that would give me about 68% which is a good number from a standard deviation point of view, which would also drop the bottom of the infantry to 19. I mostly stopped there because the percentages came out almost exact and I thought "good enough for me". So, lets not call it 10%. Let's call it 13%
Regardless, these are the reasons why I share the full spectrum of data, so that you can draw your own conclusions and not rely on my editorializing.
I never said they should cost more. I just said that scripts are better than a termagaunt and cost 3 instead of 4. At the same point cost the unit seems more even. Though it's arguably better for a horde unit to have a 5+ save over a 6+ save because their job is to absorb fire/take - they aren't supposed to deal a lot of damage. The termagant has more movement and can take different weapon options which adds to it's value.
That still doesn't answer why a Termagaunt should be the standard that Imperial Guard shooting is held to.
After all, let's take those termagaunts to planet bowling ball to play some mathhammer. Following lazy mathhammer conventions, which seem to be well established here until they become inconvenient, we're going to assume the whole army is engaged simultaneously, everything is in ideal range, and the unit that we're trying to "prove" is too strong goes first.
Let's do a simple shooting contest:
30 Termagaunts with Fleshborers and Synapse vs 10 Tactical Marines (let's say they somehow managed to be supported by a single warrior for the cheapest possible source of synapse)
T4: 8 Fleshborer shots, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 0 unsaved, 6 tactical marines remain. Based on previous turn's average, tacticals win after two more turns with only 4 casualties. Maybe 5 if one of the gaunts gets lucky before it dies.
Also note that it took those two squads six turns to shoot each other to pieces (even if two of them were just Space Marines mopping up a crippled target). Because applying equal points of basic shooting is simply not a fast way to kill anything.
Does it make Space Marines OP that 130 points of tacticals with bolters can simply shoot 120 points of Termagaunts with 24 points of synapse support off the table, and only take 65 points of casualties? That's without the tacticals charging to maximize their first-turn advantage, without them getting a free turn at 24", without their numerous sources of re-rolls, and without chapter tactics. Or are Termagaunts perhaps a poor standard to measure shooting by?
Overall I'd be willing to bet that point for point, termagaunts get curb-stomped by literally any other faction's basic infantry. At least, as long as you're mathhammering a shootout in ideal range on planet bowling ball. Boyz might have to assault to do it, but why would Boyz ever not assault.
So pardon me if I'm not entirely on board with balancing *my* faction's infantry around Termagaunts.
2017/08/01 16:58:38
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
master of ordinance wrote: In all honesty I just want to fell like the glory factions did over the past few years.
And that's why you shouldn't be allowed to be in these threads.
What, because I miss spelt feel? Next time try to not cherry pick my posts as you might have noted that I specifically did not like the idea of my armies only build being conscripts.
He literally just said, feth balance I want to be OP. You can't spin that, just like Melissa said the same thing in a different thread.
I said I would like to be OP. And yes I would, it would really feel nice to deliver the exact same beat down that we suffered for years at the hands of other factions. However that is not going to happen. And if you had ever bothered to read my posts you would note that I want the Guard to be overpowered in a flexible way (as Marines where), not as a single monobuild codex.
They're becoming toxic because they want to win so badly they are willing to say, SCREW BALANCE.
Perhaps if you had spent the last few years grasping desperately at straws, trying everything just to even glimpse a draw then perhaps you would have reached the tipping point too. But in this case it is more of a reaction to the whole "Oh noes I can no longer stomp all over IG armies, they must be OP!" reaction coming from certain players.
sossen wrote:
What If I told you...The guardsmen is also undercosted? Except it's not as easy to exploit because of it's max squad size. Plus why exploit it because you can just exploit conscripts? It is clear to me - and probably everyone at this point that in order to fix conscripts you will also have to increase the cost of a guardsmen.
What if I told you that actually Guardsmen are about right for their points cost and that upping that cost would nerf them into oblivion? What if I told you that the real problem is this entrenched thought process amongst certain factions that they should be easily able to win against certain armies and now that this is no longer possible they are struggling to grasp the fact that their outdated tactics need to be thrown out and that they need to adapt?
But yes, why bother thinking when you are the chosen faction and you can just whine and whine until GW come running with the dummy and a sweet nerf to fix that nasty booboo.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
2017/08/01 17:04:32
Subject: Re:How would you prefer games workshop to tone down conscripts?
1. Those solutions were basically list tailoring. No that isn't a solution.
2. I'm speaking as a Necrons, Skitarii, and CSM as well. Good to assume I speak for Space Marines though, huh?
Why were they list tailoring? They had a lot of flamers in the one, granted, but I'm pretty sure you could do well without them even. I'd run the numbers, but people don't really seem concerned with silly things like that, and it's a particular amount of work for me to set it up.
I'm pretty sure the first SM method would work for CSM. Maybe you should go look at it. I'm not familiar enough with Necrons or Skitariii to tell you how to play your army though. Maybe someone in the tactics subforum can?
Because they are lists that people would never take in a general situation.