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.

At 3 ppm, they must suffer full battle shock, or close to full battleshock. If they cost more, something like a 2D3 solutions becomes viable.

 techsoldaten wrote:

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.

Noone is arguing that Commissars should be firing hugs at the Conscripts or the other Guard squads.

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

I expect Iyanden to get this same treatment week one of their book. No excuses. If it was too powerful for flipping Conscripts, it's too powerful for Wraithguard and Aspect Warriors.

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

Fluff-wise, that "backfire" is the Commissars being ganked by veteran guardsmen and panicking recruits alike.

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.

The impact on mechanics is far from being overstated.

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?

Sure it is--by not taking a Commissar. I cannot overstate this now:
I will not ever take a Commissar at this point. I despised the unit before but had planned on occasionally running one with a Primaris Psyker since it's fluffy and they refuse to give "It's For Your Own Good" to Officers as well as Commissars(despite the fact that many Regiments train their Officers to recognize the signs of corruption yadda yadda yadda).

If I want a LD boost at this point, I'll take an Officio Prefectus Tank via the 2CP Stratagem. LD9 in a 6" Aura around a Leman Russ Battle Tank.
And as a bonus, no stupid "you must reroll" or losing numbers of models thanks to the whining of folks like Marmatag.

 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?"

Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?

Darkagl1 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?"

Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?

Because GW doesn't balance exclusively for competitive environments, when it comes to missions, and also rules where applicable. Some of the "chapter approved" updates are taken directly from the ITC rules that had been in place since 8th released.

ITC use their own sets of missions, standardized terrain layouts, and rules built for a fair play environment.

And to the guy who said, "show me how you field hundreds, i'll wait." Again this shows a complete lack of understanding. Prior to the nerf you'd see 200+ conscripts on the table sometimes, with every imperium list fielding at least 2-3 squads. When you have 90 bodies, and you force a morale check, losing 2D3 means NOTHING. Max it out at "3" and it's 6 models out of 90+, who cares, they're still locking out anyone for multiple turns while the big guns eviscerate everything.

Yes, so blatantly OP on Aspect warriors. Now, when we lose 3 of our 5 guys, on a 6 we only lose 1 guy to LD, instead of the 1 we'd normally lose. Or when we lose 4 of our 5 guys, we only lose 1 guy. So very broken. Aspects are LD8, rarely fielded in squad sizes of 6+, and several can show up as units of 3.

It's really more of a thing for Guardians. Which are Guardsmen at 8ppm.

Protection from battleshock is a more reasonable thing on more elite units than horde units.

Martel732 wrote:
At 3 ppm, they must suffer full battle shock, or close to full battleshock. If they cost more, something like a 2D3 solutions becomes viable.

And how, praytell, do you make them cost more?

A minimum sized squad is 60 points right now.
60 points for 20 models with BS5+ firing S3 AP0 24" Rapid Fire 1, accepting Orders only within 6"(they don't get access to a Vox-Caster) on a roll of 4+.
90 points for 30.

By comparison, it's 40 points for 10 BS4+ firing 9 of the same guns(the Sergeant only has access to a Laspistol to start with, anything else requires purchase--including a fething Chainsword that they kept trying to push on us in the past) accepting Orders automatically and having access to a Vox-Caster at 5 points for extending Orders to 18" assuming the Officer issuing them is within 3" range of a Vox-Caster as well.

If you want Conscripts to be 80/120? Then I want BS3+ Guardsmen, I want Lasguns on Sergeants, and I want Tempestors to have access to Hellguns as well. I want Veteran Squads being "Every model in this unit can take an item from the Astra Militarum Special Weapons List" as well.

Since apparently you've decided we have to pay Space Marine prices for things, we might as well just have more Space Marine tricks right?

You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.

But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.

Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

The impact on mechanics is far from being overstated.

Overstated is the correct term. Here's the math behind the impact of having / not having him:

https://www.lavozdehorus.com/la-realidad-matematica-tras-las-nuevas-reglas-del-comisario/

In each scenario, > 91% of the time it's better to have a Commissar. For Conscripts, there's about an 8% of chance of rerolling for more losses with Summary Execution. And that's only when they take 8 or more losses in a turn.

So that's nice to think we have a community that can come up with edge cases to suggest doomsday scenarios, it demonstrates just how clever and imaginative everyone is. But come on.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

The impact on mechanics is far from being overstated.

Overstated is the correct term. Here's the math behind the impact of having / not having him:

https://www.lavozdehorus.com/la-realidad-matematica-tras-las-nuevas-reglas-del-comisario/

In each scenario, > 91% of the time it's better to have a Commissar. For Conscripts, there's about an 8% of chance of rerolling for more losses with Summary Execution. And that's only when they take 8 or more losses in a turn.

So that's nice to think we have a community that can come up with edge cases to suggest doomsday scenarios, it demonstrates just how clever and imaginative everyone is. But come on.

exalted

Bharring wrote:
Yes, so blatantly OP on Aspect warriors. Now, when we lose 3 of our 5 guys, on a 6 we only lose 1 guy to LD, instead of the 1 we'd normally lose. Or when we lose 4 of our 5 guys, we only lose 1 guy. So very broken. Aspects are LD8, rarely fielded in squad sizes of 6+, and several can show up as units of 3.


It's really more of a thing for Guardians. Which are Guardsmen at 8ppm.

Protection from battleshock is a more reasonable thing on more elite units than horde units.

And? That's literally the argument that I made with putting a bespoke rule on the Conscripts(aka: "the horde unit") themselves rather than a half-assed nerf to the Commissars.

Guard units are based 10 models for Infantry and Veteran Squads, 6 models for Special Weapons Squads, 5 models for Scions and Ratlings, 4 models for Command Squads and Servitors , 3 models for Ogryn Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads, and Wyrdvane Psykers, and Crusaders are 2 models.

And unlike Eldar, Marine, T'au, Skitarii, etc--the units that have Sergeants(Infantry, Veteran, and Scion Squads) are forced to purchase a CCW for the Sergeant who also is mandated to only carry a crummy pistol in order to benefit from FRSRF.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
At 3 ppm, they must suffer full battle shock, or close to full battleshock. If they cost more, something like a 2D3 solutions becomes viable.

And how, praytell, do you make them cost more?

A minimum sized squad is 60 points right now.
60 points for 20 models with BS5+ firing S3 AP0 24" Rapid Fire 1, accepting Orders only within 6"(they don't get access to a Vox-Caster) on a roll of 4+.
90 points for 30.

By comparison, it's 40 points for 10 BS4+ firing 9 of the same guns(the Sergeant only has access to a Laspistol to start with, anything else requires purchase--including a fething Chainsword that they kept trying to push on us in the past) accepting Orders automatically and having access to a Vox-Caster at 5 points for extending Orders to 18" assuming the Officer issuing them is within 3" range of a Vox-Caster as well.

If you want Conscripts to be 80/120? Then I want BS3+ Guardsmen, I want Lasguns on Sergeants, and I want Tempestors to have access to Hellguns as well. I want Veteran Squads being "Every model in this unit can take an item from the Astra Militarum Special Weapons List" as well.

Since apparently you've decided we have to pay Space Marine prices for things, we might as well just have more Space Marine tricks right?

I already said to try 4 ppm and 5 ppm for conscripts and geqs, respectively. Those are NOT marine prices. [MON EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] As is stands, these models are NOT paying for their combination of S3 24" guns, T3, 5+. So we get this hamfisted fix instead of a proper rebalancing.

 Marmatag wrote:
You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.

But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.

Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.

Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.

People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".

So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.

But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.

Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.

Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.

People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".

So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?

Pre-orders nerf & squad size nerf they were a brutal shooting platform on weight of dice.
After those changes they were still an unkillable wall.

Sorry you can't see this. Just glad GW did.

I have never complained about their firepower specifically. I always have referred to it as icing on the cake. My beef has always been the impassable physical barrier aspect. If you are going to name drop, at least get it right.

It was humiliating to get shot 200 times, but that was never the FUNDAMENTAL problem.

It's easy enough to stand outside their lethal range. Of course, you can't get outside the range of the big guns, which was the whole point of the conscripts in the first place anyway. Heads IG wins, tails I lose.

If anyone's still on the fence about when it makes sense to take commissars if you dont' use full blob conscripts:

the answer is actually never.

Reason: the Aura of Discipline ability causes +1LD to normal guard infantry units (LD7 becomes LD8). This is duplicated by the 5-point Regimental Standard, which also features a longer range.

Now, what does the Summary Execution rule do, post-nerf? Well, since it triggers any time you fail, you can actually simulate it really easily in excel. Create a column for "number of casualties" put in any number. Create a column for Initial Roll, random integer between 1 and 6. Create another column for "Second Roll" between 1 and 6.

First, we have the "Casualties from initial morale roll" =IF(A2+B2-8>=0,A2+B2-8,0). This is a conditional formula that shows your casualties, plus your initial roll column, minus your LD of 8. If this number is negative, it just displays 0, because no models die to morale.

Second, we have "Casualties from Summary Execution+Reroll": =IF(D2>0,IF(A2+C2-8>0,A2+C2-7,1),0). This one is a double conditional. First, it checks if the last column was non-zero, and if it was zero, it only displays 0 (commissar doesn't shoot if you don't fail). Then, it rolls on your second random re-roll column, and displays the new casualties: 1 if you passed the reroll, more than 1 if you still failed.

Subtract your Casualties from Summary Execution column from your Casualties From Morale column to obtain the number of men saved by the heroic disciplinary action of the commissar. I ran this simulation 5000 times to look at the averages.

3 casualties: -.025
4 casualties: -.04
5 casualties: -.08
6 casualties: -.2
7 casualties: -.4
8 casualties+: hovers around -1.

There is no value of number of casualties a guard unit can take where Summary Execution, on its own, is a beneficial rule. It is only a detriment.

So, if we value 1 point of morale for guard at 5 points, the commissar's body at 15, then the commissar breaks even for Conscripts and Ratlings, and returns only a 20-point value for normal guard units for the cost of 31 points. And this is not giving Summary Execution a negative value in points because its effect is so close to 0 on average unless you're talking about conscripts taking 8+ casualties.

Martel732 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
At 3 ppm, they must suffer full battle shock, or close to full battleshock. If they cost more, something like a 2D3 solutions becomes viable.

And how, praytell, do you make them cost more?

A minimum sized squad is 60 points right now.
60 points for 20 models with BS5+ firing S3 AP0 24" Rapid Fire 1, accepting Orders only within 6"(they don't get access to a Vox-Caster) on a roll of 4+.
90 points for 30.

By comparison, it's 40 points for 10 BS4+ firing 9 of the same guns(the Sergeant only has access to a Laspistol to start with, anything else requires purchase--including a fething Chainsword that they kept trying to push on us in the past) accepting Orders automatically and having access to a Vox-Caster at 5 points for extending Orders to 18" assuming the Officer issuing them is within 3" range of a Vox-Caster as well.

If you want Conscripts to be 80/120? Then I want BS3+ Guardsmen, I want Lasguns on Sergeants, and I want Tempestors to have access to Hellguns as well. I want Veteran Squads being "Every model in this unit can take an item from the Astra Militarum Special Weapons List" as well.

Since apparently you've decided we have to pay Space Marine prices for things, we might as well just have more Space Marine tricks right?

I already said to try 4 ppm and 5 ppm for conscripts and geqs, respectively. Those are NOT marine prices.[MON EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] As is stands, these models are NOT paying for their combination of S3 24" guns, T3, 5+. So we get this hamfisted fix instead of a proper rebalancing.

When you're mandated to be a 10 man squad with no flexibility, you can whine about Guard prices. That's why we're cheaper--we don't get flex outside of our "Elite" units--and for whatever reason, Conscripts.

A squad of 5 Tactical Marines is 65 points. For T4 3+ with S4 24" RF1 guns across the squad at 0 points.

Try again.

Nope. There is no flex in marines, either.

And 4/5 ppm is still MUCH cheaper than a marine.

Doesn't matter. We have our "fix". I'm just describing a scenario that makes old commissars viable. Any battle shock ignoring mechanic is not viable under the current pricing.

 Marmatag wrote:

Darkagl1 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?"

Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?

Because GW doesn't balance exclusively for competitive environments, when it comes to missions, and also rules where applicable. Some of the "chapter approved" updates are taken directly from the ITC rules that had been in place since 8th released.

ITC use their own sets of missions, standardized terrain layouts, and rules built for a fair play environment.

And to the guy who said, "show me how you field hundreds, i'll wait." Again this shows a complete lack of understanding. Prior to the nerf you'd see 200+ conscripts on the table sometimes, with every imperium list fielding at least 2-3 squads. When you have 90 bodies, and you force a morale check, losing 2D3 means NOTHING. Max it out at "3" and it's 6 models out of 90+, who cares, they're still locking out anyone for multiple turns while the big guns eviscerate everything.

Hmm sure seems like you cherry picking the data set so that data that doesn't support your omg poor marines narrative is excluded. If ITC is so amazingballs at making bespoke rules they hadn't tuned down conscripts because... face it you have a preconceived notion and will accept anything that supports it and reject anything that doesn't.

Martel732 wrote:
Nope. There is no flex in marines, either.

And 4/5 ppm is still MUCH cheaper than a marine.

Doesn't matter. We have our "fix". I'm just describing a scenario that makes old commissars viable. Any battle shock ignoring mechanic is not viable under the current pricing.

No, you're really not. Old Commissars were viable.

New Commissars are trash. They're finished, done. End of fething story.

But you got your pound of flesh huh? Can't wait to see what you whine about ruining the game for you next. I'm going to guess Synapse.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.

But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.

Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.

Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.

People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".

So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?

Heh, I see how this post tries to cause confusion by suggesting a false contradiction.

They filled both roles. Conscripts were a road bump because they could take a ridiculous number of models that ignored morale. Conscripts were also a great shooting / CC unit, having a ton of shots / attacks. Someone playing against Guard could have a hard time shooting up 120 bodies while still taking 120+ lasgun shots per turn.

In theory, yes, Conscripts could take down a Titan. Unlikely, but possible. Where I had trouble with them was with Noise Marines, who could regularly pick off 10 Conscripts per round of shooting, but would then face 100+ shots in response. And they cost less than that 10 man squad of NMs.

Maybe the latest changes mean those 10 wounds turn into 13 wounds on average. It's still an incredible unit.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.

But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.

Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.

Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.

People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".

So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?

Heh, I see how this post tries to cause confusion by suggesting a false contradiction.

They filled both roles. Conscripts were a road bump because they could take a ridiculous number of models that ignored morale. Conscripts were also a great shooting / CC unit, having a ton of shots / attacks. Someone playing Guard could have a hard time shooting up 120 bodies while still taking 120+ lasgun shots per turn.

In theory, yes, Conscripts could take down a Titan. Unlikely, but possible. Where I had trouble with them was with Noise Marines, who could regularly pick off 10 Conscripts per round of shooting, but would then face 100+ shots in response. And they cost less than that 10 man squad of NMs.

Maybe the latest changes mean those 10 wounds turn into 13 wounds on average. It's still an incredible unit.

Noise Marines? Really? That's your example?

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Darkagl1 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?"

Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?

Because GW doesn't balance exclusively for competitive environments, when it comes to missions, and also rules where applicable. Some of the "chapter approved" updates are taken directly from the ITC rules that had been in place since 8th released.

ITC use their own sets of missions, standardized terrain layouts, and rules built for a fair play environment.

And to the guy who said, "show me how you field hundreds, i'll wait." Again this shows a complete lack of understanding. Prior to the nerf you'd see 200+ conscripts on the table sometimes, with every imperium list fielding at least 2-3 squads. When you have 90 bodies, and you force a morale check, losing 2D3 means NOTHING. Max it out at "3" and it's 6 models out of 90+, who cares, they're still locking out anyone for multiple turns while the big guns eviscerate everything.

Hmm sure seems like you cherry picking the data set so that data that doesn't support your omg poor marines narrative is excluded. If ITC is so amazingballs at making bespoke rules they hadn't tuned down conscripts because... face it you have a preconceived notion and will accept anything that supports it and reject anything that doesn't.

They aren't dealing with points of units and changing rules because they did in 7th, and it was a nightmare. In 8th edition, GW has promised to be more responsive in regards to the ruleset and insofar they have, except it took them way too long to adjust conscripts, and IG as a whole are still way more powerful than many other whole armies (Orks, Eldar, Non Guilliman marines).

And the fact that GW has incorporated ITC rules into their core ruleset is pretty telling. You can act like the ITC circuit is this tiny little thing, but it's far bigger than any formal warhammer GT by orders of magnitude.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.

But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.

Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.

Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.

People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".

So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?

Heh, I see how this post tries to cause confusion by suggesting a false contradiction.

They filled both roles. Conscripts were a road bump because they could take a ridiculous number of models that ignored morale. Conscripts were also a great shooting / CC unit, having a ton of shots / attacks. Someone playing Guard could have a hard time shooting up 120 bodies while still taking 120+ lasgun shots per turn.

In theory, yes, Conscripts could take down a Titan. Unlikely, but possible. Where I had trouble with them was with Noise Marines, who could regularly pick off 10 Conscripts per round of shooting, but would then face 100+ shots in response. And they cost less than that 10 man squad of NMs.

Maybe the latest changes mean those 10 wounds turn into 13 wounds on average. It's still an incredible unit.

Noise Marines? Really? That's your example?

I could also point to Berzerkers, CSMs, Helbrutes, Rhinos and other things they wrecked in my armies.

But I don't really need to. We're talking about Conscripts.

Same mechanics, only orders don't always work and der Commissar doesn't let them autopass morale tests.

They probably aren't dead. Just a couple points overcosted. Depends how you value them having the character rule. If you estimate 5 points per point of LD they offer 15 points of value to conscripts. The remaining 15 goes to their defenses and the character rule. Decent value when with specifically conscripts. Everything else, you want the cheaper flag.

The take away from this thread is simply; there is no point in talking to each other anymore. Marine players and Guard players seem to think the other is the fething devil.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The take away from this thread is simply; there is no point in talking to each other anymore. Marine players and Guard players seem to think the other is the fething devil.

Actually it's more like a handful of players have an inherent need to complain.

There have been good points made on both sides but the comical extremes some people have went to have basically made both side of the conversation something I no longer want to touch even with a 10 foot pole.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

There have been good points made on both sides but the comical extremes some people have went to have basically made both side of the conversation something I no longer want to touch even with a 10 foot pole.

Yeah, I'll normally stick in longer than reasonable myself, but I'm done.

 Marmatag wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Darkagl1 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?"

Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?

Because GW doesn't balance exclusively for competitive environments, when it comes to missions, and also rules where applicable. Some of the "chapter approved" updates are taken directly from the ITC rules that had been in place since 8th released.

ITC use their own sets of missions, standardized terrain layouts, and rules built for a fair play environment.

And to the guy who said, "show me how you field hundreds, i'll wait." Again this shows a complete lack of understanding. Prior to the nerf you'd see 200+ conscripts on the table sometimes, with every imperium list fielding at least 2-3 squads. When you have 90 bodies, and you force a morale check, losing 2D3 means NOTHING. Max it out at "3" and it's 6 models out of 90+, who cares, they're still locking out anyone for multiple turns while the big guns eviscerate everything.

Hmm sure seems like you cherry picking the data set so that data that doesn't support your omg poor marines narrative is excluded. If ITC is so amazingballs at making bespoke rules they hadn't tuned down conscripts because... face it you have a preconceived notion and will accept anything that supports it and reject anything that doesn't.

They aren't dealing with points of units and changing rules because they did in 7th, and it was a nightmare. In 8th edition, GW has promised to be more responsive in regards to the ruleset and insofar they have, except it took them way too long to adjust conscripts, and IG as a whole are still way more powerful than many other whole armies (Orks, Eldar, Non Guilliman marines).

And the fact that GW has incorporated ITC rules into their core ruleset is pretty telling. You can act like the ITC circuit is this tiny little thing, but it's far bigger than any formal warhammer GT by orders of magnitude.

I'm not pretending they're anything, I'm also not advocating rejecting data because it doesn't support my viewpoints. I have been and continue to be concerned about horde type units in 8th due to the lack of an effective counter weapon. While morale appears to be a useful counter the existence of morale mitigation is extremely prevalent in horde type armies and is unfortunately of a very binary nature. I personally think this particular change is poorly executed because it pretty well wrecks commissars especially for non conscript uses, and for conscripts the command tank is arguably a better choice. That said I was and would have continued to be perfectly fine waiting for chapter approved and really more codices to drop before advocating any sort of sweeping change. You can't accurately assess the strength of AM versus orks or eldar because the codices aren't out yet and taking the approach to make codex armies = index armies in strength is silly.

the_scotsman wrote:
If anyone's still on the fence about when it makes sense to take commissars if you dont' use full blob conscripts:

the answer is actually never.

Reason: the Aura of Discipline ability causes +1LD to normal guard infantry units (LD7 becomes LD8). This is duplicated by the 5-point Regimental Standard, which also features a longer range.

Now, what does the Summary Execution rule do, post-nerf? Well, since it triggers any time you fail, you can actually simulate it really easily in excel. Create a column for "number of casualties" put in any number. Create a column for Initial Roll, random integer between 1 and 6. Create another column for "Second Roll" between 1 and 6.

First, we have the "Casualties from initial morale roll" =IF(A2+B2-8>=0,A2+B2-8,0). This is a conditional formula that shows your casualties, plus your initial roll column, minus your LD of 8. If this number is negative, it just displays 0, because no models die to morale.

Second, we have "Casualties from Summary Execution+Reroll": =IF(D2>0,IF(A2+C2-8>0,A2+C2-7,1),0). This one is a double conditional. First, it checks if the last column was non-zero, and if it was zero, it only displays 0 (commissar doesn't shoot if you don't fail). Then, it rolls on your second random re-roll column, and displays the new casualties: 1 if you passed the reroll, more than 1 if you still failed.

Subtract your Casualties from Summary Execution column from your Casualties From Morale column to obtain the number of men saved by the heroic disciplinary action of the commissar. I ran this simulation 5000 times to look at the averages.

3 casualties: -.025
4 casualties: -.04
5 casualties: -.08
6 casualties: -.2
7 casualties: -.4
8 casualties+: hovers around -1.

There is no value of number of casualties a guard unit can take where Summary Execution, on its own, is a beneficial rule. It is only a detriment.

So, if we value 1 point of morale for guard at 5 points, the commissar's body at 15, then the commissar breaks even for Conscripts and Ratlings, and returns only a 20-point value for normal guard units for the cost of 31 points. And this is not giving Summary Execution a negative value in points because its effect is so close to 0 on average unless you're talking about conscripts taking 8+ casualties.

You're not looking at the bigger picture. It's not whether it saved more men on it's own, but if it saves more men than if you had no commissar at all.

A commissar saves about 12-15 points each and every morale test that matters. If you take enough casualties to wipe a LD4 unit the commissar will keep the unit up.

With 3 casualties: LD 4 3.3 avg 6 max LD 8 0.06 avg 2 max //A roll of 6 fails LD8 so the only way to lose a model is by rolling a 6 again which is on top of execution Delta avg in points = ~9

With 8 casualties: LD4 8.47 avg 11 max LD8 4.54 avg 7 max Delta avg in points = ~12

With 15 casualties: LD4 15.5 avg 18 max LD8 11.5 avg 13 max Delta avg in points = ~12

Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If anyone's still on the fence about when it makes sense to take commissars if you dont' use full blob conscripts:

the answer is actually never.

Reason: the Aura of Discipline ability causes +1LD to normal guard infantry units (LD7 becomes LD8). This is duplicated by the 5-point Regimental Standard, which also features a longer range.

Now, what does the Summary Execution rule do, post-nerf? Well, since it triggers any time you fail, you can actually simulate it really easily in excel. Create a column for "number of casualties" put in any number. Create a column for Initial Roll, random integer between 1 and 6. Create another column for "Second Roll" between 1 and 6.

First, we have the "Casualties from initial morale roll" =IF(A2+B2-8>=0,A2+B2-8,0). This is a conditional formula that shows your casualties, plus your initial roll column, minus your LD of 8. If this number is negative, it just displays 0, because no models die to morale.

Second, we have "Casualties from Summary Execution+Reroll": =IF(D2>0,IF(A2+C2-8>0,A2+C2-7,1),0). This one is a double conditional. First, it checks if the last column was non-zero, and if it was zero, it only displays 0 (commissar doesn't shoot if you don't fail). Then, it rolls on your second random re-roll column, and displays the new casualties: 1 if you passed the reroll, more than 1 if you still failed.

Subtract your Casualties from Summary Execution column from your Casualties From Morale column to obtain the number of men saved by the heroic disciplinary action of the commissar. I ran this simulation 5000 times to look at the averages.

3 casualties: -.025
4 casualties: -.04
5 casualties: -.08
6 casualties: -.2
7 casualties: -.4
8 casualties+: hovers around -1.

There is no value of number of casualties a guard unit can take where Summary Execution, on its own, is a beneficial rule. It is only a detriment.

So, if we value 1 point of morale for guard at 5 points, the commissar's body at 15, then the commissar breaks even for Conscripts and Ratlings, and returns only a 20-point value for normal guard units for the cost of 31 points. And this is not giving Summary Execution a negative value in points because its effect is so close to 0 on average unless you're talking about conscripts taking 8+ casualties.

You're not looking at the bigger picture. It's not whether it saved more men on it's own, but if it saves more men than if you had no commissar at all.

A commissar saves about 12-15 points each and every morale test that matters. If you take enough casualties to wipe a LD4 unit the commissar will keep the unit up.

With 3 casualties: LD 4 3.3 avg 6 max LD 8 0.06 avg 2 max //A roll of 6 fails LD8 so the only way to lose a model is by rolling a 6 again which is on top of execution Delta avg in points = ~9

With 8 casualties: LD4 8.47 avg 11 max LD8 4.54 avg 7 max Delta avg in points = ~12

With 15 casualties: LD4 15.5 avg 18 max LD8 11.5 avg 13 max Delta avg in points = ~12

Why are you posting conscript numbers when his post is about infantry squads?