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.

Even 'IG/AM' being the 'strongest army' is somewhat of a misnomer. Imperial Soup lists are only pulling options out of IG/AM and combining them to min/max their effectiveness. Mortar teams, Scions, Conscripts, Commissars, Officers, Primaris Psykers/Astropaths.

Otherwise, you have Celestine (SoB), Guilliman (SM), Elysians (FW) too - at least to use the last GT winner's list as an example (minus Guilliman, ofc).

How does this list look post-Codex, with Regiment doctrines being a thing? Commissars and Primaris Psykers/Astropaths don't have the <Regiment> keyword - how does this change the min-max meta?

Wasnt that GT list also played wrong and the guy was using command points from Creed even though he wasnt the warlord?

GhostRecon wrote:
but by now it is patently obvious just how much 'filling out' the Indicies need - and get - out of their Codex.

That's a fair point.

Crazyterran wrote:
He called people Wehraboos, where the definition for Urban dictionary states that Wehraboos specifically mean Nazi Era Wehrmacht fans, and the games he specifically used as an example are the Nazi era Wehrmacht. Considering theres a million other examples he could have used, including fans groups for this very same game (cheese, waac players, timmies, to name a few) the fact he picked wehraboos means it's pretty clear what he was going for.

 Quickjager wrote:
Oh get over yourself, he wasn't calling anyone Nazi's he was comparing IG players to COH2 Germany faction Wehrmacht players; who are and remain notoriously toxic about the balance of their tanks. Heavily armored to the point that they frequently trade for 2 Allied Forces tanks, with shells bouncing off anything short of a rear armor shot. There was only one way to counter them for the longest time, which was literally win the game faster than they can get tanks out.

Anyone saying Gamgee called someone a Nazi is dumb and intentionally trying to dismiss him.

Nowadays the OP gak is ironically penal legions... or otherwise known as conscripts...

Honestly dude, have a go at someone for what they say, not what you imply from what they say. You want a dig at gamgee? - ask him about the great eldar boycott. That's how i got into the thread (still boycotting btw.... hold the line, gamgee). But nazis? I'm about as big an donkey-cave as they come, but i'm not going to say he was making nazi comparisons because he wasn't. You can urban dictionary all you want, he didn't say nazis. He didn't come close.

Some semblance of back on topic: errr, thank you gw? If i ever go for the army i've been looking at, i'll be sure to include a guard brigade with conscripts. Yay?

Thank GOOOOD this happened. I don't care how they get nerfed, I don't care if GW sends out a formal statement telling all players to melt their IG models, i'm just glad this is going to be over soon. I don't mind if they are just great. I can deal with great. IG can still be on the top of the pecking order for all I care, as long as I have a high hope to actually take an IG army down. With the current way it is, IG isn't just number 1. It's also number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with everything else falling far behind their power level.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Thank GOOOOD this happened. I don't care how they get nerfed, I don't care if GW sends out a formal statement telling all players to melt their IG models, i'm just glad this is going to be over soon. I don't mind if they are just great. I can deal with great. IG can still be on the top of the pecking order for all I care, as long as I have a high hope to actually take an IG army down. With the current way it is, IG isn't just number 1. It's also number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with everything else falling far behind their power level.

There seem to be 2 camps of people - those who think this 'nerf' will make a difference, and those who don't.

Though, this thread did make me realize there hasnt really been a GT winning mono faction Imperial list since 5th.

6th and 7th had Azareal + Guard, Draigo+Tigurius/Loth+Centurions, Iron Priests+Ravenwing+White Scars, 8th has the current Imperial Soup...

I know all Knights and Battle Companies were a thing, but I dont remember them ever winning a huge event. Could be wrong, of course.

KurtAngle2 wrote:
This conscript change is laughable and won't change anything

Seconded.
Units of 30 are sufficient. The 4+ could be rerolled if necessary.

The conscript changes only encourage their use in Imperial Soup over in pure guard armies, no?

1. I was referencing the wehraboo coh community. Quickjaeger got it quick.
2. Calling someone a wehraboo is very distinct from nazi. If you call someone a weeb does that make him an imperial army fascist? No. Just an annoying fanboy.
3. I have apologized in the past for my Eldar boycotts in particular a few weeks after the supplement for chapters came to 7th and introduced Death Stars which crushed everything. I then realized GW had a bigger problem. Not that anyone seems to remember this. I've also mentioned it a few times since then. People like to think I'm some horrifying monster I guess.

I suppose if your preferred balancing tool is Exterminatus, of course anything short of utter annihilation will seem insufficient.

 Gamgee wrote:
People like to think I'm some horrifying monster I guess.

No, you just have some kind of huge victimisation complex. The things you claim are nonsensical, like you say no one complains about Guilliman... which is just so ridiculous I have trouble even arguing the point. You claim you've been defending everyone, and that's simply not true. You might have agreed with someone at some point, but you've never not been bashing at some other faction. You claim that now you're under attack by Tau rules, and no one is defending you... no one is arguing that Tau are anything but low tier at the moment.

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you have just made up this whole victim attitude that doesn't have any anchor in reality at all.

People assumed I was calling everyone nazi's?

 Gamgee wrote:
People assumed I was calling everyone nazi's?

A not entirely weird assumption when you use a fringe insult from a different game system's online vocabulary. It's an incredibly small subset of people that will know it and this forum is not the right audience for it.

It also isn't a single one of the things I highlighted.

 Gamgee wrote:
3. I have apologized in the past for my Eldar boycotts in particular a few weeks after the supplement for chapters came to 7th and introduced Death Stars which crushed everything. I then realized GW had a bigger problem. Not that anyone seems to remember this. I've also mentioned it a few times since then. People like to think I'm some horrifying monster I guess.

Myself, i don't always read the forums so i probably have missed that. Don't worry about it, it's all in fun. Own it, accept it, and move on. Laugh when it gets brought up, coz if this is the worst thing you've got going for you - you're doing pretty well. I think it's hysterically funny, not horrifying monster, but remember - i used to play 40k. It's so easy to get caught in little circles of this army is better, or those people aren't interested in balance, that you need to step back and appreciate the whole picture. Like i said before, this is the game and likely always will be. You need to find a way to be at peace with that, one way or another.

 Gamgee wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Des702 wrote:


Hopefully GW will take a nice Conservative approach to all units that need some re balancing.

I think the problem a lot of players have, and the reason why Xenos players especially are getting angry even though the codex isn't totally revealed yet, is that this does look so far like a very mild nerf. A conservative approach, that may in a few months time lead to another minor change in a chapter approved.

It annoys them because the Imperium is getting minor/conservative changes to units causing major problems, while Xenos players got huge blanket knee-jerk nerfs that made units totally unplayable, with little or no justification.

If GW only took a conservative approach to all armies, then it would be good. It's the best way to balance. But instead they listen to the imperium crybabies, nerf the naughty aliens into the ground, and then eventually give token non-changes to the imperium units that are clearly causing problems.

It's annoying, and disheartening.

Saying all that, I hope the knee-jerk nerfs were a reaction to the indexes, and so such problems will be fixed (especially for xenos) as their codices are released. Otherwise 8th edition is going to be the Horus Heresy - Big Humans vs Smaller Humans vs Angry Humans, all day long.

Thank you for this. 8th edition balancing is bigger hypocritical gak than 7th now. In 7th the newest was the strongest giving a weird level of balance out to everyone. Here it's imps all day every day and sometimes chaos too. This balance change is so one sided it's making me pack up and move on from 8th. Despite now being able to play I now don't want to touch 30k 2.0 with a ten foot pole. Guilliman is super overpowered and no one ever complains.

Imp players = wehraboos who destroyed company of heroes 1+2 balance. Never trust wehraboos for balancing. Most biased fans in existence.

Sorry but your idea of 7th is objectively false. The "newest is the strongest" has never, ever been a thing with balance in this game. Allies throw a lot of monkey wrench in the discussion, but there has never been a trend of power creep where the new shiny was on top. More often than not this has not been the case where new releases have been to top. Those releases have been on top generally, when they were Imperial (especially with allies post 6th), Eldar (almost always strong with a new book until the index), Tau (somewhat, though not really near the top), or Daemons. OF the 18 Codices released in 7th, only 7 might have been on the stronger end and books from a year before the edition released (Daemons, Eldar) Dominated most of the edition (with Eldar getting an update).


Codex Release Date Top tier/strongest at the time?
Space Marines Oct-08 maybe Start of 5th
Imperial Guard May-09 Yes
Space Wolves Oct-09 Yes, comparable to IG
Tyranids Jan-10 NO
Blood Angels Apr-10 NO
Dark Eldar Nov-10 NO
Grey Knights Apr-11 Yes
Sisters of Battle August-11 NO
Necrons Nov-11 maybe, no where near GK in 5th got better at 6th release
CSM Oct-12 NO Start of 6th
Dark Angels Jan-13 NO
Chaos Daemons Mar-13 Yes, their previous old book was also good at the time of this release with WD additions
Tau Empire Apr-13 Yes
Eldar Jun-13 Yes
Space Marines Sep-13 near the top with allies
Adepta Sororitas Oct-13 NO
Inquisition Nov-13 NO
Tyranids Jan-14 No, only flyrants
Imperial Knights Mar-14 maybe
Legion of Damned Mar-14 NO
Astra Militarum Apr-14 No
Militarum Temp Apr-14 NO
Orks Jun-14 NO Start of 7th
Grey Knights Aug-14 NO
Space Wolves Aug-14 Yes, with allies
Dark Eldar Oct-14 NO
Blood Angels Dec-14 NO
Necrons Jan-15 yes, decurion
Harlequins Feb-15 NO
Khorne Daemonkin Mar-15 NO
Craftworlds Apr-15 Yes
Skitarii Apr-15 NO
Cult Mechanicus May-15 Yes war convo
Imperial Knights May-15 NO
Dark Angels Jun-15 Yes, with allies
Space Marines Jun-15 Yes, with allies
Tau Empire Oct-15 Only Riptides
Deathwatch Aug-16 NO
Genestealer Cults Sep-16 NO
Imperial Agents Dec-16 NO

Boy this thread went off the rails fast.

Either way, I stand by my point that Conscripts are only OP because the game state heavily leans on the utility of screening units, and they are excellent screening units.

I've seen IG played with all artillery or all russes and it doesn't work. People run up, boop them gently in the nose with a wet noodle, and the tanks can no longer shoot ever. It's what made me continue to put the 1st Concordian (my LRBTs) in retirement and continue to use the 2nd Concordian (my superheavies) to scratch my tank itch- because a pure Russ army is gakky.

So guard have excellent firepower and good screens - this combines to make a fairly good, if immobile, army. Back that up with some mobile Imperial Soup options such as Celestine, or other "mobile" options such as Elysians or Scions, and you get a recipe for victory.

You can adjust points however you want, but it's a fine line to walk, because of how 8th is designed.

Screens are part of the game, and they have to be durable screens or everyone is just going to blat them turn 1 and hold their offensive till turn 2.

100% reliable,100% accurate deepstrike with 100% of your reserves at the same time are the reasons conscripts are OP.

Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.

These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Boy this thread went off the rails fast.

Either way, I stand by my point that Conscripts are only OP because the game state heavily leans on the utility of screening units, and they are excellent screening units.

I've seen IG played with all artillery or all russes and it doesn't work. People run up, boop them gently in the nose with a wet noodle, and the tanks can no longer shoot ever. It's what made me continue to put the 1st Concordian (my LRBTs) in retirement and continue to use the 2nd Concordian (my superheavies) to scratch my tank itch- because a pure Russ army is gakky.

So guard have excellent firepower and good screens - this combines to make a fairly good, if immobile, army. Back that up with some mobile Imperial Soup options such as Celestine, or other "mobile" options such as Elysians or Scions, and you get a recipe for victory.

You can adjust points however you want, but it's a fine line to walk, because of how 8th is designed.

Screens are part of the game, and they have to be durable screens or everyone is just going to blat them turn 1 and hold their offensive till turn 2.

100% reliable,100% accurate deepstrike with 100% of your reserves at the same time are the reasons conscripts are OP.

Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.

These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.

The issue is conscripts as a HARD counter, because by hard countering this type of assault, they also hard counter all other types of assault, combine that with artillery they hard counter a lot of shooting as well. I'd honestly see rather see screens made a bit weaker in this edition and "interceptor" type rules made into more of a thing. I also wish they hadn't given armies 1CP infiltration strategems, as that makes first turn assault far too easy (9" charges are risky, 9" move and charge are trivial).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.

These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.

If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.

Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.

There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.

And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.

Honestly, I wonder how much of this is a combination of invisible deathstar players salty over the loss of their win condition, and assault players who feel like GW trolled them because they got hyped about turn-1 assaults before finding out how chaff works.

"Turn 1 assaults! Turn 1 deep strikes! Rejoice, assault armies, revel in your ability to lock down the enemy on turn 1 every time, easy wins without ever firing a shot!

PS - Fall-back, new wound chart, no null deploy, and Conscripts. UMad?
Sincerely,
GW"

TBH they really should have seen that coming though. Did they really think GW was going to hand them all their dreams on a platter and leave nothing to counter it?

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.

These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.

If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.

Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.

There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.

And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.

Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?

The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.

These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.

If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.

Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.

There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.

And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.

Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?

The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.

This assumes that during that time you cannot cripple your opponents on table force (half his units), which apparently are enough to blow away your screen turn 1. You also need to remember that on each of those turns they only have at best about a 50% chance of getting the charge. I'm also missing the ton of effective deepstrike assault armies from reserve. I see GSC, Nids, and that is most of the best ones that can do it in volume with good units.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?

The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.

Surely what should actually be happening here is that an army that relies on deep striking should be able to have enough anti-screen stuff on the board to have a good chance of being able to get lots of value out of their deep strikers on turn 2 or 3, unless the other player has put so many points into otherwise-bad screening units that they're at a serious disadvantage against lists that don't rely on deep striking. This doesn't really seem like what's going on.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.

These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.

If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.

Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.

There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.

And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.

Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?

The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.

...it sounds a lot like you want assault armies to never have a chance to get to you, and you consider that balanced.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn 1 assaults are the reasons conscripts are OP.

These are staples of 8th edition armies which conscripts hard-counter because they have to otherwise the guard get stomped.

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of why conscripts are op, and if they were what you see them as (in an incredibly biased scope) then they would have been perfectly balanced, and there would be no problem with them.

If what Conscripts did was protect against first turn charges, then they'd be a measured defence against a strong strategy. What they actually do is negate first turn charges, and then by bodycount and immunity to morale, mire any unit down for another 2 rounds. OP isn't what you're describing. That would have been perfect. OP is when there are so many bodies in conscript heavy armies that you can't get through them in several rounds, because there is no dedicated weapon that is good at taking down multiple models.

Every weapon that used to be good at it, now does several damage instead, making it better at taking down multi wound models and worse at taking down single wound models.

There is not A SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME that scales well into taking care of mass-body spam. Explosions, flamers etc etc all do an amount of wounds on the unit which lends itself to terrible scalability.And that is the problem.

And there is literally no downside, only upsides to bringing MORE bodies. What's the side-effect of bringing massive amounts of conscripts? Well, that you will be able to take 3 battalions without even trying and that gives you 9CP. Oh, how terrible.

Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?

The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.

This assumes that during that time you cannot cripple your opponents on table force (half his units), which apparently are enough to blow away your screen turn 1. You also need to remember that on each of those turns they only have at best about a 50% chance of getting the charge.

Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.

And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.

Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?

I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes but how good of a screen would they be if you blew through them in 1 turn, then deepstruck on turn 2 and /then/ alpha (or beta) struck the IG army?

The problem is that these deep strike assaulters who are 100% accurate and 100% capable and 100% reliable the turn they arrive can even choose which turn to arrive on so long as it doesn't pass turn 3. So you essentially have to have the screen last through Turn 3, or you'll end up having people deep-strike and assault you with no repercussions... again.

Surely what should actually be happening here is that an army that relies on deep striking should be able to have enough anti-screen stuff on the board to have a good chance of being able to get lots of value out of their deep strikers on turn 2 or 3, unless the other player has put so many points into otherwise-bad screening units that they're at a serious disadvantage against lists that don't rely on deep striking. This doesn't really seem like what's going on.

Not sure that's true, because getting "lots of value" out of your deepstrikers ever. Scions are a perfect example of a deep-striking unit that gets lots of value.

The advantages of deepstrikers are:

1) Can close with the enemy (and even assault them) with no (or very little) chance of ever being stopped beforehand.
2) Can be wherever they want whenever they want, essentially, if objectives are needed.
3) Have literally infinite durability until they finally shoot their bolt, which means they are infinitely durable until they delete something.

That utility alone should make deepstrikers inefficient at the actual job of killing for their points. Right now, they're not, and they're OP for it (example: scions).

Balance is so hard in 40k.

Not to seem like too much of a jerk, but complaining about Conscripts is like crying at the river. No matter what you say it keeps moving and will not stay the same very long. Eventually, a new Codex, a new model with cool rules, or some change to game mechanics will make those Imperial Soup lists a lot less powerful.

I'm glad GW did something about Conscripts and we will see how having orders fail half the time works out. Some people have pointed Command Point rerolls can impact this, which is true once per turn for a single unit. For the most part, Conscripts will be squishy half the time, and this is really good considering some of the games I have played.

I'm not saying this is a great nerf. But it's one of those nerfs that creates an opportunity to counter something I run into in games. When I do play against Imperium Soup lists, Gulliman is always sneaking up behind Conscripts. Now I have at least some sort of chance to actually shoot at him before he reaches my army, and I think that's the best this change represents. It's the river flowing, it doesn't care about my opinion, I'm just grateful it's not where it was yesterday.

Would it be okay if we moved on to complaining about Doctrines, Veterans, Scions and Earthshaker rounds now? Honestly, those things concern me more than screening units. Seems incredibly unfair those Doctrines apply to things like Baneblades.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.

And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.

Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?

I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.

This seems implausible. Deep striking assault units are actually very easy to ward off even without very durable screeners. For example, a 15 point Cyberwolf model/unit denies deep striking in a 9.5" diameter circle. If it gets killed, you move another one up to where it was. There's nothing your opponent can do about this between your movement phase and when he has to bring in his deep strikers. Other deep strikers are also great for this; there are a bunch of cheap Elysian things that you can drop in to deny deep striking in a big area. So Conscripts are actually not necessary at all for dealing with deep striking CC units, or deep strikers in general. They just do it hugely better than other units that already do a perfectly satisfactory job, and they're good for a lot of other purposes like holding objectives and bogging down footslogging CC units.

 ross-128 wrote:
Honestly, I wonder how much of this is a combination of invisible deathstar players salty over the loss of their win condition, and assault players who feel like GW trolled them because they got hyped about turn-1 assaults before finding out how chaff works.

"Turn 1 assaults! Turn 1 deep strikes! Rejoice, assault armies, revel in your ability to lock down the enemy on turn 1 every time, easy wins without ever firing a shot!

PS - Fall-back, new wound chart, no null deploy, and Conscripts. UMad?
Sincerely,
GW"

TBH they really should have seen that coming though. Did they really think GW was going to hand them all their dreams on a platter and leave nothing to counter it?

Hello,

assault player here. Conscripts don't do gak against boyz.

Sincerly,

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Who cares if the table force is "crippled", all they have to do is survive. You could have 1 acolyte left hiding out of LOS inside a building and be fine.

And yes, they do only have a 50% chance of getting the charge. Without any re-rolls or help beyond a base stratagem. Which a lot of armies have, and more will get as the codices drop. So only 4 out of their 8 deepstrikers will make it and you only lose 4 tanks. Woo, balance.

Can you imagine what armies would look like if conscripts didn't exist?

I can totally see a competitive army of 12 acolytes with 2 Primaris Psykers as the on-table component of an army (which takes up 2 Vanguard detachments) and then 14 heavy deepstriking assault units with the other 1825 or so points.

This seems implausible. Deep striking assault units are actually very easy to ward off even without very durable screeners. For example, a 15 point Cyberwolf model/unit denies deep striking in a 9.5" diameter circle. If it gets killed, you move another one up to where it was. There's nothing your opponent can do about this between your movement phase and when he has to bring in his deep strikers. Other deep strikers are also great for this; there are a bunch of cheap Elysian things that you can drop in to deny deep striking in a big area. So Conscripts are actually not necessary at all for dealing with deep striking CC units, or deep strikers in general. They just do it hugely better than other units that already do a perfectly satisfactory job, and they're good for a lot of other purposes like holding objectives and bogging down footslogging CC units.

You and I have different definitions of satisfactory.

Grots aren't very good, and also are a screening unit.
Gaunts are also not very good, and also are a screening unit.
Kroot aren't good at all, and also are a screening unit.

Every other screening unit being gakky does not mean conscripts should be gakky, it means they should come up.

We need youtube memes. The hearthstone community can live with the eras of some totally toxic OP deck because they take it with a laugh. So, who wants to do some Conscripts memes? Maybe that way people will be less angry, all the time.