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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.

I don't agree.

IG are still a capable army in the killing arena. Their problem is holding objectives. So how exactly do you get "basic humans" to survive at holding objectives?

For most of 40K IS were whipping boys to bolters barring the option for carapace. They've never been "good". Also for most of 40K the goal was usually just kill everything. The best you could get from them was MMM onto some distant objective.

They aren't Sisters with power armor and faith. They're just basic dudes. And you can't make the default soldier really good at that job since they'd otherwise drown the game in bodies. So you need an occasional boost. Enter stratagems.

Why not carapace? That can also be a thing, but conscripts don't get carapace and this is more beneficial.

The fundamental concept of stratagems, spending a resource for specific abilities or actions, is fine, Ill grant that.

Trying to address a larger faction balance like the one you're talking about, by presenting it as "X subfaction's dudes are just too darn plucky to die!" is just not a greatly applied solution to me.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think that Cadia just giving a name to their conscripts other than "Conscript" really makes them an iconic hallmark unit, as noted, it was just a way to use fluff to visually mark conscripts vs normal guardsmen with white markings. If they're too competent to merit the Conscript unit entry, they should just be used as regulard Guardsmen.

Or maybe the Conscript unit entry just needs to be reworked, period, because it's been a frigging millstone around the Guard army's neck for far, far too long.

That doesn't need special rules, some slight FoC shifting in a book 2 decades old doesn't really need a distinct unit entry or Stratagem manipulation. I would consider all of that to be bloat. Same thing for Scions vs Kasrkin or Krieg Grenadiers (just allow them to take a Regiment keyword basically, doesnt need a stratagem or new unit entry).

Sure it does. Nothing wrong with Cadians only being able to access a more reliable version of Conscripts.

Additionally, Kasrkin and Grenadiers didn't run around plasma spamming. Krieg Grenadiers had their own weapon loadouts(Heavy Stubbers+HFT team) and Kasrkin did in the lore as well...though technically in the lore the Kasrkin had their own full Regiments, complete with Heavy Weapons Teams, scout teams, etc.

And really, not everything is "bloat". You lot have watered the term down to be meaningless at this point.

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Plus everyone gets to be Creed.

I'm a bit irritated by this I have to say. The Tallarn Ambush stratagem was already pretty heavyly invalidated by everyone suddenly being able to put everything into strategic reserves. But at least it was still - sometimes - a bit cheaper in CP then doing it the "normal" strategic reserve way. Now with this warlord trait, even this can't be said anymore for the Tallarn ambush, as putting units in reserve with this is free and can be done after deployment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You could reduce the lethality of the bolter boys, instead of increasing the durability of Guardsmen.

In 4th, a Bolter couldn't fire 24", but could fire twice at 12" if it moved. This means that the Marines had to either move within 12", or take 1 shot at 24". The latter option only kills 5 guardsmen in the open from 10 marines, not a concerning trade for the guard player at all.

The former option is devastating, but also requires the Marines to somehow get within 12" of the Guardsmen. As this makes maneuver and force concentration more important for the Marines, it also makes counterplay options exist for the IG player (such as setting sightlines with AP3 weapons to deter the Marines from cover-hopping or movement blocking with something more durable to bolters like Ogryn or a tank, etc).

In 4th, the IG player could take objectives with his troops by covering them with fire, maneuvering other assets to protect them, or even simply hunkering down in cover with them to wait for reinforcement from something that could deter, suppress, or destroy the Marines.

they could only do this because the lowered lethality of the Marines themselves meant that IGOUGO didn't immediately result in the Guard squad getting vaporized like a moth in a blowtorch all the way from the enemy's DZ, giving the Guard player time to react.

Changing bolters doesn't do much. If I need 10 T3 to die I can make it happen in any edition. In older editions those guardsmen would be testing for morale and probably running even if they had cover.

You can stick chimeras in front now. You can duck behind cover. But sooner rather than later you'll get charged.

To me, if the distinction between a unit is basically equipped the same and fills the same role and all thats different is a faction keyword and maybe an optional upgrade (in the case of the Grenadiers, a Heavy Stubber option nobody ever used, but stands in wonderfully for a Volleygun), they dont need to be their own units, thats bloat to me.

We're not making the game deeper or more tactically reflective, we're not really reflecting meaningful lore in any but the most pedantic and flanderized of lenses, and we're just addings lots of extra complexity and record keeping.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Trying to address a larger faction balance like the one you're talking about, by presenting it as "X subfaction's dudes are just too darn plucky to die!" is just not a greatly applied solution to me.

It's hard to assess how it will all shape up. You may see Mordians just straight ignore morale, Tallarn get an extra cover bonus, etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To me, if the distinction between a unit is basically equipped the same and fills the same role and all thats different is a faction keyword and maybe an optional upgrade (in the case of the Grenadiers, a Heavy Stubber option nobody ever used, but stands in wonderfully for a Volleygun), they dont need to be their own units, thats bloat to me.

That's fine. It ain't bloat to me, because they can be differentiated from fairly well...assuming that someone actually takes the bloody time and isn't just going to keep using the same models all the time.

Not my problem that you want to seem to just play stand-ins while complaining about bloat.

We're not making the game deeper or more tactically reflective, we're not really reflecting meaningful lore in any but the most pedantic and flanderized of lenses, and we're just addings lots of extra complexity and record keeping.

Sure we're not. Because the core rot at the heart of the Guard book is always there. Everything is too samesy and the book just keeps staggering along. It NEEDS to start having things like this to actually force people to start realizing that Guard is an army that really can be interesting.

Things like the Confidant Veteran we saw introduced in KT? That's aces. We've had for years now a "2nd in command" for squads in the lore, but it took until NOW for that to happen. Maybe we'll get lucky and start seeing something heavy happen for Officers too.

PenitentJake wrote:

In older versions of the game, it didn't matter which army you used- you won by doing exactly the same things as every other army: use suppression fire, break morale so you could wipe a unit out with a sweeping advance, position yourself so that enemy units were impeded by difficult terrain.

That's how you win a real firefight so it should be a valid way to do things in game.

2+ guardsmen in cover is fething ridiculous.

Additive cover saves are a little stupid.

Racerguy180 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

In older versions of the game, it didn't matter which army you used- you won by doing exactly the same things as every other army: use suppression fire, break morale so you could wipe a unit out with a sweeping advance, position yourself so that enemy units were impeded by difficult terrain.

That's how you win a real firefight so it should be a valid way to do things in game.

2+ guardsmen in cover is fething ridiculous.

It's requiring:
-Cover save(which can be nullified by certain weapons or even some army traits), meaning that the cover in question has Light Cover.
-1CP for this "Cadia Stands!" Stratagem which requires the Guardsmen to be Cadian and the weapon damaging them to be 1 Damage.
-1CP for "Take Cover!", which has to be used when your opponent selects a unit as a target to be shot at.
So that's 3 situational bits to tick off(cover having Light Cover for a +1, Cadia Stands requiring the weapon damaging to be 1 damage for an additional +1 save, and the unit having been chosen to get shot at during your opponent's shooting phase for an additional +1 from "Take Cover!").

I do not think that is such a wild set of circumstances to be 100% all the time active. Stop pretending that it is.

If you don't think guard armies are gonna lean into this heavily, I'm not sure what to say?

What I want to know is behind what space-couch are the Cadians finding all those Cadian Conscripts now the planet is a jigsaw puzzle?

Racerguy180 wrote:
If you don't think guard armies are gonna lean into this heavily, I'm not sure what to say?

It's going to be one unit. Part of the trick is not overcommitting to the ploy so that I decide to shoot something else and let you burn that CP, but that really depends how key that objective is at the moment. If it is imperative then I better bring more than I think I need to get the job done.

There's a lot more decision making that happens on the table than people here are willing to admit.

PenitentJake wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:


"Say, you know what's a bit out of date? Monster datasheets. We ought to release a campaign book, and at the back of it, put in some new updated datasheets for a whole bunch of monsters for a whole bunch of factions. Oh, also, we've been meaning to implement that little incentive thing where we want people to bring 1 monster in their army, but not necessarily skew their list into just only monsters all the time, so let's go ahead and release that little bonus rule you get for 1 of your monsters along with all the new datasheets! We'll release it for every faction in the game simultaneously, so nobody's left out."

Wow, I don't play AoS, so I didn't know this is how they do it. Question: Are there 60 page threads bitching about how it's DLC because in order to get the new data sheet for monsters and it how all of that stuff should have been in the battle tome, and all battle tomes should have been released at the exact same time. I suspect that's what would happen if the same thing was done for 40k.
.

No, actually, because AOS *had* a very solid App that updated those datasheets for you for free...because I dunno, maybe games workshop is a model company or something.

Cronch wrote:
What I want to know is behind what space-couch are the Cadians finding all those Cadian Conscripts now the planet is a jigsaw puzzle?

They're literally recruiting from every planet they serve on.

They also had a fairly robust number of settled worlds with mustered out Cadians.

Also, this is another argument in favor of Conscripts being "Auxilia"...with "Whiteshields" stratagem giving them the Cadian regimental keyword+trait.

Cronch wrote:
What I want to know is behind what space-couch are the Cadians finding all those Cadian Conscripts now the planet is a jigsaw puzzle?

They've actually taken to breaking the pieces of the planet down into man-sized chunks and given them flak and a lasgun. Roughly the same accuracy, a bit harder to transport but much tougher and much easier on supply lines. Another brilliant move by His Most Holy Administratum!

Actually the chunks would be easier to fit into chimeras/whatever transport. Administratum would love that efficiency.

And significantly less prone to motion sickness or asphyxiation (and capable of high-altitude deployment without needing fancy doodads like "parachutes" or "soft ground to land on"), but also much heavier per unit volume and thus less fuel-efficient overall.

The Warlord trait seems good, but two Full Payload Manticores are probably still better. Are Guard currently able to hand out 2 different Warlord traits to 2 different officers?

Racerguy180 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

In older versions of the game, it didn't matter which army you used- you won by doing exactly the same things as every other army: use suppression fire, break morale so you could wipe a unit out with a sweeping advance, position yourself so that enemy units were impeded by difficult terrain.

That's how you win a real firefight so it should be a valid way to do things in game.

2+ guardsmen in cover is fething ridiculous.

Sure, it is how you win a real fire fight with humans vs humans in the early 21st century.

But that's not what 40k is.

It's a fight (sometimes a firefight and sometimes a brawl) between sometimes humans, but also sometimes lightning quick elves who move too fast to hit at range or use hollow projectors; sometimes against robots who contain the undying souls of a vanquished race; sometimes it's humans in power armour who can call upon their faith in the power of a God Emperor to affect miracles on the battlefield, and sometimes it's between aliens who bleed acid, spit venom or learn things by eating your brains.

That kind of lore diversity supports a system where not every army wins by using the same tactics or fighting styles. I'm not saying it's the only way, I'm just saying that the way is appropriate, given the context of this particular game.

And it's not guarsman having 2+ in cover. That's what it would be if it was a datacard ability.

It's a single unit of particularly hard troopers conditioned by the destruction of their entire planet having the option to use their extraordinary experience to go to ground if the army hasn't already committed enough heroic acts over the course of the battle that doing so would be beyond the threshold of expertise for even this particularly battle-hardened force. Because it's a strat, so there are limitations in place that govern its use.

It is the 130 pound mom lifting the tree that's crushing her kid: it can't always happen- it doesn't even often happen, and it is even less likely to happen to the same mom twice, or to two different moms who live in the same neighbourhood.

In short, it is EXACTLY the kind of thing that strats were designed to represent.

Notice how I didn't say only way. It should be a way to win. Just like how you can win the game by tabling or out secondarying your opponent. You should be able to use valid tactics to overcome shortcomings of your army. If you cannot, well that sucks.

 Valkyrie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.

Dakka in a nutshell

I don't get it.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound a Land Raider than Cadians.

D'ya get it now?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.

Dakka in a nutshell

I don't get it.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound a Land Raider than Cadians.

D'ya get it now?

Bingo let that sink in a little....

Racerguy180 wrote:

Bingo let that sink in a little....

And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.

If all you have to shoot at is Infantry.....so maybe relevant?

It's more ridiculous layering of crap.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Notice how I didn't say only way. It should be a way to win. Just like how you can win the game by tabling or out secondarying your opponent. You should be able to use valid tactics to overcome shortcomings of your army. If you cannot, well that sucks.

Ahhh. Fair enough.

Gotcha.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.

It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound a Land Raider than Cadians.

D'ya get it now?

Again though... It's not.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound ONE UNIT of Cadians per turn if they are are standing close enough to a legendary hero and the army has not already used all of it's capacity for excellence on other options like offensive tactics than it is for the Shadowsword to wound a landraider.

People do really have to stop writing their complaints in such a way that it makes it sound like this is going to happen with EVERY unit of conscripts on EVERY turn, cuz it just isn't. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone would burn 2 CP and tie up a warlord to protect a unit of conscripts. Yes, it is possible. But is it ever really going to be tactically wise to invest so many resources in a unit of conscripts?

I mean maybe if it's a tie game on turn five and you somehow have both the character alive AND in position AND you somehow still have enough CP, AND then conscripts are standing on the objective you need for the win.

There are stories of people falling out of airplanes and surviving, or being struck by lightning and surviving. But that doesn't mean that it's safe to jump out of a plane or stand under a tree in a thunderstorm.

This is why strats exist- so that crazy legendary sh*t like this is technically possible, but not very likely.

Now the case were they use ONE of the three stacking buffs on one unit of conscripts, ONE of the others on a different unit of conscripts and the final buff on a third unit is more likely, and I suppose it's possible to argue that this is an issue. Or that using any two of these three buffs on the same unit is an issue... But even then, I think the opportunity cost of doing it balances the impact of it.

PenitentJake wrote:
Again though... It's not.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound ONE UNIT of Cadians per turn if they are are standing close enough to a legendary hero and the army has not already used all of it's capacity for excellence on other options like offensive tactics than it is for the Shadowsword to wound a landraider.

It doesn't matter if it's one unit or 100 units. The fact is that it can happen, and it shouldn't.

What about that don't you get?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.

Dakka in a nutshell

I don't get it.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound a Land Raider than Cadians.

D'ya get it now?

That's technically incorrect. A shadowsword has twin heavy bolters which are only str 5 and thus largely useless against a Land Raider. It's easier for a Shadowsword to injure Cadians with this strat active than a Land Raider.

Startagem to provide a small temporary nudge of toughness to infantry either through a "to wound cap" like Orks and Space Marines, extra cover saves, malus to hit are nearly universal and for a good reason. In a game with Shadowswords and the like, infantry would be nearly useless without it (and people endlessly complained about it, especially Marines fan who were offended that an army filled with anti-tank weapons would wreck their elite infantry like any random guardsmen). In the same vein, people complained endlessly about not having cool toys to blow away stuff because that's also really fun. A good game will try to mitigate both, and I think those strats are quite interesting in that regard. They allow to take some risk taking with infantry and are a nice way to represent "heroic grit" or the like.