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.

He's not moving the goal posts when the example of how to remove the conscripts involves fully functional uninjured units and takes 3 turns.

As I said I am fine nerfing the artillery, but that tends to meet with the same resistance except on a fluff side, that it makes artillery need LOS to be good.

This is a game, and things need to be balanced for both players to have fun.

Purifier wrote:I haven't changed the goalposts at all. I'm telling you the math is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off, because you're making assumptions in that statement that isn't based in reality. You're assuming that 200 conscripts can't kill a single Marine in 4 rounds for that math to work. That is not changing the goalposts. You're being absolutely ridiculous. If we can just ignore math I could have just said "well, you can get 800 conscripts for 4 points!" and when you say "no you can't" I just go STOP RUNNING WITH THE GOALPOSTS!

This was your exact post, only edited to remove the quote you were replying to.

Purifier wrote:Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.

I think I did exactly what you asked. The fact that you have a problem with it isn't my fault.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Purifier wrote:I haven't changed the goalposts at all. I'm telling you the math is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off, because you're making assumptions in that statement that isn't based in reality. You're assuming that 200 conscripts can't kill a single Marine in 4 rounds for that math to work. That is not changing the goalposts. You're being absolutely ridiculous. If we can just ignore math I could have just said "well, you can get 800 conscripts for 4 points!" and when you say "no you can't" I just go STOP RUNNING WITH THE GOALPOSTS!

This was your exact post, only edited to remove the quote you were replying to.

Purifier wrote:Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.

I think I did exactly what you asked. The fact that you have a problem with it isn't my fault.

Do you honestly not understand how math works? You did NOT do what I asked. The unit you quoted can NOT take out the 660 points, since the conscripts at the worst of times have overwatch and can hit back. Realistically they would also be able to shoot at them with their full force between every round of combat the marines get.

Realistically, they'll get to do that manouvre once, and then the next round, whatever unit they walked into after killing the previous one walks away. The rest of the units fire in rapid fire range. The Marines are dead.

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Purifier wrote:I haven't changed the goalposts at all. I'm telling you the math is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off, because you're making assumptions in that statement that isn't based in reality. You're assuming that 200 conscripts can't kill a single Marine in 4 rounds for that math to work. That is not changing the goalposts. You're being absolutely ridiculous. If we can just ignore math I could have just said "well, you can get 800 conscripts for 4 points!" and when you say "no you can't" I just go STOP RUNNING WITH THE GOALPOSTS!

This was your exact post, only edited to remove the quote you were replying to.

Purifier wrote:Ok, 600 points is 200 conscripts. A Commissar is 30 points. Let's give them 2. Now give me your best 660 points for removing them and tell me how many rounds it will take it. Hiding Commissars is trivial, so let's say one is open enough that you can snipe him, the other is not. By using dumb placements with tendrils of men, every unit is able to benefit from either commissar. Hit me.

I think I did exactly what you asked. The fact that you have a problem with it isn't my fault.

Do you honestly not understand how math works? You did NOT do what I asked. The unit you quoted can NOT take out the 660 points, since the conscripts at the worst of times have overwatch and can hit back.

I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.

I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".

So I did.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.

I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".

So I did.

.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.

I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".

So I did.

.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?

Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.

Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.

Done.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.

I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".

So I did.

.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?

Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.

Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.

Done.

Ok, there are now 150 left and it's the turn of the conscripts. The Marines are dead.
Nope, they didn't manage to wipe out 200 conscripts.

I can't believe the level of disingenuous you would have to be to pretend like you don't understand that the conscripts get to use their skills too when we're talking about balance.

I didn't state that the Marines get to fire their weapons either, so why did you do that in the example?

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.

I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".

So I did.

.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?

Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.

Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.

Done.

Ok, there are now 550 left and it's the turn of the conscripts. The Marines are dead.
Nope, they didn't manage to wipe out 600 conscripts.

I can't believe the level of disingenuous you would have to be to pretend like you don't understand that the conscripts get to use their skills too when we're talking about balance.

I didn't state that the Marines get to fire their weapons either, so why did you do that in the example?

I assumed you were asking for a DPS check, like one might do in an MMO against a target-dummy NPC that doesn't fight back, to determine the DPS they have so that when it comes time to do an actual dungeon or whatever you know what everyone's max DPS is against a target that neither defends itself nor retaliates.

This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, you are right Asmodios. In Age of Sigmar for example, you had the meta competitive lists that where mortal wound spam, but nobody ran their "anti meta army" that was Hordes.
But the problem is that having a deck in Hearthstone and a Army in warhammer is like... hundreds of euros cheaper and you only need to spend like 20-30 minutes opening the packs and building your decks.
One can't expect the same kind of "meta adapting" mentality in a wargame than in a computer card game.

EDIT: Ok I should read posts to the last phrase before I respond to them, you already said this

Yup quiet a bit cheaper hahaha.... One thing I also think people aren't taking into consideration is in games like HS all the balance changes take place at once, but you have to be patient with WH because it takes over a year. People keep comparing conscripts to grots... yes grots are worse and orks are in a tough spot right now but I expect they will be in a good spot after the codex drop it just takes a while. IMO GW has been updating at a great rate and what they have released has been solid, I wouldn't freak out much till after each book gets its codex. Also, lots of the issues stem from the Imperium being able to mix and match different armies. That's the equivalent of mixing class cards in HS imo there needs to be strict limitations or disadvantages for mixing. Of course, the orks codex will never be able to compete with the best units of like 10 codexes mashed together.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.

A DPS check has exactly zero relevance here, and it's completely obvious that this is the case. I'm terribly sorry that I didn't lay down the entirely obvious in text form.

Now please, try again, this time without making ridiculous assumptions.

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.

A DPS check has exactly zero relevance here, and it's completely obvious that this is the case. I'm terribly sorry that I didn't lay down the entirely obvious in text form.

Now please, try again, this time without making ridiculous assumptions.

How about instead of wasting my time trying to draaaaaaag out of you whatever it is you're actually asking for, since apparently there are a bunch of unstated assumptions in every post and I'm risking stepping in a minefield by missing one, I just don't, and we can end it here. That seems like it would be the more reasonable response.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.

A DPS check has exactly zero relevance here, and it's completely obvious that this is the case. I'm terribly sorry that I didn't lay down the entirely obvious in text form.

Now please, try again, this time without making ridiculous assumptions.

How about instead of wasting my time trying to draaaaaaag out of you whatever it is you're actually asking for, since apparently there are a bunch of unstated assumptions in every post and I'm risking stepping on a minefield of missing one, I just don't, and we can end it here. That seems like it would be the more reasonable response.

I think anyone except for you is entirely capable of understanding that there has to be some kind of link to the actual game in the example. Besides, I wasn't even asking you when you dragged up something that was clearly completely wrong to respond to something that wasn't for you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.

I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".

So I did.

.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?

Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.

Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.

Done.

Ok, there are now 550 left and it's the turn of the conscripts. The Marines are dead.
Nope, they didn't manage to wipe out 600 conscripts.

I can't believe the level of disingenuous you would have to be to pretend like you don't understand that the conscripts get to use their skills too when we're talking about balance.

I didn't state that the Marines get to fire their weapons either, so why did you do that in the example?

I assumed you were asking for a DPS check, like one might do in an MMO against a target-dummy NPC that doesn't fight back, to determine the DPS they have so that when it comes time to do an actual dungeon or whatever you know what everyone's max DPS is against a target that neither defends itself nor retaliates.

This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.

What I'm wondering is when did this go from "about 3x their points for a one-turn wipe" to "500-ish points of Marines can't wipe out 1800 points of conscripts (that's how much 600 conscripts cost), not good enough".

I would think it's pretty obvious why the conscripts don't get to shoot back in a one turn wipe. I also think it would be pretty obvious why suddenly throwing 550 more conscripts into the equation would suddenly swing it the other way. That's just a lot of extra points you've thrown in.

 ross-128 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I understand how math works. I also understand how arguments work.

I don't see anywhere in your initial post where you said the conscripts get to shoot back / should shoot back / should do anything other than be a punching bag. If you meant that, I understand, but it's not what I got out of it. Your challenge was "kill 660 points of conscripts and commissars and tell me how long it takes".

So I did.

.... when would that ever be the case? How would you NOT assume that they don't even HIT back? I mean that isn't even optional. You HAVE to hit back. And in a conversation about balance, HOW DO YOU THINK TO ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT ONE OF THE UNITS DOES NOT SHOOT BACK?

Because it wasn't specified in the initial conditions.

Also you'll note that the squad they charged was wiped out before it had the opportunity to swing back. So let me do the math there: 0 wounds to the marines from the mandatory hits back.

Done.

Ok, there are now 550 left and it's the turn of the conscripts. The Marines are dead.
Nope, they didn't manage to wipe out 600 conscripts.

I can't believe the level of disingenuous you would have to be to pretend like you don't understand that the conscripts get to use their skills too when we're talking about balance.

I didn't state that the Marines get to fire their weapons either, so why did you do that in the example?

I assumed you were asking for a DPS check, like one might do in an MMO against a target-dummy NPC that doesn't fight back, to determine the DPS they have so that when it comes time to do an actual dungeon or whatever you know what everyone's max DPS is against a target that neither defends itself nor retaliates.

This is a concept that has existed in gaming for a while. The fact that you don't seem to either be aware of it or don't understand how I could have inferred that from your request is surprising.

What I'm wondering is when did this go from "about 3x their points for a one-turn wipe" to "500-ish points of Marines can't wipe out 1800 points of conscripts (that's how much 600 conscripts cost), not good enough".

I would think it's pretty obvious why the conscripts don't get to shoot back in a one turn wipe. I also think it would be pretty obvious why suddenly throwing 550 more conscripts into the equation would suddenly swing it the other way. That's just a lot of extra points you've thrown in.

And I would think it's obvious that I wrote the numbers wrong and I did change them in an edit a while ago. There are still 150 that get to shoot. I mean honestly, the edit is 10 minutes before you posted...

It's obvious that Ross is dragging this out entirely. Seriously you think anyone is going to buy the fact that he was asking for something entirely unrelated? Who in 40k uses a DPS check like some odd MMO?

There's only one person here dragging the goalposts and it isn't Purifier.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Man, this thread had Gamgee heavily implying Imperial Soup players are Nazis (fans of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but not Nazis, srs!), people complaining about the nerf, even though we havent seen the whole book, and even if thats it it is pretty decent nerf - not the hammer that we usually get, but a cut in their effectiveness that can easily be built upon or changed with a FAQ/errata - all theyd have to do is errata the 4+ to no orders, for example.

Though, i cant wait to see a couple blob of catachan conscripts charging down the field to hit people...

I missed this, but i feel it needs addressing. The nazis were bad news (although this is cultural, some people/cultures deny the holocaust existed). But not all germans (like the military) actually liked the nazis. They just followed orders, and got dragged off at 3am in the morning if they didn't. Comparisons to the german airforce don't equate to the nazis. The wehrmacht existed before the nazis, as did most of the symbols and regalia that are now associated with the nazis. As for the "we haven't seen the whole book yet", yeah yeah i've heard that one before.

Im perfectly aware, i typically play Germany if i get the choice in those types of games (mostly because someone has to play the bad guy, partially because the Uniforms are cool). The higher ups that were not Nazis are typically ones that are well respected even after the war, like Rommel. The majority were Nazis, and while yes, their symbols and choice of mustaches were common and popular pre-Nazism, they now stand for one of the most vile regimes in Human history.

In the context in it was used, Conscript/Imperial players were being called Nazis without saying the actual word. Dont lecture us when you are cherry picking the context to get on a soap box about how not all Germans were Nazis. Anyone whos taken a cursory glance at a history book would know that.

Hey, looks are the most important part. What good is being good if you aren't stylin'? After all, the ladies call me Ranch because I be dressin'.

Well I can also tell you that 150 conscripts definitely won't wipe 500 points of marines in a single turn, especially without an officer to give them orders. Considering each shot only has a 1/27 chance of killing one at all.

Adjusting the marine force from under 500 to 660 will probably get you 10-15 more marines too, those extra marines will want to shoot a second squad because they already expect to wipe the first in combat. So the second squad will take a few losses plus a blam.

If the conscripts are all in rapid fire range, then they're close enough for those marines to consolidate into combat after they wipe the first squad. The squad they consolidate into will fall back of course, but without an officer now it can't fire.

So one squad is dead, one is damaged and can't fire. The marines will take about 5 casualties from the other two squads double tapping, then maaaybe 1 from overwatch, but are still more than strong enough to wipe the second and badly damage the third.

Overall I'd expect the marines to win in 3-4 turns depending on things like overkill and transitions between squads, taking 15 casualties give or take about 3. With orders they'll take more of course, but on four squads that's another 60 points to play with.

In 30 man squads it gets a bit more complicated but basically the marines will want to split their attention to kill two squads at a time, ideally allocating excess firepower onto a third. The big thing will be to avoid wasting fire on overkill. However in 7 squads (6 30s and a 20) you'll need four officers for 120 points if you want to add orders. The marines will also take far less overwatch, because any individual squad they assault will have fewer models surviving the shooting phase. Just the squad nerf alone is great for the marines, if they fail an order that's just a bonus.

What about morale losses for the marines?

 Purifier wrote:
What about morale losses for the marines?

What chapter of Marines and how are their squads built. For example Ultamarines with their +1 running 5 man squads don't really have to worry about morale.

That depends very heavily on how the marine player deployed their squads. In general though, because of their high LD and ATSKNF, morale losses should be negligible outside of really bad rolls. If the Marines are MSU, even the worst roll will only ever see them take 1 loss to morale: a 6 after 3 losses, a 5 or 6 after 4 losses with 1 survivor. Due to re-rolls, these have a chance of 1/36 and 1/9 respectively

MSU marines are practically immune to morale.

The 50% on the table restriction should vary by army. In a soup detachment, 100% must be on the table. Specific armies get a percentage on the table, similar to the new chapter tactics everyone is getting.

This nerf is not the direction I would have went, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

 Nym wrote:

There is a fundamental flaw in 8th edition conception. The fact that detachment slots are basically unlimited (you can get 18 Troop slots) means that someone could bring 500 Conscripts to a game and basically just sit on objectives and win without throwing a single die (it takes 1687 bolter shots to kill them all. No army has this kind of firepower).

I enjoy that I just read "The fundamental flaw in 8th edition is that people can take too many troops."

Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?

 Hollow wrote:
Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?

Every IG in a vacuum to every single game, birthday party, vacation, and board meeting.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?

Every IG in a vacuum to every single game, birthday party, vacation, and board meeting.

"meeting adjourned"

*Gets up, drops briefcase, 500 conscripts fall on the floor*

"Jenkins! You never told us you were a POWERGAMER!"

"it's not what it looks like sir, I can explain! I swear I'm a fluff player, I - "

"YOUUUUUUURE FIRRRRRRED!"

Funny thing about fluff... For your opponent, a fluffy list also happens to be the most powerful list he can put together. Because he builds the list first and rationalizes the fluff later. For you, a fluffy list is any list your opponent can beat. Because they decide which units they don't like first, and rationalize why those units are unfluffy later. :p

 Hollow wrote:
Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?

Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.

Darsath wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?

Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.

This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.

Breng77 wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Wow... this issue has really brought out the crazy in people. Who the hell is bringing 500 conscripts with them to a game?

Yeah, people really are exaggerating the amount of conscripts people were bringing. They're overpowered for sure, and I don't think this change will mean a thing, but it's obvious that conscripts were most competitive in soup lists with a bunch of other Overpowered units in it.

This is definitely part of if. If Imperial soup were not a thing and conscripts were only in IG armies (not screening for things like RG or 10 Razorbacks) I think it would be more tolerable. My only complaint then would be IG artillery being too good with the inclusion of such a good screen and essentially unlimited range. I feel like "allies" should no longer be a thing in matched play, I think it is much easier to have a balanced game in that manner. Especially because the option to ally is not equal amongst factions. Then if GW wants to have ally factions (like Inquisition, Assassins etc) then that is ok or if they want composite factions like "ynnari", or Daemon summoning in CSM. I think that can work ok. But I don't think they have gone far enough to encourage playing single faction armies in matched play.

I agree with this. I don't mind that the "soup" exists, but I would prefer to see a little less of it when it comes to "primary" factions. It bugs me that in the Tyranid tactica people advocate taking IG artillery to be competitive.

haha, bugs me.