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.

Tygre wrote:
"Why not mass produce conscript armor with cheaper materials"

Well because it is more efficient to mass produce more of the standard line trooper armour. Also those conscripted troops may get enough experience and training to count as regular troops, and you don't want to have to keep track and rearmour them. It is easier administratively and more efficient to give line troops line troops quality armour.

Conscripts aren't being taken already, why would you nerf them. You may as well delete them, as no one would take them anyway.

I'd imagine that this would be combined with them being a point cheaper than Guardsmen.

Less durable (both with morale and a 6+), less shooty, can't be ordered... But cheap.

I would occasionally take conscripts if they were cheaper than Guardsmen, whether that is 3/4 or 4/5. However, I just can't justify taking them at the same cost as regular Guardsmen. What's the point?

I think I could handle 4/5/6 pricing for the three Guardsmen types, as long as veterans moved to troops. The flexibility of having 3 different costing troops choices for different qualities of army would be really nice. Sure, I would prefer 3/4/5 pricing, but maybe GW is reluctant to go for 3 point conscripts after the problems that caused last time. Even though I think that the commissar nerf largely fixed the problems.

Ya know why not just remove conscripts.. I dont think they actually officially have any models.

And with GWs whole no model no rules thing im surprised it even exists still.

 Desubot wrote:
Ya know why not just remove conscripts.. I dont think they actually officially have any models.

And with GWs whole no model no rules thing im surprised it even exists still.

They do have official models.

Conscripts make a core of the guard army, and are a major part of its fluff. Removing them would be a mistake.

 Trickstick wrote:
Why would conscripts go to 6+ though? They have exactly the same equipment that regular Guardsmen have. Well, at least the type of conscripts we see in game do. Conscripts are just soldiers fresh from boot camp, or given less training than standard Guardsmen. To get a 6+ save you would need different models to represent the sort of "frateris militia" style men that a 6+ save would represent.

Conscripts don't have official models. They never really have.
They've just conveniently been able to be made out of the Cadian Shock Troop and Catachan Jungle Fighter kits since both include enough Lasguns to outfit the models in the boxed set with them.

Conscripts, as they stand, continue to be problematic units to balance and in terms of theme. Some people look at them like you do and some look at them with an eye towards the penal units. Bringing Conscripts to 6+ and giving them Auxilia instead of <Regiment> actually gets them a smidge closer to fluff which has the "RIP"(Recruitment Indoctrination Penal) details which are mixed Regimental recruits and malcontents under a Munitorum Officer rather than a Regimental Officer. We really got a good look at it in "Only in Death" through Dalin Criid's eyes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Conscripts make a core of the guard army, and are a major part of its fluff. Removing them would be a mistake.

Common misconception:
Conscripted individuals might make up the "core of the Guard army"...but that isn't the same as the actual Conscript unit.

Conscripts, the unit, are supposed to be broadly representative of things ranging from:
"Gunbabies" of the Cadian(and their 'descendant') Regiments: kids trained from an early age in live fire exercise who in some cases have almost as much experience and training as veteran PDF members to Hive Gangers ala Armageddon and the Gaunt's Ghosts novels with their 'Scratch Companies' that organized themselves and used whatever they could get their hands on with no real training aside from maybe a few PDF officers who got caught up in their craziness.

IMO, the fix for guard is a 4/5/6 point scheme. Concripts should still have the <Regiment> tag for access to doctrines, but the raw recruits rule should be changed to "Can't receive orders at all". Commissar summary execution should be: "If a unit within 6" fails a morale test, execute a model of your choice and redo the morale test without adding the roll"... simple, USEFUL, and you always at least break even regardless of the circumstances. It also ensures that large conscript units aren't totally immune to battle shock because at absolute maximum you are saving 5 models.

w1zard wrote:
IMO, the fix for guard is a 4/5/6 point scheme. Concripts should still have the <Regiment> tag for access to doctrines, but the raw recruits rule should be changed to "Can't receive orders at all". Commissar summary execution should be: "If a unit within 6" fails a morale test, execute a model of your choice and redo the morale test without adding the roll"... simple, USEFUL, and you always at least break even regardless of the circumstances. It also ensures that large conscript units aren't totally immune to battle shock because at absolute most you are saving 5 models..

Um... That's actually WORSE than nothing.

I lose 5 guys on Leadership 4 Conscripts. I roll a 1 on die. 2 run away. BUT WAIT! COMMISSAR! He shoots one, and I reroll to a 4.

Total dead Conscripts without Commissar? 7.
With? 11.

I'd make it this:

"When a unit within 6" fails a morale test, you may choose to reduce the number of fleeing models by 1d6, but never to less than 1."

 JNAProductions wrote:

w1zard wrote:
IMO, the fix for guard is a 4/5/6 point scheme. Concripts should still have the <Regiment> tag for access to doctrines, but the raw recruits rule should be changed to "Can't receive orders at all". Commissar summary execution should be: "If a unit within 6" fails a morale test, execute a model of your choice and redo the morale test without adding the roll"... simple, USEFUL, and you always at least break even regardless of the circumstances. It also ensures that large conscript units aren't totally immune to battle shock because at absolute most you are saving 5 models..

Um... That's actually WORSE than nothing.

I lose 5 guys on Leadership 4 Conscripts. I roll a 1 on die. 2 run away. BUT WAIT! COMMISSAR! He shoots one, and I reroll to a 4.

Total dead Conscripts without Commissar? 7.
With? 11.

I'd make it this:

"When a unit within 6" fails a morale test, you may choose to reduce the number of fleeing models by 1d6, but never to less than 1."

You aren't understanding.

Using your example, you lose 5 guys on Leadership 4 conscripts. You roll a 1 on the morel test roll, which would mean normally, 2 conscripts would run. Instead, the commisar blams one, you IGNORE adding the dice to the morale test, one runs away, you break even.

Ah. I did indeed misunderstand.

Yeah, I'd be cool with that.

I would expect that if there is a change to Conscript equipment, it would be paired with a new model kit of some sort, with GW's current scheme of things. Right now conscripts, veterans, and guardsmen live in something of a grey area to the "no model no rule" thing as they're broken down by fluff regiment not explicit models, as they all share the same statline and basic equipment and can be freely interchanged. That said, I don't expect we'll ever see that happen given the current business model, conscripts don't make for a sexy new kit, I think GW likes the whole "we can just make a gakload of one kit and have it produce lots of different units for this horde army".

Right now, there is no choice between conscripts and infantry squads. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a case for Conscripts over Infantry Squads until the latter get absurdly expensive given their current relative differences. Perhaps instead of worrying about whether they can get orders, perhaps just give them a single unique order related to being just a mass of bodies? Something similar could be done with the doctrine.

Ultimately, within 8th edition, I suspect all we'll see is points rejiggering, Guardsmen will go to 5ppm, Veterans will be left where they are for one reason or another, Conscripts will stay 4ppm, and GW will call that "good enough".

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, within 8th edition, I suspect all we'll see is points rejiggering, Guardsmen will go to 5ppm, Veterans will be left where they are for one reason or another, Conscripts will stay 4ppm, and GW will call that "good enough".

Veterans being the same price as guardsmen is utterly stupid. They really need to be troops choices. Stromtroopers should be elites, but count as troops inside <Militarum Tempestus> detachments.

I also think platoon commanders should be HQ's, but you need to take 2-3 to count as one choice. The way it is now, company commanders will always outnumber platoon commanders in any given detachment and that is so wrong from my perspective.

w1zard wrote:
I also think platoon commanders should be HQ's, but you need to take 2-3 to count as one choice. The way it is now, company commanders will always outnumber platoon commanders in any given detachment and that is so wrong from my perspective.

Alternatively, what if Guardsmen were 5pts per model, but for every 2 units of them you get a free Platoon Commander?

 vipoid wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I also think platoon commanders should be HQ's, but you need to take 2-3 to count as one choice. The way it is now, company commanders will always outnumber platoon commanders in any given detachment and that is so wrong from my perspective.

Alternatively, what if Guardsmen were 5pts per model, but for every 2 units of them you get a free Platoon Commander?

That's really wonky. If 7th edition taught us anything it is that "free" units are a bad thing for the game.

w1zard wrote:
That's really wonky. If 7th edition taught us anything it is that "free" units are a bad thing for the game.

You're probably right, though it wouldn't actually be a net gain:

Currently: 2x 40pt Infantry Squads + 1 20pt Platoon Commander = 100pts
2x 50pt Infantry Squads + 1 Free Platoon Commander = 100pts.
(And anyone using just 3 Infantry Squads in a Battalion would actually be 10pts worse off, even if you include the "free" points.)


Anyway, I thought it might be a way to make IG Battalions more expensive, without just being an outright nerf, as well as a way to see more Platoon Commanders taken and to hint at the old Platoon rules.

To make platoon commanders more common, just make the half the cost of company commanders. So 15/30 or 20/40. Then they wouldn't feel like a hindrance.

 Trickstick wrote:
To make platoon commanders more common, just make the half the cost of company commanders. So 15/30 or 20/40. Then they wouldn't feel like a hindrance.

Not a bad price point, BUT two Platoon Commanders are more durable than one Company Commander.

I'd rather they be a 1-3 HQ choice, like Lieutenants. (Maybe 2-3, so that way the 32 don't get cheaper.)

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not a bad price point, BUT two Platoon Commanders are more durable than one Company Commander.

The thing is, though, durability just isn't that much of an issue.

I'm not saying it never comes up but with characters being nigh-untargetable, I don't think it makes a huge difference. Especially when you have to take HQs anyway but Elites are optional in most cases.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd rather they be a 1-3 HQ choice, like Lieutenants. (Maybe 2-3, so that way the 32 don't get cheaper.)

I can see where you're coming from but having Platoon Commanders as HQs just feels wrong to me.

 vipoid wrote:

I can see where you're coming from but having Platoon Commanders as HQs just feels wrong to me.

Why? Small armies are platoon level. Now we have situations where there is two company commanders commanding a platoon of troops. How does that make any sense?

 vipoid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd rather they be a 1-3 HQ choice, like Lieutenants. (Maybe 2-3, so that way the 32 don't get cheaper.)

I can see where you're coming from but having Platoon Commanders as HQs just feels wrong to me.

But, as was pointed out, by making them Elites you're pretty much guaranteed to see more Company Commanders than Platoon Commanders. Doesn't that feel even more wrong?

 Crimson wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

I can see where you're coming from but having Platoon Commanders as HQs just feels wrong to me.

Why? Small armies are platoon level. Now we have situations where there is two company commanders commanding a platoon of troops. How does that make any sense?

I mean, if you're going by the military terms, small armies aren't platoons either.

Nevertheless, I see your point.

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

I can see where you're coming from but having Platoon Commanders as HQs just feels wrong to me.

Why? Small armies are platoon level. Now we have situations where there is two company commanders commanding a platoon of troops. How does that make any sense?

I mean, if you're going by the military terms, small armies aren't platoons either.

Nevertheless, I see your point.

Blame the post-Doctrines book. They used to be called "Junior Officers" with HQ slots being Senior and Heroic Senior Officers.

Literally removes most of the whinging about names by reverting to that.

You don’t need to completely rewrite the Guard codex to enact some of the suggestions here.

Conscripts become Gretchin-like and don’t benefit from stratagems, orders or doctrines. They stay at 4ppm. This can be done with a simple revised data sheet. Where Grots are 3 ppm, 3 ppm Conscripts have no place.

Guardsmen go up to 5 or 6 ppm and keep everything they have now. Perhaps they get the ability to be taken in larger squads.

Vets go back up to 6 ppm and stay as they are. They do not belong as troops unless their points are increased to justify the change.

Commissars ability is fixed so it actually helps mitigate morale but doesn’t make the army immune to it. Perhaps units only take half morale losses rounded up to a minimum of 1 if they have a Commissar near them? Or they can only affect one unit at a time.

I think these, pretty simple changes would go some way to help make the game more balanced and they hardly require a full rewrite of the Guard codex (which isn’t happening).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You don’t need to completely rewrite the Guard codex to enact some of the suggestions here.

Yes, you do.

Conscripts become Gretchin-like and don’t benefit from stratagems, orders or doctrines. They stay at 4ppm. This can be done with a simple revised data sheet. Where Grots are 3 ppm, 3 ppm Conscripts have no place.

Then Gretchin have no place at 3ppm thanks to a Stratagem where they become a FNP/Invul save for other units.

Guardsmen go up to 5 or 6 ppm and keep everything they have now. Perhaps they get the ability to be taken in larger squads.

Larger squads aren't the problem. If anything, they'd be more of a problem.

Vets go back up to 6 ppm and stay as they are. They do not belong as troops unless their points are increased to justify the change.

...They're not Troops. Have you ever read the Guard book? Get out.

Commissars ability is fixed so it actually helps mitigate morale but doesn’t make the army immune to it. Perhaps units only take half morale losses rounded up to a minimum of 1 if they have a Commissar near them? Or they can only affect one unit at a time.

It didn't "make the army immune to it". It was an aura, similar to any other ability that does the same thing.

I think these, pretty simple changes would go some way to help make the game more balanced and they hardly require a full rewrite of the Guard codex (which isn’t happening).

Sure it will. When they get rid of certain individuals who think Guard are still the "Derp Waves of Bodies!" route.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Vets go back up to 6 ppm and stay as they are. They do not belong as troops unless their points are increased to justify the change.

lolwut? 6ppm vets as an elite choice were unusable, the last year has proven that beyond doubt. It's only since they dropped a point that they've started to be seen as a potentially viable alternative to scions. Move them back to the troops slot and if necessary change them back to 6ppm, but vet's becoming troops is the real buff they need. As is, there is basically no reason to take vets when you could take scions instead, same BS, native deep strike, better special weapon density, lower model count lets them actually work out cheaper overall and the aforementioned native deepstrike means you don't have to shell out for a transport either. Oh and they count as troops as well so you build basic detachments with them, which is the real reason they're so much better than vets.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You don’t need to completely rewrite the Guard codex to enact some of the suggestions here.

Yes, you do.

Conscripts become Gretchin-like and don’t benefit from stratagems, orders or doctrines. They stay at 4ppm. This can be done with a simple revised data sheet. Where Grots are 3 ppm, 3 ppm Conscripts have no place.

Then Gretchin have no place at 3ppm thanks to a Stratagem where they become a FNP/Invul save for other units.

Guardsmen go up to 5 or 6 ppm and keep everything they have now. Perhaps they get the ability to be taken in larger squads.

Larger squads aren't the problem. If anything, they'd be more of a problem.

Vets go back up to 6 ppm and stay as they are. They do not belong as troops unless their points are increased to justify the change.

...They're not Troops. Have you ever read the Guard book? Get out.

Commissars ability is fixed so it actually helps mitigate morale but doesn’t make the army immune to it. Perhaps units only take half morale losses rounded up to a minimum of 1 if they have a Commissar near them? Or they can only affect one unit at a time.

It didn't "make the army immune to it". It was an aura, similar to any other ability that does the same thing.

I think these, pretty simple changes would go some way to help make the game more balanced and they hardly require a full rewrite of the Guard codex (which isn’t happening).

Sure it will. When they get rid of certain individuals who think Guard are still the "Derp Waves of Bodies!" route.

1. You clearly have no idea how the Grot shields stratagem works. Learn your arguments before you make them.
2. I did not suggest that Vets were currently troops, my comment is to the myriad of people suggesting they should be made troops in here. Do no, I won’t ‘get out’.
3. Keep Comissars as they are then. Sorry bud but the old Commissar rule isn’t returning. Nor are 3 ppm Conscripts for that matter.

Guardmen are 4 ppm, that is the truth that we have to accept and that has been set in stone by veterans going to 5.

Yeah it makes tactical marines (loyal and not) look really bad in comparison, but the sad reality is that they are bad. Compared to other troops like kabalites and fire warriors, they are not so out of it at 4 ppm, so let's accept that tacs are just bad.

We also had the GW answer to this "Yeah tacs are bad, but you have those nice primaris troops right here!.Oh look now they are even cheaper!". Intercessors at 17 are exceptional troops, clearly meant to squat marine troops. The meta is a bit against 2W models right now, but mathematically intercessors are good.

Spoletta wrote:
Guardmen are 4 ppm, that is the truth that we have to accept and that has been set in stone by veterans going to 5.

Yeah it makes tactical marines (loyal and not) look really bad in comparison, but the sad reality is that they are bad. Compared to other troops like kabalites and fire warriors, they are not so out of it at 4 ppm, so let's accept that tacs are just bad.

We also had the GW answer to this "Yeah tacs are bad, but you have those nice primaris troops right here!.Oh look now they are even cheaper!". Intercessors at 17 are exceptional troops, clearly meant to squat marine troops. The meta is a bit against 2W models right now, but mathematically intercessors are good.

No 4ppm guardsmen as a baseline, is bad for the game. Firewarriors are 6PPM and intercessors are 14 points each on that scale.

+1 for Intercessors not being exceptional troops.

Boring numbers but:
Intercessor vs 4 guardsmen.

Intercessor shooting Intercessors:
2*2/3*1/2*1/2=0.33 wounds=2.83 wounds.
Guardsmen shooting intercessors:
8*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.44 wounds=3.77 points.

Intercessors shooting guardsmen:
2*2/3*2/3*5/6=0.74 guardsmen=2.96 points.
Guardsmen shooting guardsmen:
8*1/2*1/2*2/3=1.33 guardsmen=5.33 points.

3.77/2.96=guardsmen do 27% more damage in head to head.

Conclusion: Intercessors are reasonably "tough" versus S3/S4 Ap- 1D weapons. They have however got crap damage output. At the same time you are locking in vulnerability to D2 weapons with reasonably strength or AP or both.

If Intercessors could get down to about 14/15 points they might become interesting. I doubt however they would ever be competitive, because if they became meta relevant it is incredibly easy to add things that hard counter them, and as it stands a lot of them are common choices anyway.

Spoletta wrote:
Guardmen are 4 ppm, that is the truth that we have to accept and that has been set in stone by veterans going to 5.

Yeah it makes tactical marines (loyal and not) look really bad in comparison, but the sad reality is that they are bad. Compared to other troops like kabalites and fire warriors, they are not so out of it at 4 ppm, so let's accept that tacs are just bad.

We also had the GW answer to this "Yeah tacs are bad, but you have those nice primaris troops right here!.Oh look now they are even cheaper!". Intercessors at 17 are exceptional troops, clearly meant to squat marine troops. The meta is a bit against 2W models right now, but mathematically intercessors are good.

Ok let just use the new primaris...oh wait, GW didn't give them to all marines. Chaos can't take them, GK can't take them.

f Intercessors could get down to about 14/15 points they might become interesting. I doubt however they would ever be competitive, because if they became meta relevant it is incredibly easy to add things that hard counter them, and as it stands a lot of them are common choices anyway.

So they would cost 5pts less then strikes. That would be kind of a unfair considering they have 2W.