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.

I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.

Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.

Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.

Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.

Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.

What you're missing is that it wasn't "the strongest index" but rather two units(Conscripts and Commissars) were commonly being taken as part of Imperial Soup lists.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.

Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.

Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.

Yep. Buffs across the board.

You can tell by how plasma scions went up in price, conscripts only got orders on a 4+, and ended up with almost half their max unit size.

Those were my favorite buffs.

EDIT:

Also, people aren't upset by the strength nerf. In fact, there are still more than enough tools to compensate. They're upset that it is a theme nerf. I would rather have seen conscripts go away than commissars, since commissars are on the codex cover.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.

Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.

Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.

nobody is stating otherwise, mostly the issue is that the change basically kills the value of the Elites commissar for anything not involving Conscripts is all and allies shennanigans are still alivr and well.

I always laugh when people say that you should flank the IG gun-line for close combat armies. Like, do you even play 40k, at all?

And Unit, the problem here is that the IG community was so high on their own 7th ed Eldar status, you couldn't even discuss changes to conscripts, without people claiming there was no problem, or responding with some derisive comments about space marines. If GW is actually listening to feedback, and the feedback they're getting from IG players are "this is fine, everyone is a noob space marine," you already saw how they'd react. Maybe in the future be a part of the solution.

In the competitive arena, it was beyond obvious that conscripts and commissars were BOTH broken, relative to the strength of the rest of the armies in this game. Summary execution, and rules like it, are fundamentally not good for any kind of matched play.

I think they were both broken... with eachother.

I do not believe Commissars were broken in Scion armies, or in line infantry squads, or with veteran squads, or HWTs.

They were only broken with Conscripts.

I'm sad that it was the commissar that was removed from the tabletop; it should have been the conscripts.

Commissars were hardly an issue outside of Conscripts, nobody found them broken outside of that use.

That said, both units and the summary execution mechanic have been part of the army for many years and many editions, more than many armies have even existed and have their place.

Curiously, this is really the first edition where conscripts have ever had actual value. Commissars likewise have also spent most of their existence through the editions on shelves rather than the tabletop. These are both units that historically have been either pointless or awful, and in some ways, despite there having been some real issues with abuse of conscripts, it's also hard for people to square that because theyve been nothing but garbage level flair for most of the game's existence. The fact that Conscripts and Commissars are power units would have been literally laughable in most editions (unlike something such as say, Scatterlaser jetbikes, which would have had the ability to be very powerful in every edition of the last 20 years had they been available).

Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.

I would much sooner have seen Conscripts removed as an option, than see Commies given the stink-finger like that. His ability, regarding morale, has always basically been instead of losing a unit, you lose one dude. It's what he is supposed to do.

Anyhow, I haven't picked up the Codex yet. I really haven't been playing much. I was NOT enjoying my turn on the 8th edition throne. I would have been quite happy with a mid-range codex. More fun for me, that way.

Again, I think most IG players were aware of an issue with Conscripts though it was my experience [using a single 30-man squad at 1500 points] that they weren't the ungodly game-breaker that other people found... but then again I wasn't spamming the crap out of them either. I would have been completely happy with their removal, I've never really liked using them.

I'm also saddened that Commies are essentially useless. I was very happy using them to support "regular" squads, and I rather like the models. Oh well, c'est la vie.

*Smiles at ever-growing Warmachine collection...*

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.

Well you also had Combined Squads being a thing, allowing for those Infantry Squads to actually have more staying power than they do now.

Kap'n Krump wrote:I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.

Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.

Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.

The problem is that they nerfed the wrong unit. Rather than focus on the Conscripts, they nerfed the Commissar, to the point that the only time you'd even want to bring one is to use with Conscripts.

Marmatag wrote:I always laugh when people say that you should flank the IG gun-line for close combat armies. Like, do you even play 40k, at all?

And Unit, the problem here is that the IG community was so high on their own 7th ed Eldar status, you couldn't even discuss changes to conscripts, without people claiming there was no problem, or responding with some derisive comments about space marines. If GW is actually listening to feedback, and the feedback they're getting from IG players are "this is fine, everyone is a noob space marine," you already saw how they'd react. Maybe in the future be a part of the solution.

In the competitive arena, it was beyond obvious that conscripts and commissars were BOTH broken, relative to the strength of the rest of the armies in this game. Summary execution, and rules like it, are fundamentally not good for any kind of matched play.

Um...were we reading the same threads? I remember all of 2-3 people saying Conscripts were fine as is, and literally everyone else, Guard players included, suggesting fixes. The only thing close to what you were saying is people were screaming about WHAT the change should be - some were suggesting Commissars kill a d3 Conscripts, others a d6, others focused on orders, some said make them and Infantry +1 point per model each, and still more just said "lol, Conscripts should always kill the Commissar on a 6!".

And were Commissars really an issue with 10 man squads? As already noted, unless you blob up into one big ball of infantry, the price of a Commissar effectively increased the price of your Infantry, Vets, and Scions by 3 points per model, and on those occasions where he used his summary execution rule, it usually only would save 1-3 models.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I think they were both broken... with eachother.

I do not believe Commissars were broken in Scion armies, or in line infantry squads, or with veteran squads, or HWTs.

They were only broken with Conscripts.

I'm sad that it was the commissar that was removed from the tabletop; it should have been the conscripts.

Yup, this. Though they are still somewhat passable with Conscripts - 31 points for +4 leadership on a cheap, 30 man blob, isn't bad, and will force the opponent to focus down at least a few extra conscripts than if they were alone.

Its just that now they act as an actual hindrance to the regular infantry. Make the Commissar be actually helpful to the more experienced squads, or at least less of a liability to them, and I'd shut up. Use the new formula but divide by 2 for non-Conscripts, or maybe Summary Execution on non-Conscript units kills 1 guy, but them decreases morale losses by 1d6 or 1d3 - that way you always at least break even, and will more often than not lose fewer men than before.

I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.

Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.

Rough proposal:

When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.

If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.

 admironheart wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.

You realize that would make his ability the equivalent of rolling a 1 for morale every time. Since you lose 1 dude anyways and the unit is probably taking more than a couple casualties.
.

Now you have to decide is that fair for the points and for the army?

Should it be d6 cut in half or 2d6 and take the lowest, etc

For me the always roll a 1 for the morale check seems a bit too good.

I guess it appeals to me because it's not random. so if a commissar makes Conscripts LD8, that means for a 30-blob, you'd kill the last 10 if you killed 20, and for a 20-blob, you'd kill the last 7 if you killed 14.

For everyone else, the commissar would work like he used to - effectively Blam one guy to ignore morale, because an auto-1 on LD8 would only finish off the last dude if you'd already killed 9.

seems like a pretty elegant solution for Commissars with Conscripts solely, but it depends on how fair you'd consider his rules applying to normal infantry.

a Commissar body costs 30, ignoring weapons, because the weapons are priced according to what the weapons do. His defensive stats are approximately worth 3 guardsmen, call that 15 points. to almost everyone but conscripts, his LD power is +1LD, price that at 5 points to be equal to the Banner.

So once he saves 3 Guardsmen or 4 conscripts during a battle, his Summary Execution ability would be in the black. And we know to actually save a guardsman, you need to have the alternative be losing 2+ to morale, because the commissar kills 1 (you go even if you would have lost 1 guardsman anyway).

That means, for regular infantry units:

4 casualties: 1/6 (Max saves 1)
5 casualties: 1/3 (Max saves 2)
6 casualties: 1/2 (Max saves 3)
7 casualties: 2/3 (Max saves 2)
8 casualties: 5/6 (max saves 1)
9 casualties: doesn't matter, commissar shoots the last guy.

How would you value that ability? Would you consider it more fair if you knew when targeting a unit of conscripts *exactly* how many you had to kill to wipe the squad out?

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.

Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.

Rough proposal:

When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.

If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.

See when i say guard players don't acknowledge the problem, this is what i'm talking about.

Do you really think losing 1 model, to losing 2d3, is going to make any measurable difference when you're fielding hundreds of them? It will not.

Your guys fixes show a complete lack of understanding of the problem, and a serious desire to maintain the status quo.

Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?

 Marmatag wrote:
Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?

Base guardsman leadership (as long as the sergeant is alive, which is a long while) is 7. Eight, in the cases of two regimental doctrines, or a banner, or near an Inquisitor, or near a commissar tank (that only costs CPs not points).

Meaning the commissar is an active hindrance, that's what he does for them. Makes the army worse.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.

It was also the time of the basic bolter completely ignoring Conscripts' armor and Stomp having the possibility of wiping the entire squad in one go. I remember seeing different suggestions back in 7th on how to make a Conscript blob of doom though - it basically involved taking a Priest, since they were seen as better than Commissars in most ways, and then simply tarpitting something big and hoping it didn't have Stomp.

the_scotsman wrote:

 admironheart wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.

You realize that would make his ability the equivalent of rolling a 1 for morale every time. Since you lose 1 dude anyways and the unit is probably taking more than a couple casualties.
.

Now you have to decide is that fair for the points and for the army?

Should it be d6 cut in half or 2d6 and take the lowest, etc

For me the always roll a 1 for the morale check seems a bit too good.

I guess it appeals to me because it's not random. so if a commissar makes Conscripts LD8, that means for a 30-blob, you'd kill the last 10 if you killed 20, and for a 20-blob, you'd kill the last 7 if you killed 14.

For everyone else, the commissar would work like he used to - effectively Blam one guy to ignore morale, because an auto-1 on LD8 would only finish off the last dude if you'd already killed 9.

seems like a pretty elegant solution for Commissars with Conscripts solely, but it depends on how fair you'd consider his rules applying to normal infantry.

a Commissar body costs 30, ignoring weapons, because the weapons are priced according to what the weapons do. His defensive stats are approximately worth 3 guardsmen, call that 15 points. to almost everyone but conscripts, his LD power is +1LD, price that at 5 points to be equal to the Banner.

So once he saves 3 Guardsmen or 4 conscripts during a battle, his Summary Execution ability would be in the black. And we know to actually save a guardsman, you need to have the alternative be losing 2+ to morale, because the commissar kills 1 (you go even if you would have lost 1 guardsman anyway).

That means, for regular infantry units:

4 casualties: 1/6 (Max saves 1)
5 casualties: 1/3 (Max saves 2)
6 casualties: 1/2 (Max saves 3)
7 casualties: 2/3 (Max saves 2)
8 casualties: 5/6 (max saves 1)
9 casualties: doesn't matter, commissar shoots the last guy.

How would you value that ability? Would you consider it more fair if you knew when targeting a unit of conscripts *exactly* how many you had to kill to wipe the squad out?

Huh, that solution is pretty decent, and also it does not involve much math - all you need to remember is "blam a guy, I roll a 1 now" I guess pricing would depend on if he blams the guy before the morale check, or only after a failed check.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.

Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.

Rough proposal:

When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.

If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.

See when i say guard players don't acknowledge the problem, this is what i'm talking about.

Do you really think losing 1 model, to losing 2d3, is going to make any measurable difference when you're fielding hundreds of them? It will not.

Your guys fixes show a complete lack of understanding of the problem, and a serious desire to maintain the status quo.

Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?

1) Death Company have 1 lower leadership than normal marine units because they lack a sergeant. With a sergeant, a normal marine unit has LD8 to a guardsman sergeant's LD7. They also get ATSKNF base, which allows for a re-roll if they fail. If you're taking 5-man squads of Guard units, you lose the last member 1/2 the time if you took 4 casualties. If you're taking a 5-man squad of death company, you lose the last member 1/4 of the time if you took 4 casualties, thanks to ATSKNF. IIRC, Death Company are the worst leadership you can get on a marine unit, and they're still 50% to 600% likely to lose members to morale than equivalent LD guard units. Normal marines of the LD8 variety are comparatively better off.

2) Death Company also have a character they can take to boost their morale, who happens to make them completely immune to leadership casualties. He also provides a close combat buff, so he seems to be a no-brainer if you want to go more than a couple 5-man squads.

3) It is generally understood that Death Company are a very weak unit currently. Just like you would dismiss someone complaining that their unit is not as strong as Guilliman, why would you want other units brought in line with Death Company?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.

Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.

Rough proposal:

When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.

If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.

See when i say guard players don't acknowledge the problem, this is what i'm talking about.

Do you really think losing 1 model, to losing 2d3, is going to make any measurable difference when you're fielding hundreds of them? It will not.

Your guys fixes show a complete lack of understanding of the problem, and a serious desire to maintain the status quo.

Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?

They are Leadership 7 with their sergeant - a Commissar provides them +1 to their Leadership stat and a mandatory version of ATSKNF that you kill one of your own men to activate.

Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Commissar/Conscript relationship was too strong. The annoyance was that they threw the baby out with the bath water and made the Commissar a hindrance to normal Infantry.

Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.

Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.

And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.

I mean just recognize when you have it good.

"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"

kurhanik wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.

It was also the time of the basic bolter completely ignoring Conscripts' armor and Stomp having the possibility of wiping the entire squad in one go. I remember seeing different suggestions back in 7th on how to make a Conscript blob of doom though - it basically involved taking a Priest, since they were seen as better than Commissars in most ways, and then simply tarpitting something big and hoping it didn't have Stomp.

the_scotsman wrote:

 admironheart wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.

You realize that would make his ability the equivalent of rolling a 1 for morale every time. Since you lose 1 dude anyways and the unit is probably taking more than a couple casualties.
.

Now you have to decide is that fair for the points and for the army?

Should it be d6 cut in half or 2d6 and take the lowest, etc

For me the always roll a 1 for the morale check seems a bit too good.

I guess it appeals to me because it's not random. so if a commissar makes Conscripts LD8, that means for a 30-blob, you'd kill the last 10 if you killed 20, and for a 20-blob, you'd kill the last 7 if you killed 14.

For everyone else, the commissar would work like he used to - effectively Blam one guy to ignore morale, because an auto-1 on LD8 would only finish off the last dude if you'd already killed 9.

seems like a pretty elegant solution for Commissars with Conscripts solely, but it depends on how fair you'd consider his rules applying to normal infantry.

a Commissar body costs 30, ignoring weapons, because the weapons are priced according to what the weapons do. His defensive stats are approximately worth 3 guardsmen, call that 15 points. to almost everyone but conscripts, his LD power is +1LD, price that at 5 points to be equal to the Banner.

So once he saves 3 Guardsmen or 4 conscripts during a battle, his Summary Execution ability would be in the black. And we know to actually save a guardsman, you need to have the alternative be losing 2+ to morale, because the commissar kills 1 (you go even if you would have lost 1 guardsman anyway).

That means, for regular infantry units:

4 casualties: 1/6 (Max saves 1)
5 casualties: 1/3 (Max saves 2)
6 casualties: 1/2 (Max saves 3)
7 casualties: 2/3 (Max saves 2)
8 casualties: 5/6 (max saves 1)
9 casualties: doesn't matter, commissar shoots the last guy.

How would you value that ability? Would you consider it more fair if you knew when targeting a unit of conscripts *exactly* how many you had to kill to wipe the squad out?

Huh, that solution is pretty decent, and also it does not involve much math - all you need to remember is "blam a guy, I roll a 1 now" I guess pricing would depend on if he blams the guy before the morale check, or only after a failed check.

Post failure makes the most sense. I like it, it's clean, it works like it's supposed to, but it still leaves morale weaknesses. If conscripts are still too strong don't let commissars aura hit them imo.

kurhanik wrote:

Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Commissar/Conscript relationship was too strong. The annoyance was that they threw the baby out with the bath water and made the Commissar a hindrance to normal Infantry.

Absolutely untrue. Every single conscript thread featured the same cast of characters saying "it was too strong" proposing adjustments that really did nothing whatsoever to address the core problem. So either you guys didn't understand why it was too strong, or you didn't care. Either way, the outcome of not participating in a meaningful discussion, if indeed GW is listening to the community, backfired for you.

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.

Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.

And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.

I mean just recognize when you have it good.

"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"

For my own curiousity, do you feel that Guilliman needs a nerf?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.

Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.

Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.

What you're missing is that it wasn't "the strongest index" but rather two units(Conscripts and Commissars) were commonly being taken as part of Imperial Soup lists.

That isn't accurate Guard was the base for many of those soup lists no just 2 units. At the worst it was a top 2 index army. It lacked in internal balance but had a number of very good point efficient units

1.) commissars
2.) Conscripts
3.) Mortar teams
4.) Mantacores
5.) Basilisks
6.) scions command and otherwise
7.) Taurox primes
8.) Primaris Psykers

That isn't including FW units.

Conscripts were the most taken of these in soup lists that were not IG based primarily because they fill a role that most other imperial armies don't have, a cheap screen. But compare IG to most index armies and see what comes out as the top index. Initially it would be Marines with Storm Raven spam. Once that was fixed though it was a competition between IG and Chaos.

kurhanik wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:I think they were both broken... with eachother.

I do not believe Commissars were broken in Scion armies, or in line infantry squads, or with veteran squads, or HWTs.

They were only broken with Conscripts.

I'm sad that it was the commissar that was removed from the tabletop; it should have been the conscripts.

Yup, this. Though they are still somewhat passable with Conscripts - 31 points for +4 leadership on a cheap, 30 man blob, isn't bad, and will force the opponent to focus down at least a few extra conscripts than if they were alone.

Its just that now they act as an actual hindrance to the regular infantry. Make the Commissar be actually helpful to the more experienced squads, or at least less of a liability to them, and I'd shut up. Use the new formula but divide by 2 for non-Conscripts, or maybe Summary Execution on non-Conscript units kills 1 guy, but them decreases morale losses by 1d6 or 1d3 - that way you always at least break even, and will more often than not lose fewer men than before.

These are good points, but something that is being overlooked: Commissars are supposed to be bad people.

Mechanics-wise, I get it. Losing an additional model and being forced to reroll can be harsh (or maybe not.)

Fluff-wise, Commissars punishing Guardsmen for cowardice and having it backfire is totally in-line with the character.

I don't think Commissars will vanish from the tabletop. The impact on mechanics are being overstated, he's still going to be useful for the leadership buff, and fluffy players are not going to want to get rid of them. They're the new Assault Marine / Raptor, a slightly sub-optimal unit that pops up in games because it's cool.

Part of me is wondering when IG infantry started caring about losing a couple more bodies. There are Relics / Stratagems to prevent a seriously bad morale loss on a key unit. If Summary Execution has that much of an impact on Scions / HWTs, isn't is possible to keep them away?

 Marmatag wrote:

kurhanik wrote:

Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Commissar/Conscript relationship was too strong. The annoyance was that they threw the baby out with the bath water and made the Commissar a hindrance to normal Infantry.

Absolutely untrue. Every single conscript thread featured the same cast of characters saying "it was too strong" proposing adjustments that really did nothing whatsoever to address the core problem. So either you guys didn't understand why it was too strong, or you didn't care. Either way, the outcome of not participating in a meaningful discussion, if indeed GW is listening to the community, backfired for you.

GW isnt scouring Dakka for game design feedback, hate to tell you this. If they were, a lot of other things would have changed as well, and likely would have changed first.

And if they are, could you guys *please* make the Vanquisher and Exterminators worth taking?

Stop with this BS about the "Commisars don't help now, they actually are an hindrance". Is mathematically demostrable that it is ALWAYS better to have a Commisar that to not have him, with Conscripts, Tempestus, Ratlings and Infantry squads.


Source of the maths and credit to: https://www.lavozdehorus.com/la-realidad-matematica-tras-las-nuevas-reglas-del-comisario/

We can discuss about how minimal is in some of those untis the "buff", and if it is worth it for 31 points minimun. In my opinion? It isn't. Thats why I would change the Commisar rule to shoot a guy and reduce morale loses by a 1D6. And probably reduce them to 25 points minimun. This way they aren't inmune to morale and ARMIES like Night Lords can actually do SOMETHING agaisn't Imperial Guard.

But to achieve a valid point the hyperbole about commisars making the army worse needs to die.

 Marmatag wrote:

kurhanik wrote:

Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Commissar/Conscript relationship was too strong. The annoyance was that they threw the baby out with the bath water and made the Commissar a hindrance to normal Infantry.

Absolutely untrue. Every single conscript thread featured the same cast of characters saying "it was too strong" proposing adjustments that really did nothing whatsoever to address the core problem. So either you guys didn't understand why it was too strong, or you didn't care. Either way, the outcome of not participating in a meaningful discussion, if indeed GW is listening to the community, backfired for you.

We must have been reading different threads then....I remember 1-2 people saying that they were fine, and literally everyone else saying they needed a nerf. The issue was nobody could agree on what. Things that were suggested:

Commissar kills 1d3 or 1d6 conscripts
Conscripts no longer take orders, or at the least must roll for it
Conscripts squad size reduced
Increase points cost of Conscripts and Infantry by 1
Conscripts do not work with Commissar
Conscripts actively go out of their way to kill Commissar

And so on.

What we instead got was - Orders only go off on a 4+ - so they no longer have much of an offense (though they had little to begin with), squad size reduced, and now also a forced morale reroll that can actively make things worse for you. And honestly speaking - all of this is FINE on CONSCRIPTS - they are supposed to be a barrier that you can break past, not an unmovable wall. Commissars are still decent with Conscripts - throw one in with a Conscript blob and you get +4 Leadership for effectively +1ppm.

The problem is that Infantry, Veterans, HWT, Scions, etc, also got hit with the nerf. These units were not broken with a Commissar - the old Summary Execution rule basically made it so that you'd get 2-3 survivors if you got hit fairly hard, not an impenetrable wall.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.

Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.

And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.

I mean just recognize when you have it good.

"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"

For my own curiousity, do you feel that Guilliman needs a nerf?

I would say yes, but only if the rest of marines are buffed. Without Guilliman space marines have nothing in a proper tournament.

I have a Bobby G Asscannon party list. Without Bobby G it's a joke.

I'm willing to entertain a points cost increase for Guilliman but I want that to come with viable terminators, assault terminators, assault squads, veterans (vanguard, sternguard), drop pods, rhinos, flamers, heavy flamers, land raiders, centurions (assault, devastator), grav-weaponry, heavy bolters, boltguns that have value, artillery (thunderfire, whirlwind), vindicators, dreadnoughts with anything other than double dakka arms, i mean the list goes on... Also, I want Knights that can fit into a themed marine army and have their cost be appropriate considering how wicked strong a baneblade is.

I would also change Guilliman so he buffs space marines of all flavors, so he's not just a "blue marines only" kind of thing. Primarchs should transcend their legion.

FWIW, i would also say Magnus is undercosted too. I have Magnus, and he's just a model you "don't play" outside of competitive. Because he wrecks shop.
Celestine is another model that needs a fat nerf that i abuse.

I still think that a points bump would have been a more elegant solution, and better reflective of the capabilities and value of those models. S3 guns are better, and so is T3, and so is 5+ armor.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.

Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.

Rough proposal:

When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.

If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.

See when i say guard players don't acknowledge the problem, this is what i'm talking about.

Do you really think losing 1 model, to losing 2d3, is going to make any measurable difference when you're fielding hundreds of them? It will not.

Show me where a Conscript Squad can number "hundreds of models". I'll wait.

Additionally, losing 2d3 means you're losing at least a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6. That's after factoring in your actual casualties to enemy fire.

And not to mention the second part of that--requiring two Commissars in order to ensure that the Commissar himself doesn't get fragged.

Your guys fixes show a complete lack of understanding of the problem, and a serious desire to maintain the status quo.

Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?

You pay 31 points and an Elite slot, something that is actually fairly competitive for Commissars.

And who cares what Death Company have?
Scion Squads and Guardsmen Squads both have Sergeant equivalents. The Commissar effectively does nothing for them and did nothing for them before beyond allowing for your unit to just take one casualty from Morale instead of potentially losing more thanks to this pants on head idiotic change.


PS--I expect to hear you whining about Iyanden's Craftworld trait like you've been in this thread complaining about the Commissar ability.