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.

Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

That's not what you mean at all. You were blatantly quoted saying you wanted to be overpowered. You're easily one of the worst people to comment on army power.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You realize Insectum thinks Tactical Marines are good. You really take him seriously at this point?

You might be surprised to know that Tacticals fare better against Conscripts, point for point, than the Scouts you prefer. But more to the point, is this truly the tenor here? The pro-nerf conscripts crowd has to refer to other topics in other threads to discredit the opposition?

Actually no they don't but you can continue to believe that if you want.

And yes it's totally legit to discredit people when they have incorrect beliefs. You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Scatterbikes from 6th-7th are fair? You really think anyone will listen to the guy that says Riptides from 6th-7th are fair? You really anyone will listen to the guy that says Rubric Marines were ever worth anything until this edition? You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Tactical Marines are good and were ever good?

It's a very easy way to sift through bad commenters.

Run the numbers. In a sustained firefight the Tacs fare better with their improved saves.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

That's not what you mean at all. You were blatantly quoted saying you wanted to be overpowered. You're easily one of the worst people to comment on army power.

No, I said that I was enjoying being powerful and that I felt it was deserved after the asshammering we have taken for the past... How many years now?
But if we are going to go into this Slayer-Fan then would you care to comment as to your outright hatred of the Guard codex? And was it not you whom I recall defending the vast stockpile of Marine buffs last edition? Or was it the Tau Rapetide you told us was perfectly fine? I forget, the number of blatant hypocrites in these threads makes things easy to mix up.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

Try maybe 5 years if that. If that. Hardly the faction worst off

Look all the IG think that unit point costs are one way, i.e. up. Which isn't true. If there is room for nerfs there is room for buffs. BUT this thread isn't for the buffs; it is for the nerf of ONE specific unit.

As for your point Insectum on Berserkers and Genestealers. You missed the addendum that anything good against conscripts are better against literally anything else. Which is what I'm trying to highlight, conscripts occupy a niche where anything high RoF is better against literally anything else. Those 2 units aren't getting through the blob in one turn, for which they are paying a large amount of points to do. But against any other unit, they would be through and would have done more damage pointwise in doing so. That is the part that is insane about conscripts that they can stonewall a dedicated assault force for 2 turns guaranteed, maybe 3 if the positioning is good. You get nothing for fighting the blob and if you're a shooting army, you're going against IG, an army that has really good MSU shooting.

If there were ways to influence the positioning of enemy units like a universal psychic force push, or explosive rounds pushing conscripts out of position giving enough room for a deepstrike, they would be much less of a problem. But there is no way to properly influence enemy unit positioning beyond how big your guns are. But conscripts don't care about guns, they WANT to shot at.

The only real answer I have is reduce the armor save so that AP0 weapons actually start getting a return of some kind.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You realize Insectum thinks Tactical Marines are good. You really take him seriously at this point?

You might be surprised to know that Tacticals fare better against Conscripts, point for point, than the Scouts you prefer. But more to the point, is this truly the tenor here? The pro-nerf conscripts crowd has to refer to other topics in other threads to discredit the opposition?

Actually no they don't but you can continue to believe that if you want.

And yes it's totally legit to discredit people when they have incorrect beliefs. You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Scatterbikes from 6th-7th are fair? You really think anyone will listen to the guy that says Riptides from 6th-7th are fair? You really anyone will listen to the guy that says Rubric Marines were ever worth anything until this edition? You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Tactical Marines are good and were ever good?

It's a very easy way to sift through bad commenters.

Run the numbers. In a sustained firefight the Tacs fare better with their improved saves.

No they don't, not for the points. It's a difference of ONE for 3 points. Once you get to actual outfitting it's not even a contest and the Tactical Marines lose significantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

That's not what you mean at all. You were blatantly quoted saying you wanted to be overpowered. You're easily one of the worst people to comment on army power.

No, I said that I was enjoying being powerful and that I felt it was deserved after the asshammering we have taken for the past... How many years now?
But if we are going to go into this Slayer-Fan then would you care to comment as to your outright hatred of the Guard codex? And was it not you whom I recall defending the vast stockpile of Marine buffs last edition? Or was it the Tau Rapetide you told us was perfectly fine? I forget, the number of blatant hypocrites in these threads makes things easy to mix up.

I have always been outright against Gladius and Riptides power. You can go through all 6000 posts of mine and you're going to find a pretty consistent line of thought.

Breng77 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

Try maybe 5 years if that. If that. Hardly the faction worst off

And before that? There has been one brief moment of power during the months of the legendary Leafblower, which would be a legitimate arguement except it was actually a Inquisition + GK + Guard list and required about 2K's worth of things to work. So...
And even if it where not, is 5 years of being so weak that just about every other codex used you as their whipping boy not enough to warrant a little bit of power? Apparently not.

No, being useless in the past doesn't is a legitimate reason to be overpowered in the future. The goal is balance.

And thats why Imperial Guard now doesn't only deserve nerfs. Conscripts, Elysians, Taurox Primes, Scions, need nerfs, but other units deserve buffs , like Tau Commanders deserve a pretty big nerf but basically everything else in the Tau Codex deserves a buff.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No they don't, not for the points. It's a difference of ONE for 3 points. Once you get to actual outfitting it's not even a contest and the Tactical Marines lose significantly.

You're going to have to show your math. Here's what I got:

Unequipped Tacs and Scouts (bolters) 10 x .666 x .666 x .666 = 2.9

5 Tacs = 65 points. 65/2.9 = 22.4 ppkill
5 Scouts = 55 points. 55/2.9 = 18.9 ppkill

Or to put it another way:

65 ponts of Tac Marines kills 2.9 Conscripts - worth 8.7 points
66 points of Scouts kills 3.5 Conscripts - worth 10.6 points

However

100 Conscript shots vs. Marines 100 x .333 x .333 x .333 = 3.6 - worth 46.8 points
100 Conscript shots vs. Scouts 100 x .333 x .333 x .5 = 5.5 - worth 60.5 points

Scouts do more damage by 20% but take more damage by 31%. They lose quicker than they make up for by damage. Both squads can be armed identically for the job, HB and Combi-something, so Scouts don't get any benefit there. The only way Scouts become favored is if you take certain increments of points, for example, Scouts can get an HB for the difference in cost between min squads. That works up until the Marines pay the extra 10 points, and then the Tacs fare better again. If you graphed the Heavy Bolter example based on a point by point expenditure, Tacs would be ahead ~80% of the time.

If you got something different please share.

 Quickjager wrote:

As for your point Insectum on Berserkers and Genestealers. You missed the addendum that anything good against conscripts are better against literally anything else. Which is what I'm trying to highlight, conscripts occupy a niche where anything high RoF is better against literally anything else. Those 2 units aren't getting through the blob in one turn, for which they are paying a large amount of points to do. But against any other unit, they would be through and would have done more damage pointwise in doing so. That is the part that is insane about conscripts that they can stonewall a dedicated assault force for 2 turns guaranteed, maybe 3 if the positioning is good. You get nothing for fighting the blob and if you're a shooting army, you're going against IG, an army that has really good MSU shooting.

Ok. But to be clear, there ARE "point-efficient" ways to deal with conscripts.

About the ROF issue, it's an interesting point. I'll mull it over but my instinct is that the wish for a simple shooting solution against conscripts is barking up the wrong tree in the first place. IMO, the more practical solution is to ignore them in favor of dealing with more dangerous targets, and then spend many times their points to shoot, assault, and neuter blobs when the time is right.

I'll mention again that I'm open to other rules-changes, like just making them not ob-sec. I'm not convinced that anything like points increase or save decrease is warranted though.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No they don't, not for the points. It's a difference of ONE for 3 points. Once you get to actual outfitting it's not even a contest and the Tactical Marines lose significantly.

You're going to have to show your math. Here's what I got:

Unequipped Tacs and Scouts (bolters) 10 x .666 x .666 x .666 = 2.9

5 Tacs = 65 points. 65/2.9 = 22.4 ppkill
5 Scouts = 55 points. 55/2.9 = 18.9 ppkill

Or to put it another way:

65 ponts of Tac Marines kills 2.9 Conscripts - worth 8.7 points
66 points of Scouts kills 3.5 Conscripts - worth 10.6 points

However

100 Conscript shots vs. Marines 100 x .333 x .333 x .333 = 3.6 - worth 46.8 points
100 Conscript shots vs. Scouts 100 x .333 x .333 x .5 = 5.5 - worth 60.5 points

Scouts do more damage by 20% but take more damage by 31%. They lose quicker than they make up for by damage. Both squads can be armed identically for the job, HB and Combi-something, so Scouts don't get any benefit there. The only way Scouts become favored is if you take certain increments of points, for example, Scouts can get an HB for the difference in cost between min squads. That works up until the Marines pay the extra 10 points, and then the Tacs fare better again. If you graphed the Heavy Bolter example based on a point by point expenditure, Tacs would be ahead ~80% of the time.

If you got something different please share.

 Quickjager wrote:

As for your point Insectum on Berserkers and Genestealers. You missed the addendum that anything good against conscripts are better against literally anything else. Which is what I'm trying to highlight, conscripts occupy a niche where anything high RoF is better against literally anything else. Those 2 units aren't getting through the blob in one turn, for which they are paying a large amount of points to do. But against any other unit, they would be through and would have done more damage pointwise in doing so. That is the part that is insane about conscripts that they can stonewall a dedicated assault force for 2 turns guaranteed, maybe 3 if the positioning is good. You get nothing for fighting the blob and if you're a shooting army, you're going against IG, an army that has really good MSU shooting.

Ok. But to be clear, there ARE "point-efficient" ways to deal with conscripts.

About the ROF issue, it's an interesting point. I'll mull it over but my instinct is that the wish for a simple shooting solution against conscripts is barking up the wrong tree in the first place. IMO, the more practical solution is to ignore them in favor of dealing with more dangerous targets, and then spend many times their points to shoot, assault, and neuter blobs when the time is right.

I'll mention again that I'm open to other rules-changes, like just making them not ob-sec. I'm not convinced that anything like points increase or save decrease is warranted though.

You talk about faring better when you deliberately try to make the Scouts look bad. You can do the Heavy Bolter to make up the cost, and then you talk about adding another 10 to the Tactical Marines without adding that 10 to the Scouts. Not to mention Scouts can get to rapid fire range without spending extra points on it. Or get to melee range because a CCW with a 4+ is better than a single attack with a 3+.

That said, you're using Bolters for the Scouts when nobody should be using Bolter Scouts. If I want Bolters (and who does?) I can use Assault Centurions or Sternguard (who get better Bolters).
So if you can't kill quick enough, you aren't making progres to get to the targets they're blocking. Which leads to the next point...

Also those "point efficient" models are more point efficient vs other models because that's how ridiculous Conscripts are. You're clearly not playing a competitive game, whereas we are. Your perspective is completely out of whack.

Breng77 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

Try maybe 5 years if that. If that. Hardly the faction worst off

Exactly 5 years since 5th edition. 10 years would be 4th where IG were okay but not as good as 5th.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You talk about faring better when you deliberately try to make the Scouts look bad. You can do the Heavy Bolter to make up the cost, and then you talk about adding another 10 to the Tactical Marines without adding that 10 to the Scouts. Not to mention Scouts can get to rapid fire range without spending extra points on it. Or get to melee range because a CCW with a 4+ is better than a single attack with a 3+.

CCW with a 4+? Are you giving them powerfists? Or are you saying that Scouts have 2 attacks with a CCW but a 4+ save. Did you know that Scouts with a CCW have 3 3+ S4 attacks in a charge round (1 BPistol 2Attacks), like Tac marines do (2 bolter, 1 A). Again, in that round the damage output of each model is the same, except the marines still survive better, and front load more of the attacks prior to Conscripts getting overwatch, so again it's a lead for Tacs. Scouts would have additional damage output in a sustained combat, but every example I've seen involving Conscripts has them falling back out of melee and shooting on orders, so there's no advantage in that scenario.

You could add another Scout for the cost of a Heavy Bolter on the Marines, but it doesn't get the scouts enough past the marines in damage output to make up for their worse armor save in a sustained fight (I already provided the math on that). You could go further and get a combi-weapon on the sarge, but the Marines in turn could do the same and still be better off on a point by point basis. Min squad armed up vs min squad armed up, Tacs fare better because of the save. Min squad armed up vs. Min squad armed up +1 for cost difference still has Tacs ahead in the long run.

It's true that Scouts can infiltrate, and that can be useful. It can also just mean the Conscripts run over them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also those "point efficient" models are more point efficient vs other models because that's how ridiculous Conscripts are. You're clearly not playing a competitive game, whereas we are. Your perspective is completely out of whack.

If you're having trouble dealing with Conscripts, and Genestealers and Berzerkers are the best killers of Conscripts, why would you not use them to kill Conscripts? That would be the competetive solution. Basic CSMs could kill the pesky Elysians or whatever, Cultists could probably handle them fine.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

Try maybe 5 years if that. If that. Hardly the faction worst off

Exactly 5 years since 5th edition. 10 years would be 4th where IG were okay but not as good as 5th.

They were actually good in early 6th as well, with IG blobs dominating many early events. So it might be even less than 5. IG has little to complain about vs some other factions still weaker than they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You talk about faring better when you deliberately try to make the Scouts look bad. You can do the Heavy Bolter to make up the cost, and then you talk about adding another 10 to the Tactical Marines without adding that 10 to the Scouts. Not to mention Scouts can get to rapid fire range without spending extra points on it. Or get to melee range because a CCW with a 4+ is better than a single attack with a 3+.

CCW with a 4+? Are you giving them powerfists? Or are you saying that Scouts have 2 attacks with a CCW but a 4+ save. Did you know that Scouts with a CCW have 3 3+ S4 attacks in a charge round (1 BPistol 2Attacks), like Tac marines do (2 bolter, 1 A). Again, in that round the damage output of each model is the same, except the marines still survive better, and front load more of the attacks prior to Conscripts getting overwatch, so again it's a lead for Tacs. Scouts would have additional damage output in a sustained combat, but every example I've seen involving Conscripts has them falling back out of melee and shooting on orders, so there's no advantage in that scenario.

You could add another Scout for the cost of a Heavy Bolter on the Marines, but it doesn't get the scouts enough past the marines in damage output to make up for their worse armor save in a sustained fight (I already provided the math on that). You could go further and get a combi-weapon on the sarge, but the Marines in turn could do the same and still be better off on a point by point basis. Min squad armed up vs min squad armed up, Tacs fare better because of the save. Min squad armed up vs. Min squad armed up +1 for cost difference still has Tacs ahead in the long run.

It's true that Scouts can infiltrate, and that can be useful. It can also just mean the Conscripts run over them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also those "point efficient" models are more point efficient vs other models because that's how ridiculous Conscripts are. You're clearly not playing a competitive game, whereas we are. Your perspective is completely out of whack.

If you're having trouble dealing with Conscripts, and Genestealers and Berzerkers are the best killers of Conscripts, why would you not use them to kill Conscripts? That would be the competetive solution. Basic CSMs could kill the pesky Elysians or whatever, Cultists could probably handle them fine.

You miss the point here that those units stomp things that aren't conscripts better than they do conscripts, so if they need to be spammed to deal with conscripts other things suffer more.

So what's probably going to happen after the sudden increase in so many people buying guardsmen kits making GW a lot of money is the codex is going to drop, conscripts become balanced (or trash-tier in the eyes of conscript players) and then everyone is going to whine and complain for about a month, then jump on the next bandwagon. Repeat ad naseum.

I've seen it happen literally every time. There's going to always be a list that does exceptionally well, but at least riptide wings were more interesting to fight against than conscripts and their 40 minute phases.

 Don Savik wrote:
but at least riptide wings were more interesting to fight against than conscripts and their 40 minute phases.

Lel, no. You can at least feel like you did something against conscript spam. "Well I killed 60 guardsmen but still lost" is a much better feeling then "I was tabled turn 2".