Hey, ya got anymore of them Conscripts?

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.

**GhostRecon**

vipoid wrote:

- Make them a non-FoC choice. Instead of being troops, you can take one unit of Conscripts for every 2 Infantry Squads you take (the Conscripts don't take up a FoC space). This would make them less efficient, would prevent them being taken to fulfil min troop choices in a Battalion/Brigade and means that they can't get Objective Secured.

This is my favorite suggestion in any Conscript discussion thus far.

**Legio_xx**

So I have used Conscripts a lot in 7th edition and almost every game in 8th and I think for what they are they are too strong for staying power not at all for fire power. I took it upon my self to tweak the AM and I think I have found a pretty good balance for them.

1 Conscripts stay the same points capped at 30 men per squad. Can only be brought in a platoon style formation. So two infantry squads to one Conscript (stays the same points dose not get objective secure)

Conscripts can take every order but "Get back in the fight". I think that would take some hardened discipline and the White shields, while very well drilled, would not be able to mount a effective base of fire after being chewed up in close combat.

2) Tempestus are 55- 60 points base

3) can only bring on Taurox prime per one Tempestus unit (hq, body guard, squad.) Taurox Prime is 80 points with out main gun.

3 plasma gun 10 points. Pistols are fine in my opinion

This has worked pretty well for me and my friends around me. So I thought I would share it.

I have not looked into adding points for the commissars mainly because if someone dose not bring at least one character killing unit that is on them. When I play space marines I always bring a sniper squad with Camo , sniper rifles and a missile launcher. always take them out first and cripple the AM advance then win on objectives.

**techsoldaten**

Legio_xx wrote:
So I have used Conscripts a lot in 7th edition and almost every game in 8th and I think for what they are they are too strong for staying power not at all for fire power. I took it upon my self to tweak the AM and I think I have found a pretty good balance for them.

1 Conscripts stay the same points capped at 30 men per squad. Can only be brought in a platoon style formation. So two infantry squads to one Conscript (stays the same points dose not get objective secure)

Conscripts can take every order but "Get back in the fight". I think that would take some hardened discipline and the White shields, while very well drilled, would not be able to mount a effective base of fire after being chewed up in close combat.

2) Tempestus are 55- 60 points base

3) can only bring on Taurox prime per one Tempestus unit (hq, body guard, squad.) Taurox Prime is 80 points with out main gun.

3 plasma gun 10 points. Pistols are fine in my opinion

This has worked pretty well for me and my friends around me. So I thought I would share it.

I have not looked into adding points for the commissars mainly because if someone dose not bring at least one character killing unit that is on them. When I play space marines I always bring a sniper squad with Camo , sniper rifles and a missile launcher. always take them out first and cripple the AM advance then win on objectives.

This actually sounds sensible.

I agree with the point about staying power versus fire power. I regularly get into shootouts with them versus Noise Marines, where I will have 60 conscripts shooting at 10 Noise Marines. Most often, the Noise Marines win, but it takes a couple turns.

That said, the hardest thing with CSMs is killing characters. When the conscripts have orders, that's when things break down for me.

**SideshowLucifer**

RogueApiary wrote:
SideshowLucifer wrote:
Conscripts should be the worst infantry in the book. They are conscripts! They should be there to be bullet shields and should not be overshadowing the rest of the army, who are the trained guardsmen.
I like the suggestion above that the Commissar kills a conscript to use his leadership. I also like the other ideas of double morale losses for them and they in no way should be able to receive orders.
As long as they are better guardsmen than the Guardsman are, there is an issue. The orders should be one of those things that define the discipline as well as something for morale. Rabble won't stay around long no matter if you shoot one or not if things go too far sideways.

Have you actually played against/with conscripts? You regularly lose 15+ in a turn. Against a Cawl ball, you lose 30+. Making them Ld 8 after killing a conscript as you suggest still causes you to lose 23 in the latter scenario and 8 in the former BEFORE you even roll the D6 during the morale phase. Now if we stack your double morale losses suggestion onto that, there'd be no point bringing Conscripts except in blocks of 50, and even that would be questionable.

Ok, fair enough. I don't usually beat them in morale, I kill them in melee so your point is well received. Perhaps the best fix for them is smaller units then. They should be on par with chaos cultists pretty much but currently they can't really be shifted unless you kill them all, which takes a disproportionate amount of points worth of offense to accomplish.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Legio_xx wrote:

I have not looked into adding points for the commissars mainly because if someone dose not bring at least one character killing unit that is on them. When I play space marines I always bring a sniper squad with Camo , sniper rifles and a missile launcher. always take them out first and cripple the AM advance then win on objectives.

The problem here is that not all armies have a way to snipe characters out of huge mobs. They just do not have the tools available.

**Legio_xx**

That is my mistake guys my comment was mostly for people who can use them. With the exception Tau Sniper drones. Only work in mass..and even then they are not all that effective that I have seen.

For me Conscripts are units that you are not suppose to kill turn one. I personally think GW is going to fix the problem.. its strange but I actually think they are doing a good job with updates.

**nekooni**

Gamgee wrote:
Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

There are limits. You can only take 3 Detachments at 2000 points.

And there's another limiting factor - If I'd spam my IG full of Tempestus and Conscripts, I'd be hard pressed to get a +9 detachment. If I want to get that detachment, I'll at least have to bring 3 FA and 3 HS along, too. Sure, IG can just use Mortar HWTs and Scout Sentinels, but it's still a few hundred points. Other armies , eg Space Marines, have to invest much more to get the extra CPs.
Right now an IG player doesn't really care since IG doesn't have their own Strategems yet, but that's going to change until the end of the year, and then you'll want as many CP as you can get.

**Xenomancers**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Love the -1 per LoW idea. Getting tabled for 3 games in a weekend because I lost the first turn was so enjoyable I want to encourage it to happen more. That sweet sweet -3.

Maybe a -1 per detachment that includes a lord of war would be less taxing. For you with 3-4 units you'd be getting a +1 to your roll anyways - this would make it a flat roll off.

**Xenomancers**

RogueApiary wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
SilverAlien wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.
Should have used battle cannon

Saving 18 points for a weaker gun doesnt solve the problem of the tank not living past turn 2. Why would I spend 12-15% of my points on a unit that MIGHT get to shoot twice?
The tank wont live past 2 turn if you expose it to enemy fire to get in range to fire demolisher cannon. Battle cannon has the range of the board and las cannon hull mount is more than adequate range to sit back and only tank dedicated anti tank fire. Just take heavy bolter sponsons and use them to cover your front line. Much cheaper and will probably live all game if you place it right.

*SIGH* I am well aware of the range limitations on a Demolisher cannon. But hey, here's a full list of my tournament games with Pask, you tell me if the Battlecannon would have made the difference (spoilers, it wouldn't)

Game vs Nids - Pask actually lived long enough to do something, killed the hell out of a Harpy, was putting in some good work on the Swarmlord before the game ended from time.

2x Storm Ravens fly over my lines to the back of the board and get vision on Pask who was fully hidden behind a building. Insta-gibbed before Turn 1 started.

3x Doom Scythes fly past my lines to get around the building to get vision on Pask who again, was fully hidden behind a building, Death Rays insta-gibbed him before turn 1 started.

Pask started in the back line on my far board edge, actually got two turns of shooting to engage the Ynnari stuff that hit my line, Dark Eldar Lances got him on turn 3.

This one is just straight bad luck, but the TO rolled a random Battle Zone and we got Night Fight for the entire round. Pask got his face punched in by a Knight that got to walk across the table pretty much undamaged. Pask was on my board edge.

Versus Thousand Sons, Magnus and Belakor flew over my conscript line and killed Pask and his Tank Commander buddy on turn 3. He had managed to kill some Scarab Occult Terminators before dying. Yay? Managed to actually win this one because the Scions killed enough of his rubrics camping the back objectives to give me the win.

Note that in none of these games did I advance Pask towards danger or even forward deploy him and didnt even need to move him into range in the games where he survived the alpha because there was stuff to kill within 24" already.

You went last every game - with new chapter approved you'll be at worst 40% to go first - going second against storm ravens is always tough - vs gaurd though they should be really limited in what they can do. How do storm ravens "fly over 50 conscripts" if deployed correctly he should not be able to fly over your lines - because there is no where to put his model. He really shouldn't be able to get within 24" of your back line if you place right. In any case - 700 points of storm ravens can deal with 240 points of just about anything. Lets reverse the situation and pask and his buddy russ get to go first. They both have battle cannons and las cannon hull mount - if they both shoot a storm raven. It's going to get hurt real bad if not destroyed depending on your damage rolls - while demo cannons wont be shooting storm ravens very often at all. It's also worth noting that a russ is much hard to kill than other tanks for a raven. MM wounds of 4+ missles wound on 4+ and bolters on 6's. If you are in cover (which you should be at the start of the game) you are even getting decent 4+ and 5+ saves vs the las cannons and storm strikes - it could really go ether way on that.

**Breng77**

Gamgee wrote:
Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

The issue with the one detachment for all approach is that it would only work as a balance if all armies had equally useful units in all slots. For instance if say the Battalion became the stock detachment, it is a big buff to any army that has really good troops, but a downgrade if they have their army strength in fast attack or heavy support (the fewest slots) or need buffing HQ units. It would also (given how 8th is constructed) would be a huge buff for HQ units that give you extra CP as everyone else would be stuck at 6 CP.

I will say the current environment is really only limited by points because with detachments you can essentially take as much as you want of a specific slot at 2k points.

I think any fix would require a re-write about how armies were built. Maybe something like using the patrol as the only detachment but allowing up to 3 detachments +1 CP for each detachment, +1 CP for filling out your troops slots in a detachment, +1 CP for filling out your HQ slots in a detachment, +1 CP for each detachment completely filled out (make flyer slot and dedicated transports optional), allow a LOW auxiliary detachment to replace any detachment no CP bonuses for this detachment. Then maybe give some sort of CP bonus if your army has no repeated non-troop units in it.

Beyond some total re-write like that the current system is better than arbitrarily confining all armies to a single detachment type.

**Future War Cultist**

I feel like making conditions such as 'can only take 1 conscript squad per 2 infantry squads' aren't the way to fix them. It just seems so arbitrary, and I can't think of any other armies off the top of my head that do things in a similar way (but I might be completely wrong about that).

Capping their numbers feels like a better solution. But honestly, this is why I've gone off conscripts. They just create problems.

**Breng77**

Future War Cultist wrote:
I feel like making conditions such as 'can only take 1 conscript squad per 2 infantry squads' aren't the way to fix them. It just seems so arbitrary, and I can't think of any other armies off the top of my head that do things in a similar way (but I might be completely wrong about that).

Capping their numbers feels like a better solution. But honestly, this is why I've gone off conscripts. They just create problems.

Command squads would be the closest thing which are 1 per commander.

I guess you could limit them to 1 per commissar.

Honestly that would be a better solution 1 per 2 infantry squads just makes buy larger conscript squads and pay 20 points more for 20 of your bodies. So right now if you were taking 4 x 30 conscripts for 260 points, you could just as easily take 4 infantry squads (160 points), and 2 x 40 conscripts (240 points) for 400 points. So it is an increase of 40 points for the same number of bodies, but not a huge issue, whereas 1 per commissar (assuming you are not taking 1 commissar per blob now) would mean taking fewer squads or a bunch of redundant characters.

But neither seems to really fix the issue with conscripts.

**Xenomancers**

The core issue with conscripts is they are 3 point wounds with 5+ saves and are better than many 4 and even 5 point units. The First solution HAS TO include a point increase. Second issue is access to ignore morale on such a large and cheap unit this needs to be addressed also - probably best to reduce their max size to 30. This would also come with a point increase for literally ever guard infantry unit because they are all under priced.

**ross-128**

Even Veterans? They're 50% more expensive than standard guardsmen but only 33% more killy (only in shooting at that) and not one bit more survivable.

Sure you can load them down with three specials a heavy and a HF, but that just puts an even bigger "shoot me!" sign on those fragile t3 models.

And all of that together is way off into "it'll never touch a board again" territory. A 33-67% price hike, 40% squad size reduction, AND stripping their ability to recieve morale resistance? That's ridiculous.

**SideshowLucifer**

I don't mind their price or number, its the morale immunity that I think makes them over the top. They should not be overshadowing the proper IG units. It's an IG army, not a conscripted force book.
I think conscripts should be mass, low to hit shooting, meant to die in retaliation for next to no cost.

**Future War Cultist**

SideshowLucifer wrote:
It's an IG army, not a conscripted force book.

This! This right here! This is why I've gone off conscripts completely. The IG are supposed to be a professional army drawn from the PDFs of imperial worlds. I don't think conscripts would make it that far.

When I look at the other troops that are similar to conscripts (chaos cultists and genestealer neophyte hybrids) I see they have guard level stat lines. Do we really need conscripts? Couldn't we just get rid of them and let proper IG infantry do their job instead?

**Breng77**

Xenomancers wrote:
The core issue with conscripts is they are 3 point wounds with 5+ saves and are better than many 4 and even 5 point units. The First solution HAS TO include a point increase. Second issue is access to ignore morale on such a large and cheap unit this needs to be addressed also - probably best to reduce their max size to 30. This would also come with a point increase for literally ever guard infantry unit because they are all under priced.

Honestly I feel that a points increase is one of the worst ways to fix the issue. At the price point they are at any change will end up either being too little (making them 4 points, is fairly trivial 120 points matters but it is not a make or break amount of points for 120 wounds), or too much (making them say 5 points might make them costed into never getting used, and risks other guard infantry being too expensive.). I think the morale issue needs fixing the most, but if they are too good for 3 points I would rather see their stats addressed (drop their strength/toughness to 2, this halves their durability against S4 and 5 shooting, and or switch them to a 6+ save.)

Doing either of these is a better solution than a 1 point bump in cost. If you dropped their T and save to be in line with gretchin (same points cost, better BS, worse gun, worse support), 20 bolter shots kills 9.25 Conscripts vs 5.93 (now). So the unit of Noise Marines mentioned earlier would do 14 wounds (un-buffed) to the unit. This would make it far more likely that with a reasonable amount of shooting/assault the squad would be wiped out in a single turn. 650 points of Marines with Bolters could essentially wipe a squad of 50 conscripts(150 points) if they are in rapid fire range. At that point they probably don't need to fix the morale issue. It seems reasonable to me that ~4 times the amount of points focus firing at peak efficiency should be able to wipe out a unit. and this holds true for most balanced options in the game (this holds true for Ork boyz by the way 4 times the points of a boyz squad will wipe the unit out in 1 turn of shooting with bolters.

**Insectum7**

Purifier wrote:

Basically everyone has been calling conscripts op since the first index leaks...

Not me!!!

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I did!!!

Gamgee wrote:
Anyone who doesn't think conscripts are OP like Gulliman needs their 40k competitive license torn up.

Guilliman isn't that good though. . .

Also, inclusion in a winning list does not automatically make something OP. Still waaaay to early to be claiming any "proof". Like some others, I'm more suspicious of the Scions and Elysians here.

**Desubot**

Insectum7 wrote:

Also, inclusion in a winning list does not automatically make something OP. Still waaaay to early to be claiming any "proof". Like some others, I'm more suspicious of the Scions and Elysians here.

Deflect Deflect

List alone arent a good metric of what is OP or not.

They may not kill a lot of things but there are too god damn many bodies on the table for any normal army to mulch through. and you cant really force them to take moral even though you are deleting half a unit of them a turn which is another point of contention.

**Insectum7**

Desubot wrote:
for any normal army to mulch through

Maybe it's time to re-think what a "normal army" is then.

**Desubot**

Insectum7 wrote:
Desubot wrote:
for any normal army to mulch through

Maybe it's time to re-think what a "normal army" is then.

Maybe dont use one army build to hold a standard for literally everyone else.

**Xenomancers**

Breng77 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
The core issue with conscripts is they are 3 point wounds with 5+ saves and are better than many 4 and even 5 point units. The First solution HAS TO include a point increase. Second issue is access to ignore morale on such a large and cheap unit this needs to be addressed also - probably best to reduce their max size to 30. This would also come with a point increase for literally ever guard infantry unit because they are all under priced.

Honestly I feel that a points increase is one of the worst ways to fix the issue. At the price point they are at any change will end up either being too little (making them 4 points, is fairly trivial 120 points matters but it is not a make or break amount of points for 120 wounds), or too much (making them say 5 points might make them costed into never getting used, and risks other guard infantry being too expensive.). I think the morale issue needs fixing the most, but if they are too good for 3 points I would rather see their stats addressed (drop their strength/toughness to 2, this halves their durability against S4 and 5 shooting, and or switch them to a 6+ save.)

Doing either of these is a better solution than a 1 point bump in cost. If you dropped their T and save to be in line with gretchin (same points cost, better BS, worse gun, worse support), 20 bolter shots kills 9.25 Conscripts vs 5.93 (now). So the unit of Noise Marines mentioned earlier would do 14 wounds (un-buffed) to the unit. This would make it far more likely that with a reasonable amount of shooting/assault the squad would be wiped out in a single turn. 650 points of Marines with Bolters could essentially wipe a squad of 50 conscripts(150 points) if they are in rapid fire range. At that point they probably don't need to fix the morale issue. It seems reasonable to me that ~4 times the amount of points focus firing at peak efficiency should be able to wipe out a unit. and this holds true for most balanced options in the game (this holds true for Ork boyz by the way 4 times the points of a boyz squad will wipe the unit out in 1 turn of shooting with bolters.

I see your point there. it would accomplish the same thing as increasing their point cost though. Durability per point would go down - and it really needs to. Honestly - just remove their save and reduce them to t2 and they can stay 3 points.

**Breng77**

Xenomancers wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
The core issue with conscripts is they are 3 point wounds with 5+ saves and are better than many 4 and even 5 point units. The First solution HAS TO include a point increase. Second issue is access to ignore morale on such a large and cheap unit this needs to be addressed also - probably best to reduce their max size to 30. This would also come with a point increase for literally ever guard infantry unit because they are all under priced.

Honestly I feel that a points increase is one of the worst ways to fix the issue. At the price point they are at any change will end up either being too little (making them 4 points, is fairly trivial 120 points matters but it is not a make or break amount of points for 120 wounds), or too much (making them say 5 points might make them costed into never getting used, and risks other guard infantry being too expensive.). I think the morale issue needs fixing the most, but if they are too good for 3 points I would rather see their stats addressed (drop their strength/toughness to 2, this halves their durability against S4 and 5 shooting, and or switch them to a 6+ save.)

Doing either of these is a better solution than a 1 point bump in cost. If you dropped their T and save to be in line with gretchin (same points cost, better BS, worse gun, worse support), 20 bolter shots kills 9.25 Conscripts vs 5.93 (now). So the unit of Noise Marines mentioned earlier would do 14 wounds (un-buffed) to the unit. This would make it far more likely that with a reasonable amount of shooting/assault the squad would be wiped out in a single turn. 650 points of Marines with Bolters could essentially wipe a squad of 50 conscripts(150 points) if they are in rapid fire range. At that point they probably don't need to fix the morale issue. It seems reasonable to me that ~4 times the amount of points focus firing at peak efficiency should be able to wipe out a unit. and this holds true for most balanced options in the game (this holds true for Ork boyz by the way 4 times the points of a boyz squad will wipe the unit out in 1 turn of shooting with bolters.
I see your point there. it would accomplish the same thing as increasing their point cost though. Durability per point would go down - and it really needs to. Honestly - just remove their save and reduce them to t2 and they can stay 3 points.

No save at T2 would be too much, they should just be T2 6+, like gretchin. But it is not exactly the same as changing their points cost, because of how cheap they are each point different is a big change in the unit, at 4 points per model. 50 conscripts would be 200 points. At their current durability It would take 85 marines on average to take them down in a single turn or just shy of ~1100 points, 5.5x their cost. So if we go by my reduction they would need to be 5 points each to have it such that ~4 times their cost could kill them in a single turn. I think at that level people would consider them too expensive, especially if other infantry squads don't go up. Which we would assume they would need to go up to 6 points per model. Which I don't think is the right cost for a guardsman. at 5 ppm conscripts are in a similar place as say ork boyz, while being decidedly worse. (the only advantage they have is their save, they are worse offensively, similar defensively).

3ppm seems the right price for what are supposed to be chaff infantry. The issue is that they need to die like chaff infantry.

**Desubot**

T2 on guards make no sense unless you were throwing children into battle.

**Future War Cultist**

I'm telling ya, get rid of them.

**Breng77**

Desubot wrote:
T2 on guards make no sense unless you were throwing children into battle.

It makes sense from a balance standpoint. Also the idea that all standard humans are equally tough is strange anyway. Maybe they have worse equipment (marine equipment changes their T) But if you think making them 5 points each is a better solution by all means. I think if balance is the concern though that worrying about "it makes no sense for some guard to be lower toughness for than others." Things like that especially on the limited point scale 40k works with really limits the design space.

**Insectum7**

Desubot wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Desubot wrote:
for any normal army to mulch through

Maybe it's time to re-think what a "normal army" is then.

Maybe dont use one army build to hold a standard for literally everyone else.

It's not a standard. But clearly in a competitive setting it's something you'll have to face. People who competed in 7th knew they would have to have an answer to Wraithknights, and adjusted appropriately. Adjusting "normalcy" to face against competitive builds isn't a new thing. 8th is a paradigm that has boosted horde infantry, and Conscripts are perhaps the horde with the most utility, point for point. Sooo, new expectations, new normal.

**Desubot**

Breng77 wrote:
Desubot wrote:
T2 on guards make no sense unless you were throwing children into battle.

It makes sense from a balance standpoint. Also the idea that all standard humans are equally tough is strange anyway. Maybe they have worse equipment (marine equipment changes their T) But if you think making them 5 points each is a better solution by all means. I think if balance is the concern though that worrying about "it makes no sense for some guard to be lower toughness for than others." Things like that especially on the limited point scale 40k works with really limits the design space.

I wasn't really talking about it in a balancing stand point though in game its also kinda odd in the sense that traditionally Humans are T3. Super humans are T4. Gross Humans are T5. and baby grots are T2. its the base line of how things work across the game.

It makes sense to keep it that way as you know what you get when facing a many different armies and army composition.

**Breng77**

Desubot wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Desubot wrote:
T2 on guards make no sense unless you were throwing children into battle.

It makes sense from a balance standpoint. Also the idea that all standard humans are equally tough is strange anyway. Maybe they have worse equipment (marine equipment changes their T) But if you think making them 5 points each is a better solution by all means. I think if balance is the concern though that worrying about "it makes no sense for some guard to be lower toughness for than others." Things like that especially on the limited point scale 40k works with really limits the design space.

I wasn't really talking about it in a balancing stand point though in game its also kinda odd in the sense that traditionally Humans are T3. Super humans are T4. Gross Humans are T5. and baby grots are T2. its the base line of how things work across the game.

It makes sense to keep it that way as you know what you get when facing a many different armies and army composition.

but sticking to a standard army composition is flawed and other units have their stats changed from edition to edition or codex to codex, so it is not uncommon for units in one book to be a different statline. But just my suggestion that I think is better than a points increase which IMO will either be so little as not to matter or way too much. I suppose you could leave them a T3 with a 7+ save if you really wanted to as that results in about the same durability as T2 with a 6+ save.

**sossen**

Insectum7 wrote:
Also, inclusion in a winning list does not automatically make something OP. Still waaaay to early to be claiming any "proof". Like some others, I'm more suspicious of the Scions and Elysians here.

Conscripts appear just as consistently in top-placing lists as Elysians (top 2 at BAO had ~100 conscripts each, all three AM players in the top 5 at Nova Open had ~100 conscripts, a large percentage of high placing armies include conscripts). The logic behind their inclusion is sound, just listen to what the BAO winner had to say about their role in his army in the FLG post-event podcast. The mathhammer backs it up.

It is hardly coincidence that so many experienced tournament players have decided to include this many conscripts and that these lists are placing very well in GTs.

Conscripts have considerably higher cost-efficiency than the average unit in the same role across the different armies and the role that conscripts fill is important in competitive play. That is pretty much the definition of overpowered. To achieve balance the best unit should only have a minimal cost-efficiency advantage compared to other units.

**Desubot**

Breng77 wrote:

but sticking to a standard army composition is flawed and other units have their stats changed from edition to edition or codex to codex, so it is not uncommon for units in one book to be a different statline. But just my suggestion that I think is better than a points increase which IMO will either be so little as not to matter or way too much. I suppose you could leave them a T3 with a 7+ save if you really wanted to as that results in about the same durability as T2 with a 6+ save.

I think that would probably be better.

a fresh batch of conscripts would probably be running around in their shirts rather than being decked out in gear from the get go. maybe a helemt and a rifle or las pack.