New “Matched Play” Rules

For those of you who have not seen Warhammer Community, there have been a few key changes summarised as follows:

  • +1 to go first roll is now the Matched Play rule rather than a tournament change;
  • all Troops have access to Objective Secured;
  • Flyers can not hold objectives.

This really puts the nail in the coffin for flyer lists while also disappointingly giving every Troops Objective Secured back. I think it would have been quite interesting to see what armies did and did not get this but really helps some of those armies that like taking big units of their Troops (Imperial Guard, Tyranids and Orks looking at you) over the more elite based armies / Troops who do not want to be in the open for long (Grey Knights / Marines, Eldar, Tau, etc.).

This does limit the Soup list building though taking multiple detachments works around this still – something we likely would have seen with the roll out of specific army codex anyway.

Full rules below.

Chapter Approved is coming soon and with it, a host of changes designed to make your games more fun. With tournament season fast approaching, we’ve decided to release some of the new rules from Chapter Approved early in the interest of making sure that your matched play games are as fun and as balanced as possible. These include further changes to Flyers, a massive universal bonus to Troops units in every army and new rules about who gets the first turn of a game. We spoke to the Design team about what’s new:

New Matched Play Rules

We are always eager to listen to the Warhammer 40,000 community and improve the game based on the feedback you provide, and one of the areas we get the most correspondence about is matched play. The joy of Chapter Approved is that, as we see certain themes emerge about rules that might not be working properly, we can take steps to address them. To this effect, Chapter Approved introduces several new matched play rules, all of which are designed to help redress certain imbalances or exploits within the rules that you tell us are leading to games that are not as fun as they could be. Here you can see one such example:

As you may recall, we have already amended the Instant Death rule in Warhammer 40,000 to prevent Flyer-only armies from dominating matched play games. This was met with a positive response, but the feedback we have received since suggests that it did not go far enough. Boots on the Ground helps to redress this – aircraft are soaring so high and so fast that they cannot hold objectives; their role is to support the warriors and vehicles on the ground as they do the bloody work of capturing and controlling territory.

New Detachment Rules

Since Warhammer 40,000: Dark Imperium was launched, we have released several codexes, but there are still plenty of Factions – Orks, Drukhari, Necrons etc. – that don’t yet have a codex of their own. Chapter Approved gives these players a sneak peek of what many of these factions can expect when their codex is released (we are hard on work to get that done as quickly as we can), but one of the things we wanted to do was give everyone access to ‘objective secured’ right away:

As you can see, this is an ability that rewards you for grouping your warriors into faction-specific detachments by giving Troops units the ability to control objective markers even when outnumbered by the enemy. As you can imagine, it gives these units a real edge, and helps to ensure your line troops are not at a disadvantage compared to those factions that are lucky enough to have a codex already.

New Matched Play Missions

A great mission is critical to a great game of Warhammer 40,000, and Chapter Approved includes a dozen brand new matched play missions for you to test your skills. One of the things we’ve had the most feedback about is about which player gets the first turn in these missions. Barring a sneaky Seize the Initiative roll, the current feeling is that the present method is a bit too reliable, and some players are developing armies and strategies to exploit this. We’ve taken this feedback on board and changed how you determine who gets the first turn in every one of the new matched play missions presented in Chapter Approved:

This change ensures that in these new missions, the first turn is never guaranteed; whilst you can construct an elite army to stack the odds a little in your favour, it still all comes down to a roll-off, so you’ll have to build an army and deploy it accordingly. If you prefer the original method though, worry not! These new missions do not replace the matched play missions in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, they supplement them, allowing you to choose the style of mission rules you enjoy playing the most.

These rules will be in place at Blood & Glory and at the NOVA Open, as well as several other competitive events around the world. If you’re entering any of these competitions, now’s the time to adjust your lists – you’ll want to stock up on Troops choices, and you’ll be free to take loads of units without having to worry too much about getting stuck with a second turn! If you’re interested in running your own events with these rules, check out the Warhammer 40,000 Grand Tournament event pack for scoring, tiebreakers and more.

Chapter Approved will hit the shelves in time for Christmas this year.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

116 Responses to “New “Matched Play” Rules”

  1. badmojo1966 says:

    I do like that they are listening. An added -1 for units obstructed by cover would of been nice.

  2. Ish says:

    I’m happy that they are listening. I’d have preferred Objective Secured be only given to some specific units in some armies and not all Troops in the game, but it’s a minor annoyance and one I can happily live with. But this is still a heckuva lot nicer than waiting years between revisions.

    • Cato says:

      Indeed. There was no reason for the blanket pronouncement on all troops. It's a nice addition as-is but was executed ham-fistedly in view. Missed an opportunity to differentiate and help out the smaller elite troops. The hordes certainly don't need more help. I think, in fact, they should make it so T3 weapons can't wound anything with >6T. The math behind raw volume of fire is ridiculous. Crap troops have value as bubble wrap, etc and don't need to be amongst the most point-efficient killers.

      By the way, they should probably get rid of the flyer 'tabling' rule now. Boots on the Ground is far superior and achieves the same effect.

  3. Prometheus says:

    There is no an argument about what counts as a "faction", or perhaps "<faction>". Mike Brandt claims the "<>" are super important and that excludes Imperial Soup armies from getting it, but I'm unconvinced. I don't think GW has been nearly regular enough with their keyword use to claim that the brackets are that significant.

    Because remember, Imperial is faction, Grey Knights is a faction. Neither have brackets. Just Septs and chapters and the like do.


    • Cato says:

      Will someone explain the conundrum here? It seems pretty straight forward that a faction detachment is one where all units have at least one common faction keyword. There is no implied 'depth' to the keywords.

      • Prometheus says:

        Basically, does "imperium", "chaos", or "eladri" count as a faction, or only the more limited "factions", i.e. codexes.

        Some people argue there's no difference. Some people argue "<" makes it different.

        • Cato says:

          I'll quickly get out of my depth with rules lawyering, but…

          "Imperium" is a faction keyword. Space Marines are part of the Imperium faction. <Chapter> or <Clan> is just used as a place holder so you can insert your personal chapter or clan. Nothing more, nothing less. Sergeant Telion for example has no <Chapter> because he is part of Ultramarines.

          I don't understand where the specialness of <> is specified. ?

      • Kirby says:

        Imperium is set across the units but <Chapter> is not. So <Chapter> models according to some are the only ones getting Objective Secured if the detachment has only <Chapter> models (assuming they are all the same chapter) while others are pointing out that Imperium is also a faction keyword, hence why all the soup armies are battle forged.

        My inclination is RAI as the <Chapter> example given the way the wording of what we have seen so far in the released codecies.

        • Prometheus says:

          I agree, but they weren't exactly clear about it, were they?

          • Kirby says:

            They never are :P.

          • happy_inquisitor says:

            It is an excerpt so I would not expect it to be the clearest thing ever. The full book may have examples of further text to clarify it. These teaser excerpts quite often leave a few questions unanswered.

            In the meantime some of the play testers are also tournament organizers so I suspect by the time the book comes out we will all have a clear idea of how it is to be played anyway. If I were to hazard a guess I would think that the very early teaser for this book – far too early to drive book sales – was to help these TOs out by giving their rules packs a little more official backing from Nottingham.

            • Prometheus says:

              Except that they are saying "use these 3 rules now", in which case you better make those rules clear, now.

              • happy_inquisitor says:

                In reality – as I suggested – this is probably something they have done as backup to certain TOs who are also play testers who want to use these rules now. If that is the case then the people who asked for this already knew what it meant and will run their tournaments accordingly.

                • Prometheus says:

                  Yes, I know some of those TOs, and I agree. But it doesn't matter. Be clear and unambiguous.


                  • happy_inquisitor says:

                    I agree with that – and a reasonably polite note of its ambiguity on the facebook page will probably get back to the designers so they can do something about it (or at least read the whole section they wrote and decide if it is clearer in context)

              • Lemondish says:

                Except they are clear.

            • Alastores says:

              I would doubt there will be clarifications in the full book.

              After all, there aren't any in the actual rule book.

        • Cato says:

          Defenders of Humanity applies to '…all troops within Space Marines detachments…' (iPad version). I assumed they meant Adeptus Astartes keyword by the use of Space Marines.This means that DoH works in a Space Marines soup detachment. Note that Chapter Tactics specifically relies on a Chapter keyword to bind the whole detachment together under a single chapter.

          I had assumed ObSec was just a further generalized DoH.

          The fluff description you have in your article certainly complicates it and makes me re-think RAI. However, they better re-write much of their verbiage around Battle-forged and keywords to make this clear if what you say is their intention.

          Thanks for the response. I hadn't thought this through clearly!

        • Kadeton says:

          It's a weird one, for sure.

          "If your army is Battle-Forged," then all your units are already in <Faction> detachments by the very nature of a Battle-Forged army, so why would "all Troops units in <Faction> detachments" need to be specified? Similarly, what's the point of Defenders of Humanity if Objective Secured does the same thing but is less restrictive?

          On the other hand, they give some examples of Factions right there in the article – "Orks, Druhkari, Necrons etc" – which are roughly as generic as "Imperium" and have their own sub-Factional (and in the case of Drukhari, super-Factional) keywords.

          Everything is Factions?!

          • AngryPanda says:

            If they used those examples than Imperium definitely counts. Unless they don't think so and thought that was obvious for no good reason…

    • artemi71 says:

      Man, if my Sisters of Battle don't get ObSec because I took a Vindicare Assassin then that's flat bullshit. I can't possibly think that would be the intended design.

      • Prometheus says:

        Pretty sure they won't, anymore than my GK do.

        Coteaz, and other inquisitors, either. Extra annoying since they used to be part of my codex (and yours).

        • artemi71 says:

          Yeah, maybe I'll quit being salty when they actually give us some new stuff but for now they just keep slicing out pieces of what I used to run, making them terrible solo unit 'factions', then tell me I can still take them as allies but with a huge downside. It's like the old Chaos CSM/Demons split, but without the 3 editions of goodies to start to replace stuff. :/

      • Dakkath says:

        Just stick the vindi in a vanguard detachment (or whatever one matches the vindi's slot) and make sure all your troop sisters are in mono-sisters detachments.

        • artemi71 says:

          Is that the one that reduces your CP by one? Assassins are elites, I don't think there are any elite only detachments, are there?

          • Dakkath says:

            No, but the vanguard detachment is 1-something hqs, 3-6 elites, 0-3 for troops, fast attack, and heavy. So stick all the non-troop choices there, use a battalion for the troops so they get obsec for being a mono-sisters detachment.

            Or if you don't have 3 elites you wanna use, do something like a spearhead with celestine, 3 exorcists, and the vindi; and a battalion with 2 canoness and 3 squads of sisters.

  4. Shadowmancer says:

    It's a shame that they want to ruin the game by adding in itc stuff. +1 to go first is not good having played it. It takes learning how to deploy based on number of drops. Objective secured is just annoying at best not game ruining, but not great either

  5. AngryPanda says:

    They are acting way faster than I ever thought possible for them.

    • Matt-Shadowlord says:

      "We are watching the results of events and listening to feedback"

      SHOCK BREAKING NEWS: They were telling the truth 😀

      • Prometheus says:

        You sound sarcastic but it actually is sorta shocking.

        Book not being out until December is a little old school for them, tho.

        • Ish says:

          Lead times are still a thing. No matter how “kinder and gentler” the other departments might get, the guys in layout can only work so fast, the guys down at the printing plant can only work so fast, the guys driving the trucks can only go so fast, etcetera.

            • Ish says:

              Three months seems pretty reasonable to me. I mean, we gotta assume that these rules updates are all fairly recent developments otherwise, y’know, they’d have been in the book they just released a month ago. 😉

              Remember, GW has several books already on the way with confirmed street dates, many more simply announced to come out “later this year,” and so forth. They aren’t a small garage hobbyist company posting PDFs on RPGNow, they’re a multinational company with all kinds of logistical hoops to jump through.

              Be patient.

          • AngryPanda says:

            Dude I used to write user manuals which are pretty damn close to a rulebook. With the basic designs already laid out and reused (Which they do) our output would have been every major Codex in under a month and it would have been a slow one. The slack GW gets and how every little thing they do is put on some pedestal as if other people wouldn't deal with and solve those things all the time has gotten so ridiculous.

    • Yes they are, but they are still finding ways to charge you for everything.

      • Prometheus says:

        arrgh, Imma a pirate.

      • AngryPanda says:

        I bought an Eldar Codex that lasted for about a year and a half. And that's the last book they sold me. Raise the black and all that.

        • I've been considering lobbying my local library to carry copies. If 40k had the same level of community that Infinity does locally, we would have a tournament to raise money for community books to be kept at the store. I have to admit, part of me is impressed that GW has people fired up to purchase errata on books that are only 6 months old. I've promised myself that I will not spend a dime on faction specific rules. I think I'll say the same for errata. If GW is fortunate, that means I'll pirate them. If not it means I'll just play something else. There is of course the promise of an app, but given the "Free Core Rules" half-truth, I can't say I have any faith that the app won't just be another way for GW to charge people for what most games give you for free.

      • Lemondish says:

        GASP, a company out to make money takes steps to make money.

        NEWS AT 11

        • All game companies are out to make money. I'm tired of this bullshit argument. Games Workshop charges more for rules than any other game, period. Commenting on that does not mean that I'm attacking free markets or capitalism or anything of the sort. It means I'm commenting on GW charging more for rules than any other game. In fact, the value judgment I'm making as a potential consumer is at the very heart of doing business. If all you've got to offer is some poorly conceived sarcasm, then I suggest that maybe you should hold off on your comments and avoid embarrassing yourself. Try Bell of Lost Souls, it might be more your speed. The comments there specialize in mindless snark.

  6. Dakkath says:

    Universal ObSec for troops is back-ish. On the one hand, great that they're addressing the issue for armies who haven't gotten their codex yet. On the other hand that rule is heavily in favor of armies who can bring massive blobs of hard-to-shift troops (orks, nids, IG, horrors). And of course there's the armies whose troops are too flimsy to really hold objectives (t'au, aeldari), vs the ones with resilient troops you'd take anyway (necrons, marines of various flavors.)

  7. ColKi says:

    I'm amused by the general trend in how they reveal mechanics – touting them as a unique and powerful ability and then writing them into all armies as part of a shared base-level.

    For example, talking up the chainsword ability for +1 attack, then it becoming clear that any melee weapon would be a carbon copy. Similarly with "Defenders of Humanity " just turning out to be a name for the ability every troop choice in the game gets.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset because SM should have had exclusive access to these abilities, but I do think that we are missing out on a chance to add character to the game.

    • Cato says:

      A bit of an aside and off-topic, but where is it stated that all melee weapons have the chainsword +1 attack? I've been trying to figure out why I'd ever take a Combat Blade over a bolter given its profile is the same as a generic/none specified weapon (S-usr, 0 AP, 1 dmg). Thanks.

      • No One says:

        They don't, but most of them do. It's not specific to melee weapons per se, but most units that had the option for a 'generic cc weapon' (i.e. comboing to +1A with pistol/other cc weapon) now has that same weapon with +1 A. e.g. Chainswords, combat knives, cultist knife, (pretty sure) choppas etc.

        Basically, unless it says 'this model can make 1 additional attack' etc, then no, you don't get the 'chainsword +1 attack'.

      • Kadeton says:

        Combat Knife, under the Abilities column: "Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon."

        That's a common wording on melee weapons whose profile is otherwise like the generic close combat weapon – chainswords, choppas, combat knives, etc. It's not a blanket rule across all melee weapons, but it's copy-pasted across many entries.

        • Cato says:

          Ok…now I see my confusion. In the new Space Marines codex, there is no such ability on Combat Knives! Only in the superseded(?) Imperium index. In the codex, there is no reason for Scouts, Reivers, etc to take Combat Knives. Thank you for the clarification!

          • Kadeton says:

            … Are you sure? It's there in the dataslates for Scouts, Reivers, Scout Bikers, etc in my copy, as well as in the weapon summary on p.191.

            • Cato says:

              I have the enhanced iPad version and it has a '–' in the abilities section for Combat Knife. The chainsword has the +1A ability, though. That's disappointing that the hard and soft copies are different.

              • Cato says:

                Just so I was clear. The +1A is in the iPad index but not in the new iPad Codex. I assume the codex supersedes the index?

                • Kadeton says:

                  The Codex does supersede the Index, but the entry for the Combat Knife should have the same "additional attack" ability in both books. I haven't used the iPad edition, but it sounds like it's an error in that version!

                • ColKi says:

                  My digital (basic, not ipad) version of the Codex shows the following fir reivers:

                • Prometheus says:

                  Interesting. I have a pirated .pdf and the +1 attack rule is there. But I earlier noticed it had contemptor dreads hitting on 2+, they don't.

                  I also ran into something similar at a tournament, the guy who I was playing, his "enhanced edition" (index) listed lieutenant in gravis armor as having a 2+ save, and it doesn't.

                  • Cato says:

                    Thanks for the info guys. Looks like the enhanced edition has a bad entry for Combat Knives. Also, it has Contemptor Dreadnoughts WS (and BS) as 2+ (undamaged). And there is no Lieutenant in Gravis Armor.

                    I'm going to try to find an errata email for GW.

                  • ColKi says:

                    Your pirated PDF is a conversion of the ePub version I bought, so we will be the same.

                    I've never use contemptors before, are they not supposed to be 2+?

                    • Prometheus says:

                      So I believe that regular GW contemptors are 3+, but FW has a ven dread version.

                      But yeah, the ,pdf is wrong. Is yours an "enhanced edition" or just some regular version? (no idea what the options are)

                    • Kadeton says:

                      I mean… what makes you think that regular Contemptors are 3+? The Index has them as 2+, the Codex version we all have lists them as 2+… where does the 3+ come from?

                    • Prometheus says:

                      My friends printed codex.

                      Really I don't know, I only know something is incorrect.

                    • Prometheus says:

                      Battlescribe has them at 2+, too. Maybe they are 2+. Maybe my friend misread his codex, but I heard him (we were on the phone) go and check. Anybody have a physical codex handy?

                      Regardless, also not the only thing. Index "enhanced" .pdf has Gravis Captain at 2+ save, and I know that was wrong. That I saw with my own eyes, and my (pirated) codex had him at 3+ save, as did the printed book.

                    • Kadeton says:

                      Yeah, totally. Though so far, it sounds like most of the errors (that I've heard about) are in the "enhanced" editions. I guess going from a 3+ save to a 2+ is certainly "enhanced"!

                    • ColKi says:

                      There are three versions: dead tree, ePub (usable on any device) or "enhanced" iDevice only (includes pretty rotatable pictures).

                      The PDF versions floating around the web are essentially printed from the ePub using Calibre.

                      The contemptor has degrading stats, and when I was first flicking through the codex that gave me the impression that they started at 3+. Could your friend have made the same mistake?

                    • Prometheus says:

                      Of course he could have, but that doesn't answer the question: Do you have the hardcopy, and does it start at 2+ or 3+ (we all know it degrades, man).

                    • MindwarpAU says:

                      My hard copy says Contemptors start at 2+

                    • Prometheus says:

                      Thank you. Sounds like my friend just read it wrong.

                    • ColKi says:

                      Do you have to be quite so hard nosed about everything?

                      Still, does sound like there are some other errors in the iPad version. I'm also pretty sure across all versions there are no points for the intercessor auxiliary grenade launcher.

                    • No One says:

                      *Points at errata*. They've added pts for the grenade launchers.

                    • ColKi says:

                      Thanks! I just read that.

  8. Desc440 says:

    I would be fine with ObSec on all Troops if they went back to scoring objectives the old way i.e. just need a unit to capture/contest. With the current scoring rules, ObSec is just silly for Conscripts and the like. Stupid, STUPID change!

    • Kirby says:

      Yup I think we can all agree about that – those type of armies are not what I enjoy (save Tyranids) which makes it extremely frustrating as well.

      • Prometheus says:

        But if you have obsec, too, doesn't it cancel out? And your power level is likely higher

        • Desc440 says:

          If both units have ObSec, you go back to checking who has the most models on the objective, which the Conscripts and other chaff infantry will win handily.

      • TrexPushups says:

        It would have been a nice change for super cheap hordes like conscripts to not have objective secured but regular imperial guard units to have it.

        It would have shown the difference between well trained troops & people sent into battle with quickly after getting their equipment.

    • vipoid says:

      Perhaps a good fix for Conscripts would be that they don't count as a scoring unit?

      • Cato says:

        Or, S3 weapons can't hurt T7+ vehicles, monsters, etc and Conscripts don't get ObSec.

        • vipoid says:

          I'd rather not see that happen. It was one of the many things that made 7th unbearable.

          • Cato says:

            Understand; maybe just significantly up the cost (2x or 3x). Everyone was up in arms about the broken flyer lists, but the conscript problem is just as bad. A quick perusal of the ETC lists show that almost all the IG/AM entries had 150-250 conscripts. Mathammer indicates they are amongst the most point efficient killers in the game (so much for Space Marines being the preeminent Imperial weapon!), not to mention basically fearless (when cheap commissars are added), great bubble wrap/area control and will never lose an objective given ObSec.

            Quantity has a quality all it's own indeed and should be costed as such.

            • vipoid says:

              Why not just ask GW to remove Conscripts from the codex?

              You clearly don't want them to ever see use.

              • Cato says:

                Not at all! Doubling the price means someone could only bring 100 🙂 Seriously, though, cannon fodder is important and I wouldn't want them to remove it. I think the issue is that at some point volume of fire overrides everything given the current to-wound table hence they are more point efficient at killing things than virtually every other unit (in addition to all the other good things they do).

                If the to-wound table is not changed, I think GW should cost in the quality of quantity so to speak. 3pts per allows a lot of silliness. By the way, it is not just conscripts that have this issue.

                • vipoid says:

                  Doubling their price means they would never see play. You're asking people to pay Veteran prices for units with BS5+, no sergeant and no special weapon options.

                  You might as well just remove the option because that's what you'd be doing. There would be literally no reason to ever take them.

                  I agree that Conscripts are too good at the moment but this would just kill them entirely. I think increasing their cost to 4pts would be enough (at that point they'd be Infantry squads with much higher squad caps but worse BS and no Heavy or Special weapon options). Other possible solutions include:
                  – Make Conscripts a non-FoC entry. Instead of being troops, you can unlock a single squad of them by purchasing 2 Infantry Squads (this would mean they wouldn't get Objective Secured and would also prevent them being taken to fulfil detachment troop requirements. It would also increase their effective cost as the player would need to buy 2 Infantry Squads for every Conscript squad they wanted).
                  – Make them unable to receive orders.
                  – Lower the maximum squad size.
                  – Reduce the effectiveness of the Commissar with them (perhaps have him reduce casualties to d6 instead of 1 or something like that).

                  • Desc440 says:

                    Really, rejigging the Comissar's rule to give a +1 bonus to Ld and allow a reroll of a failed Morale test at the cost of executing a model would do a lot to tone down the silly…

                    • vipoid says:

                      That would be a step too far, I think. For one, I don't think other IG squads need to be reigned like Conscripts, so I'd rather not see them get screwed over because a single infantry unit is OP.

                      What's more, this would just be another way to kill Conscripts entirely. The Commissar would become completely meaningless and the number of casualties they'd suffer (with or without a Commissar) would make the squad far too easy to remove (bear in mind that the only reason they're taken at all is to provide a meat-shield).

                  • Cato says:

                    The orders and Commissar tinkering are especially elegant and might solve the problem without pulling out the points hammer. Thanks for the discourse.

        • Desc440 says:

          Yes. I'm of the opinion that at some point you shouldn't be able to wound something. The to wound table should be amended:
          Weapon strength more than double target Toughness should just auto-wound
          Target Toughness more than doubled weapon Strength is auto-fail

          That would rein in a bit of the sillyness

          • vipoid says:

            I was fine with this before GW allowed Apocalypse units into standard games.

            Having most of your army's weapons be utterly worthless because your opponent is fielding nothing but AV12-13 Knights is not fun or interesting.

            If whole armies can be made up of high AV/Toughness stuff, then basic weapons need to be able to hurt those things.

            • Cato says:

              As a medium ground, I'd like to see some weapons (usually the T3 mass fielding types) have a rule like 'Pea shooter' or 'Flashlight' (joking with names by the way) that keeps them from injuring things more than twice their toughness.

            • Desc440 says:

              That is indeed a problem. Perhaps a less drastic solution would be to allow wounds on a 6 followed by another 6. That allows them to be not completely useless while reining them in quite a bit.

              • vipoid says:

                I think at that point you might as well just make them immune. A 1/36 chance (before you even factor in to-hit rolls, armour saves and such) is just wasting everyone's time with pointless dice rolling.

                I really don't know, honestly. I think the best solution would have been to not allow apocalypse units into basic 40k (an Imperial Knight doesn't belong in the same game as an individual guardsman). But sadly that can of worms has been opened.

                Perhaps there could be some sort of rule for massed fire? Like if the target's toughness if more than twice the strength of your weapon you can halve the number of shots, rounded down (assuming they're all firing the same weapon) and then the remainder wound on 6s.

                I don't know. It's the sort of thing that's a real pain to do with 40k's wounding system.

                • Desc440 says:

                  I don't know man. It's just garbage, really. I think in the end, they made things worse by introducing their "fix" to super-heavies being "unstoppable", as Conscripts are just too efficient at killing everything now. I'll gladly go back to a 7th-ed "problem" not to deal with this silliness.

                  Better yet, "no superheavies at 1500 pts and below". If you want to play 1501 pts and above, build your list properly to account for Knights and shit.

                  • vipoid says:

                    But that's the whole point – even if you have some weapons that can harm them, it doesn't change the fact that they'll be immune to most of your list by default.

                    There were certainly some things I liked about 7th (like the fact that Corsair Princes still existed . . .), but on this matter I think 8th is slightly better. As solutions go, it's far from perfect but at least infantry gets t do something this edition instead of just being target-practice for Knights like they were in 7th.

                    With regard to Conscripts, do you really see them killing super-heavies? I know they have the potential to damage them but it seems very hard to get enough of them into rapid-fire range. What's more, I thought Conscripts were used as bubble-wrap (so would be staying close to the IG player's vehicles rather than running forward to engage enemies).

                    Again though, this just seems like a reason why individual conscripts shouldn't be in the same game as Imperial Knights. The latter should be in games that feature infantry *blocks*. (As in, you don't control individual infantry models – but instead have blocks representing whole squads or platoons of them).

                    • Desc440 says:

                      Conscripts are not killing Superheavies, but so they have the opportunity to at least damage them, they become super efficient at killing everything else by shear virtue of costing 3 pts a pop and still wound at worst on 6s. It's dumb. I'll gladly deal with "near unkillable" Knights over this drek. My 2 cents.

                    • Kadeton says:

                      The simplest change, which I suspect would be enough, is to remove their <Regiment> keyword (or define one that Officers couldn't take, like the Militarum Auxilia – Militarum Penitentia, perhaps).

                      Being cut off from orders seriously reduces their efficiency compared to regular Infantry, and makes thematic sense – they're not disciplined troops used to following orders, they're prisoners who've been given a gun and pointed at the enemy.

                    • Well, doing this removes the point of Conscripts, but it would probably do the trick for balance. BTW, Conscripts aren't prisoners in most cases, just citizens that have been drafted and not given full training. With GW dropping new perks for factions left and right with the codex releases, I'd still rather they wait a bit before nerfing Guard to that extent. There's something to be said for throwing a bone to the pitchfork crowd though, if only so they pick a new target.

                    • No One says:

                      The "point" of conscripts is to be warm bodies in the way of the enemy (either in front of your forces, in front of theirs, or on an objective). They are almost literally just bubble wrap/cannon fodder. Which they don't need orders to do. Orders basically just make them better than actually trained soldiers by dint of having enough bodies firing flashlights.

                    • They are the only way to currently bring a large unit of soldiers. You "pay" for that ability through their reduced stats. If they are simply warm bodies, take away their lasguns and simply call them civilians. Why spend the money on a lasgun or armor on a "meat shield?" I suppose it could be an opportunity for GW. Perhaps a civilian box with a bunch of people cowering in fear. Bonus points if they make children models. That'd be some serious grimdark right there.

                    • Cato says:

                      With orders, they out-shoot marines at a similar price and can beat them up while also moving faster, having more tactical options, controlling more area and tar pitting all but the highest Attack value units. Oh…they are also better at taking objectives now.

                      Not sure that was the point but it has certainly been the effect. Lots of competitive lists have 5×30 units of conscripts. None have 5xanything infantry marine (except devs maybe). It is not only bad mechanics for conscripts to be this powerful but also bad fluff.

                    • They are obviously a little too potent in their current form, but I think reducing them to walking wounds is a bit much. Considering how much more resilient the characters that buff marines are, as well as the marines themselves are, it's not a valid argument that conscripts need to have less offensive power per point spent than marines.

                      I'd rather GW made the orders less reliable for conscripts than remove them altogether. They could also reduce unit size (20 perhaps) and/or limit the number of conscripts per formation. I could even understand them lowering the BS to 6+. Increasing the cost isn't really an option, since a fully trained guardsman is 4 pts. Whatever they do, I hope it they aren't too busy to revisit it later. With new rules dropping every month, I have a feeling that the balance issues on the horizon might make conscripts seem quaint by comparison.

                    • No One says:

                      "They are the only way to currently bring a large unit of soldiers. You "pay" for that ability through their reduced stats."
                      The thing is, they're still more efficient than standard guardsmen with Orders, and not really much behind without. Except they also bring the benefit of high model count.

                      (With the exception of orders), there's not really that many benefits to large units anyway (outside of first turn, but guard aren't really getting that anyway).

                      So, it's essentially just weapon selection. If you want output, take vets with plasma/melta/HWT etc etc. If you want bodies, take conscripts. That's what it is now, and that's still what it'd be if they couldn't receive orders.

                      "They are the only way to currently bring a large unit of soldiers."
                      What's the benefit of having a large unit of soldiers?
                      Bubble wrap, cannon fodder, ground control etc. Not really output – yes, that's part of it. Conscripts have (lasgun) output pretty handily as well. But I'm pretty certain that the 100 conscript lists aren't including them because of 100 lasguns (FRF!SRF! or not), but because they're 100 really cheap bodies to block charges/limit movement/control objectives etc.

                      That said (while the change to automatic orders is a good one overall I feel), a 4+ to issue…probably would be better. I think that just removing orders entirely would still leave them with a strong niche, but with less stepping on normal guardsmen's toes as well, even if it's not necessarily the 'optimum' solution.

                    • Kadeton says:

                      True, I was conflating them with Penal Legion, who I suppose seem to have been rolled into the Conscripts. Regardless, "not given full training" would be an easy justification for not following Orders effectively.

                      The reason I'd pick their keyword is that it's a minimal change. No additional rules, no changes to other units – simple. If it was too much, and Conscripts faded into obscurity for a while, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world either. The Guard should be known for fielding Guardsmen and Guardswomen, not Conscripts, in my opinion.

                      That said, I'm not sure what you see as the "point" of Conscripts that this would remove? They're still a big mass of bodies for holding objectives, which would seem to be their point to me. They can still shoot a lot of lasguns, and soak a lot of fire. They just wouldn't be so dramatically increasing the efficiency of Orders beyond what can be achieved by actual Guard.

                    • They'd be remarkably static without orders. "More static" is not really something I'm all that keen on in war gaming. I'd favor limiting them in some other way, either per formation or "unlocked" by taking a certain number of Guardsmen. I agree that they shouldn't be spammed, but spamming is a criticism that could be leveled at nearly every army.

                      I'll admit that as a former soldier I find something offensive about taking models purely as walking wounds. I prefer to think of the conscripts as defending my armor and not as purely bubble wrap. Something about them not being able to take orders seems antithetical to being in the military. You cannot make it through the first day of military training without following orders.

                    • Andrew Thomas says:

                      Easier solution: change Summary Execution to match the Renegade Enforcer's Baleful Judge rule, then add a rule that makes Conscripts take more casualties in the Morale Phase (doubling the numbers lost would be about right, or d3 per point the test failed by).

                    • I think Summary Execution is fine, but I like the idea of a Commissar rolling a D6 and executing that number of models in a Conscript squad and then adding the number executed to the LD value for a re-roll. You could then repeat until the unit passes. This would replicate the effect of mass panic and the commissar having to gun down multiple Conscripts to restore order. That might need some tweaking, but I like the concept. This could make a Commissar more dangerous to your Conscripts than failing the test in the first place.

          • AngryPanda says:

            That was all possible before they decided 5 clunky Mecha are a 40k army now. And seeing how they advertise the Grey Knight's "Dreadknight only" list they clearly aren't stopping that.
            Also, seriously there are other names except "Knight" for things.

            • Prometheus says:

              I really don't think an all NDK army is going to be pretty good. I'm pretty excited to have a cheap HQ, or a single extra power NDK, depending upon how you look at it.

Leave a Reply