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.

Someone asked earlier what Legion traits I would trade for Regimental doctrines:

I'd probably trade Iron Warriors for Cadian six days a week and twice on Sunday.
I'd trade the Word Bearers for Any other Regimental doctrine, pick one, I don't care. I'd probably also trade Night Lords, while I recognize it could be good, the setup is just too complicated to be consistently applied in game.

I could do this all day honestly.

Yes, there are fluffy reasons why the decision to only apply Legion/Chapter traits to Infantry/Dreads bothers me. However, the real reasons, as someone pointed out earlier is that in theory, this should make non-vehicle units more attractive, but it really doesn't, it leads to very specialized combinations of very specific units. Quite frankly, outside of transports, it leaves the rest of the vehicles in the codex out in the cold. I'm ignoring the Malefic Lord, since I agree it's a broken unit that will probably get heavily adjusted (I feel like I need to add this sentence to every post).

Why would I take a Maulerfiend, Forgefiend, or Defiler? They're garbage for the points. I could take a Predator Annihilator, but that's expensive and it's probably better to just take a Land Raider or a Storm Eagle and deliver a squad of infantry while sporting better firepower and durability. There are bad units in every codex, but SM/CSM have basically been saddled with an entire class of units that lack synergy with the rest of the army because of what appears to be a completely arbitrary decision.

Chaos lists are placing in tournaments by virtue of a single broken FW unit currently, we all know that's going to change. There's a school of thought which suggests that this will inspire the more creative employment of the units at the disposal of CSM players, but there's no way to know right now. I hope the impending nerf to the Malefic Lord leads to a renaissance of CSM army builds, but the jaded cynic in me that's usually right is not optimistic.

Also, seriously, what's with the whole "You were awesome in edition X, therefore you should suck now" line of arguments, how is that relevant at all?

 sennacherib wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)

ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.

Guilliman is a lord or war only available to ultra marines. Don't be obtuse - you know what I mean - and i am right.

If you meant something other than what you said, perhaps you should think before you type.

Because iirc Guilliman is a unit in the SM codex. I can find the page number if you want.

ROFL

Daemonprinces have their uses. I fail to see how they are better than a storm raven.

Almost 0 chance of being destroyed first turn. With wings and warp time they can assault turn 1 easily. They can kill almost anything that isn't a super heavy that they charge. Can be spammed without losing the game automatically due to having no units on the table. Don't take my word for it though - just look at all the choas list placing high at big events. Daemon princes are almost always included in their list.

As a chaos player I can safely say that they do not destroy everything they charge.
On average a daemonprince with a sword does 5.49 wounds to a tank. With claws they only kill about 4.8 guardsman equivalent models in melee. There is just no truth in the argument that they can kill almost anything in the charge.

Stormravens on the other hand are so good they had to be nerfed. No such nerf happened to princes because they simply are not that good. Otherwise GW would nerf them. They also don’t put out nearly the same damage as a storm raven, nor do they act as a transport. Either way, we can at least agree that marines have some very good codex options. I just don’t agree that they NEED to have every shiny new rule that comes out just to be consistent. That’s a flawed argument.

Saying something "can" kill something. Doesn't mean they 1 shot it every time they assault. This is a dice game. Much like a las cannon averages something like 1.2 wounds vs a tank with 4+ to hit. Is it wrong to say that las cannons "can" kill tanks - is it even wrong to say they are great at killing tanks?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Mathhammer is always true, but not always applicable in a given situation.

Right, so if the mathhammer doesn't favour you, then change the situation instead of complaining about the mathhammer.

Not always possible. And sometimes the mathhammer is overwhelming.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, so if the mathhammer doesn't favour you, then change the situation instead of complaining about the mathhammer.

But that takes effort, and thought, and maybe even a little bit of talent!

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Mathhammer is always true, but not always applicable in a given situation.

Right, so if the mathhammer doesn't favour you, then change the situation instead of complaining about the mathhammer.

Not always possible. And sometimes the mathhammer is overwhelming.

If it's not possible, then that is good play on your opponent's part because now he is forcing you into an uncomfortable situation, much like you are trying to force him. Yay tactics!

And... no? I mean, if you don't get to use the mathhammer at all, then it's not overwhelming. This is my biggest issue with Guard artillery: because it ignores LOS, there's little counterplay, and they always get to bring their mathhammer to bear on certain targets. The challenge then becomes to offer them a variety of valuable targets and plan around one being destroyed.

As an example from my last game against the local Guard artillery player, I brought a Malcador Infernus, Malcador Annihilator, and a gak load of footslogging sisters. The Manticores eventually chose to focus the Annihilator until the Infernus was in range (in it's range, not the Manticore's; it was always in range of the Manticores), and then focused on the Infernus, leaving the Annihilator alive with ~6 wounds left IIRC. The problem was that Manticores are incredibly inefficient against tanks - but shooting at the Sisters would have been a waste as well, as they don't "do" anything, except exist. It'd've been like shooting conscripts.

I'm fairly sure at least some CWE players would trade Alaitoc for RG, if stratagems came with it.

You'd lose up to 2 WWP, but you could turn-1 roast things with Scytheguard, CWE melee units could get turn-1 charges, and more.

It'd cost you some survivability on Serpents, which you don't need, because Infiltrate.

That said, I'm sure RG would rather have Alaitoc and it's stratagems than RG's.

 sennacherib wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
2. Consistency. Might as well only play marine on marine then. Where are the storm shields for chaos, grav, assault cannons, chaos landspeededs. Your whole consistency argument is so flawed. They are different armies so there doesn’t have to be any consistency between codex. Flat out. Do you expect marines to have all the same bonus as tyranids? Space elves should be the same as genetically altered humans. Should they be consistent. Fundamentally flawed argument. Is that all you have.

Previous posts include complaining that marines are not good enough over a year ago, to more recent whining about bolt guns needing to be better. Sounds like your win button isn’t big enough.

Actually I agree that Renegade chapters aren't entirely well represented.

Do you also agree that your argument that apples and oranges should be the same for consistency sake is irrelevant in any context. Space elf rules and Demi human rules do not need ever be the same for consistency sake.

Design philosophies need to be consistent though. That's the issue here.

They never were before so why should they now? Space elves are a different army as are Guard. There is no long standing design philosophy anywhere that states that everything has to be consistent across the board. I didn’t hear any space marines talking about other armies needing grav or Demi companies. Your aurgument is hogwash. You just want more shiny rulez.

Design Philosophy is not the same as same equipment. I'd love for you to find me saying as such. Go ahead. Do it.

Or you could deny it and just pretend it's the same thing.

It's easier for codices with access to cheaper models, for sure.

"This is my biggest issue with Guard artillery: because it ignores LOS, there's no counterplay, and they always get to bring their mathhammer to bear on certain targets"

That's what I meant. And yes, I've quit bringing any single unit over 200 pts for this reason. There is no play at all involved with this.

Sometimes it is good play, but there are plenty of situations where in-game choices are meaningless because of mathhammer.

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, so if the mathhammer doesn't favour you, then change the situation instead of complaining about the mathhammer.

But that takes effort, and thought, and maybe even a little bit of talent!

Pfft, if anyone told a Guard player that in 6th/7th you'd have a hissyfit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Very hypocritical but I don't expect much else.

Martel732 wrote:
It's easier for codices with access to cheaper models, for sure.

"This is my biggest issue with Guard artillery: because it ignores LOS, there's no counterplay, and they always get to bring their mathhammer to bear on certain targets"

That's what I meant. And yes, I've quit bringing any single unit over 200 pts for this reason. There is no play at all involved with this.

Sometimes it is good play, but there are plenty of situations where in-game choices are meaningless because of mathhammer.

Ironically, my solution to manticores is to bring >2 units of over 300 points that they're inefficient against, and then a bunch of "cheap" models (though 9ppm is hardly cheap, imo).

Your last sentence is not entirely correct - "there are in-game situations where choices are meaningless because of mathhammer" is true, but is not what you said.

That means the in-game choices you made failed to put you in an situation where you could leverage your mathhammer, and your opponent's in-game choices were in fact well done and he is leveraging his mathhammer.

If you're in a situation where their mathhhammer clearly overpowers yours - then you were put in that situation by other choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, so if the mathhammer doesn't favour you, then change the situation instead of complaining about the mathhammer.

But that takes effort, and thought, and maybe even a little bit of talent!

Pfft, if anyone told a Guard player that in 6th/7th you'd have a hissyfit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Very hypocritical but I don't expect much else.

I never "threw a hissy fit" when someone told me to put effort, thought, and possibly talent into my play in 6th/7th, despite being a guard player.

Though you're welcome to look for when I did.

" then you were put in that situation by other choices."

Not necessarily. Take the case of 7th ed scatterbikes or 5th ed leaf blower. The decisions were made in list building and you either could counter-list build or you couldn't. GW basically made a bunch of decisions for me and others.

True. But saying a daemonprince can destroy anything short of a super heavy on the charge is simply false. A unit of 10 space marines vs a sword wielding prince will loose 3 battle brothers on average and no more than 5. That hardly destroys the unit unless you roll really bad with your moral test. You will still have at least a Sargent and a special weapon left even in the worst case scenario.

However a storm raven would likely do as much I’d not more damage to a unit of 10 marines, all while transporting units across the field to strike the enemy in their rear lines. This does not however mean that every shiny rule another faction gets should be given to marines for consistency sake.

Martel732 wrote:
" then you were put in that situation by other choices."

Not necessarily. Take the case of 7th ed scatterbikes or 5th ed leaf blower. The decisions were made in list building and you either could counter-list build or you couldn't. GW basically made a bunch of decisions for me and others.

Do you consider list building part of the game?

I think it is, but you are obviously limited by what GW lets you do. I'm dependent upon GW allowing me to make the choices to counter a given meta. BA have been lacking meta counters for a long time now, for example. GK as well. I think your point is more valid in something like Starcraft. Starcraft is basically 100% decisions and ability to click fast enough to keep up.

Martel732 wrote:
I think it is, but you are obviously limited by what GW lets you do. I think your point is more valid in something like Starcraft.

Surely if one list is dominating them all and you want to win, then you just play that list? After all, what army you play is part of the "Game" as well, and so your choices there are in-game choices, at least if you include listbuilding as part of the game.

Note:
I don't actually like this model, and think the game should be fairly balanced so that all armies have strengths and weaknesses, as well as the ability for play (e.g., deployment and movement during the game) should be able to mitigate those weaknesses and reinforce the strengths. But it's not always been that way (though I'm happy now as I think it is).

I'll say it's closer. But there are still quite a few mathematical hiccups to be exploited.

As I said, it's much easier to switch to a presumably dominant build order in Starcraft than switch to the new 40K hotness. Of course, a dominant build order can get solved in a weekend. Not so lucky with 40K.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's easier for codices with access to cheaper models, for sure.

"This is my biggest issue with Guard artillery: because it ignores LOS, there's no counterplay, and they always get to bring their mathhammer to bear on certain targets"

That's what I meant. And yes, I've quit bringing any single unit over 200 pts for this reason. There is no play at all involved with this.

Sometimes it is good play, but there are plenty of situations where in-game choices are meaningless because of mathhammer.

Ironically, my solution to manticores is to bring >2 units of over 300 points that they're inefficient against, and then a bunch of "cheap" models (though 9ppm is hardly cheap, imo).

Your last sentence is not entirely correct - "there are in-game situations where choices are meaningless because of mathhammer" is true, but is not what you said.

That means the in-game choices you made failed to put you in an situation where you could leverage your mathhammer, and your opponent's in-game choices were in fact well done and he is leveraging his mathhammer.

If you're in a situation where their mathhhammer clearly overpowers yours - then you were put in that situation by other choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, so if the mathhammer doesn't favour you, then change the situation instead of complaining about the mathhammer.

But that takes effort, and thought, and maybe even a little bit of talent!

Pfft, if anyone told a Guard player that in 6th/7th you'd have a hissyfit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Very hypocritical but I don't expect much else.

I never "threw a hissy fit" when someone told me to put effort, thought, and possibly talent into my play in 6th/7th, despite being a guard player.

Though you're welcome to look for when I did.

I'm more talking to Melissia who has a habit of doing crap like that as the stereotypical Sisters player.

That said, it wouldn't have been fair to a Chaos Marine player, Dark Angel player, Guard player, etc, to simply tell them they're not playing correctly. They had bad Codices.

Martel732 wrote:
I'll say it's closer. But there are still quite a few mathematical hiccups to be exploited.

As I said, it's much easier to switch to a presumably dominant build order in Starcraft than switch to the new 40K hotness. Of course, a dominant build order can get solved in a weekend. Not so lucky with 40K.

Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).

As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That said, it wouldn't have been fair to a Chaos Marine player, Dark Angel player, Guard player, etc, to simply tell them they're not playing correctly. They had bad Codices.

They did, and I think bad codices are sad things. That said, I think 8th edition is a breath of fresh air: No army lacks the choices it requires to succeed (though some of those choices may come in the form of allies, I should note!).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'll say it's closer. But there are still quite a few mathematical hiccups to be exploited.

As I said, it's much easier to switch to a presumably dominant build order in Starcraft than switch to the new 40K hotness. Of course, a dominant build order can get solved in a weekend. Not so lucky with 40K.

Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).

As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That said, it wouldn't have been fair to a Chaos Marine player, Dark Angel player, Guard player, etc, to simply tell them they're not playing correctly. They had bad Codices.

They did, and I think bad codices are sad things. That said, I think 8th edition is a breath of fresh air: No army lacks the choices it requires to succeed (though some of those choices may come in the form of allies, I should note!).

And I agree things in 8th are better, but there's still a few serious internal balance issues with some of the Codices (Mutilators are still garbage after all, Tactical and Chaos Marines have no place, etc), and then some pretty bad external issues (Grey Knights and AdMech are easily the worst offenders in terms of being crap, but Guard without that Errata would've been ridiculous. Though I will say that wasn't the approach to fixing the Commisar I would've done).

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/10/40k-op-ed-ranking-the-codices.html
Because bell of lost souls says so, it must be so. Space marines are not the worst codex. Grey knights are. Case closed. JK.

I don’t honestly think anyone really thinks that SM are th worst codex, and I totallly understand how some players get butt hurt when eldar get cool rules. After all they have been broke for quite a while and some balance would be nice for the game as a whole. However space marines not being top tier is likely a shock to some of the newer players. Just wait till you get your point drops in chapter approved. Everything will be fine.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'll say it's closer. But there are still quite a few mathematical hiccups to be exploited.

As I said, it's much easier to switch to a presumably dominant build order in Starcraft than switch to the new 40K hotness. Of course, a dominant build order can get solved in a weekend. Not so lucky with 40K.

Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).

As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That said, it wouldn't have been fair to a Chaos Marine player, Dark Angel player, Guard player, etc, to simply tell them they're not playing correctly. They had bad Codices.

They did, and I think bad codices are sad things. That said, I think 8th edition is a breath of fresh air: No army lacks the choices it requires to succeed (though some of those choices may come in the form of allies, I should note!).

And I agree things in 8th are better, but there's still a few serious internal balance issues with some of the Codices (Mutilators are still garbage after all, Tactical and Chaos Marines have no place, etc), and then some pretty bad external issues (Grey Knights and AdMech are easily the worst offenders in terms of being crap, but Guard without that Errata would've been ridiculous. Though I will say that wasn't the approach to fixing the Commisar I would've done).

Internal balance is a problem, yes.

External balance I think you don't understand what I am saying: GK and Admech can still make choices that allow them to succeed. Those choices may be derided as "unfluffy" or "Not My Army!" but from a tournament-playing perspective, they have the tools and choices they need to make to win.

Guard without the Errata would have been fine, I think, honestly. I'm not sure they got enough playtime with the codex to truly know, but either way, that's a discussion for another thread.

Actually AdMech are pretty bad off in terms of needing to compete. You've clearly not seen the army if you really believe that.

Also spamming one unit for Grey Knights isn't having choices to compete in the same way Tyranids did well the last two editions because of Flyrants.

"Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).

As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you."

Fair enough. I don't expect to be top tier with mono-BA. Middle tier would be nice, though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Actually AdMech are pretty bad off in terms of needing to compete. You've clearly not seen the army if you really believe that.

Also spamming one unit for Grey Knights isn't having choices to compete in the same way Tyranids did well the last two editions because of Flyrants.

By choices I mean the ability to ally other Imperial armies, just in case that is unclear.

And FWIW my superheavy tank company at NOVA got tabled by an AdMech brigade and it was before their codex (or mine). So that's just an anecdote from the past but there you go!

Martel732 wrote:"Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).

As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you."

Fair enough. I don't expect to be top tier with mono-BA. Middle tier would be nice, though.

Yeah.

To bring up another topic that's been bugging me: why are we still talking about mono armies being in tiers? I'm not sure how to define a "mono-" army. I play an army with 1 mono-Inquisition detachment, 1 soup detachment, and another soup detachment. Is that an "Inquisition" army? Should an "Inquisition" army be able to be put on the tier list? It's certainly possible to build a mono-inquisition army, so at least they're better than mono-Assassins.

Because some people still field mono-codex lists. I'm not buying inquisition or sisters or guard, so soup discussions mean little to me other than how to counter them.

Martel732 wrote:
Because some people still field mono-codex lists.

Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.

I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because some people still field mono-codex lists.

Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.

I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?

I wouldn't bet on that atm.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because some people still field mono-codex lists.

Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.

I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?

I wouldn't bet on that atm.

Really? I can't even think of what ranged anti-tank the Inquisition have. Plasma gun, spam, I guess? But they can only field six man squads, so a mono-Inquisition army that buys all plasma guns will a load of 21-point plasma-gun armed T3 5+ save models with no real upfield movement options. I think they'd get creamed by tanks before they could even get in rapid-fire range.

Maybe. I have faith in the index BA to blow it

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because some people still field mono-codex lists.

Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.

I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?

I wouldn't bet on that atm.

Really? I can't even think of what ranged anti-tank the Inquisition have. Plasma gun, spam, I guess? But they can only field six man squads, so a mono-Inquisition army that buys all plasma guns will a load of 21-point plasma-gun armed T3 5+ save models with no real upfield movement options. I think they'd get creamed by tanks before they could even get in rapid-fire range.

Mono...
Inquisition...

You realize that never, at any point, in game or rules, were inqusition a real stand-alone army?

An inquisitor, and maybe a few of his henchmen with a vehicle, airplane or whatnot to carry them around is "joining" an existing force, or more often "conscripts" and existing force to help his mission.