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...
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

163 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.

      • Kirby says:

        No they need both. Otherwise I can fly around with 4-5 Ravens with some cheap Acolytes or Scouts in there and dump them on objectives late game.

  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.

                  Always.

                  • 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.

                • Prometheus says:

                  No, they aren't? Why do you think so many people are wondering? People aren't even arguing, much, because no one claims to really know, it's that unclear.

            • 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: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hazm0rhfpmk6bo3/Screens

                • 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.

      • highwind says:

        Conscripts dont need a fix, its the Commissars who need a fix…

        • vipoid says:

          That's blatantly untrue. Commissars are fine for every other IG unit.

          It's only when they're with Conscripts that you have issues.

          • No One says:

            So a more accurate statement is that it's the conscript-commissar interaction that needs a fix (either end works to be honest).

          • abusepuppy says:

            That's also only true insomuch as no other IG unit can be taken in large enough sizes to make the Commissar important- if the Combined Squads rule, or a similar thing, came back, then the Commissar's ability would be problematic for them as well.

            Basically, Commissars are an issue with _any_ large squad that they affect. Blanket immunity to morale like that isn't really factored into how the game works and how different units are balanced against each other.

            Arguably the easiest solution is to have the Commissar reduce the cost of the Insane Bravery stratagem to 1CP (and possibly let it be used more than once per turn, if you wanna go all the way with things.) It makes it so there is a cost other than just "oh no a random member of my shitty squad" to doing it and makes forcing that morale check relevant.

            • Malaconia says:

              Summary executions are never guaranteed to work, not even in the real world. Personally I'd be fine if after the execution they would pass morale on 4+ or something. That would also be fluffy and you could still use a CP to re-roll one such test per phase.

            • Andy says:

              The main thing that balances conscripts and commissars, is that they suck. You just give assault armies a free method to stick in combat and not get shot. You can't push out and lose the game on objectives.

              • Alastores says:

                What is preventing the conscripts just wandering off? So you take 200 shots at range, then 100 shots at overwatch, then they wander off and someone else shoots you?

                • Andy says:

                  First off, if your conscript blob is stepping up 6" and finding things in 18" range then i would suspect your opponent has made a bit of a mistake, or, they simply don't care because they are a T6 vehicle (or is often the case a T5 vehicle with -1 to hit that is about to make you realise you wasted your money on conscripts).

                  Realistically you are getting 50 shots on over watch vs infantry, cos 9" charge deep striking netting you 1 kill, or 100 shots vs vehicle to the face followed by troops if they ran up to you, meaning you tickle a vehicle. Basically, it doesn't matter.

                  I don't understand why you think your conscripts are going to get to fall back. You can only fall back if your unit has a path that isn't blocked by other units.

                  It is mathematically impossible to find a path between three models placed equidistant around a defending model. The diameter of the defenders base is always greater than the distance between two of the attackers.

                  Because you get to consolidate 3" and conscripts have teeny tiny bases, running 2 models past a conscript to stand behind it, and a third into the base, means no fall back for the conscript, you fight til you die, and you never get to shoot anything.

                  It is possible to stop this from happening, but by no means is it easy or even guarenteed, you have to stay over 3" from whatever you are protecting.

                  Finally, the options for what you can buy instead are just way too good. You can get three squads of scouts for the same cost, who have better melee, more firepower, and do a considerably better job at protecting from assault.

                  • Alastores says:

                    Uh – how exactly are you getting those models around the conscripts? The opponent takes casualities off, and you don't have to worry about being within 1" of any models from the attacking unit when working out the retreat. So unless you've actually got another unit behind them, you really aren't going to be able to pin the blob in place – if you lap round one side, the few models you have there will simply path out following their friends. There's very few restrictions on retreat movement.

                    Yes, you need to stay further than 3" from what you are protecting, but you are doing that anyway.

                    As for cost : Do you mean monetary? Because three units of scouts cost SIGNIFICANTLY more than the Conscript blob, the commissar to babysit them, and the officer to shout at them into doubling their shots. Hell, you can even add in a priest to give them additional attacks.

                    • Andy says:

                      Conscripts are 60, scouts are 55. Scouts are cheaper unit for unit.

                      1 units of conscripts a commisar and a commander is 200. 3 units of scouts is 165.

                      That is significantly -less- than the conscripts.

                      Turn 1 charges:

                      20 Genestealers with Swarmlord buff moving 18+2d6" then charging 2d6+1 supported by 1-2 Flyrants moving 16 then charging 2d6+1 (one will probably go much further) and 3 Hive Crones.

                      Mortarion Magnus and Aetos flying across the map.

                      12 Harlequins moving 16+2d6" then charging 5 more moving 19" then charging at least 1 star weaver moving 22" then charging, and options for much more.

                      Vs the stealers, nothing works really, they are just too damned fast and too many. Hugging the back line of deployment and spreading out is the best strategy with the conscripts/scouts deployed to spoil the stealers assault route as best possible. Gunning them down on turn 1 before they move and then mopping them up with anything that wasn't assaulted is best (deepstrike troops)

                      Morty Magnus and Aetaos are stopped equally well by scouts or conscripts, the key thing is you pay as little as possible for them, if you don't have 15 las cannons or the equivalent you are going to lack the firepower to take them down.

                      Harlies are unstoppable by anything but charge range. Everything deployed back, or ridiculously far forward.

                      Virtually everything else interacts with deep strike rules in some way, where scouts are always much better than conscripts. or will be charging turn 2 and from so close that anything with fly is going to pincer no matter what.

                      Conscripts may appear to be providing protection, and perhaps they are, but they are not providing as much as they could, and they are certainly not providing any ability to act.

                    • Alastores says:

                      Unit for Unit, maybe – I don't have the book with me to check, so I'm going off remembered Power Levels (That's a huge disparity between PL and Points for the Scouts, if your points are true).

                      But for actual covered board space? Your three units of scouts cover far less of the board, and therefore find it much harder to conga line into auras or block deepstriking.

                      Oh, plus, of course, unlike the conscripts, they actually CAN be surrounded and prevented from falling back.

                      But hey, if you want to be standing up and shouting "This thing that is consistently being stated is overpowered is actually crap" then go ahead.

                    • abusepuppy says:

                      >20 Genestealers with Swarmlord buff moving 18+2d6" then charging 2d6+1 supported by 1-2 Flyrants moving 16 then charging 2d6+1 (one will probably go much further) and 3 Hive Crones.

                      So, let me make sure I'm clear on this- you're saying that 1700pts of Tyranid models will be able to beat 200pts of IG models? Is this the argument, right here? Because that seems not just blindingly obvious, but damningly obvious.

                      None of the things you listed in your post stop Conscripts from falling back. In fact, some of them have a good chance of losing the fight to the Conscripts pretty quickly. (S3 will drag T5 down pretty quick, especially when there's a Priest nearby and they're getting an order to Fix Bayonets.)

                      Moreover, the statement that three squads of Scouts are "better at protecting you from assault" is false, and laughably so. That is fifteen models that can be Smited or shot away pretty easily by most good armies, and even if they don't they occupy only a very limited amount of real estate on the board. Enemies with fly will bypass them with trivial ease, and even if you're just using them to protect against Deep Striking units you are unlikely to be able to block off enough space to protect your whole army with the three of them (unless you castle up in a corner, in which case good job ceding complete control of virtually all objectives to the opponent I guess?)

                      Scouts aren't even in the same league as Conscripts. They're not useless, but they aren't a major format-defining unit and they certainly don't do the same sorts of jobs. There is a reason that the tournament-winning lists at big events have often consisted of extensive numbers of expendable chaff units like Conscripts, Cultists, or Horrors, while no winning list has contained a significant number of Scouts.

                    • Andy says:

                      I have no argument whatsoever that Horrors are incredible, tournament winning lists do include vast numbers of horrors, who have had to be repeatedly nerfed because they are 30w 4++ with -1 to hit and have smite on a 5+ that get you 3cp for 90pts.

                      I was not comparing 2k of tyranids to 200 pts of conscripts, i was comparing 200 pts of conscripts ability to stall 2k of tyranids, to 165pts of scouts ability to stall 2k of tyranids.

                      Scouts increase the run distance of none fly foot troops by 4-8" by setting up midfield in a long line (would be more, but one unit is required for smite protection or it doesn't work). Conscripts increase the charge range of assault troops by 3" by having to set up at least 3" in front of whatever they protect. Thus first turn charge distance is increased by 7-11" in a direct comparison scouts vs conscripts. Neither offers any protection vs troops that Fly.

                      Now, lets deal with your next assertion, that scouts can only deny a small amount of deep strike protection. Each scout squad, if deployed on a pin head, is a 9" radius sphere, Divide each sphere into quarters, you create 4 right angled triangles, with sides of 9" and a hypotenuse of 12.7". Therefore we can create with each squad a square 12.7" on a side, in which nothing can deploy. 3 squares side by side gives you a 38.1" by 12.7" area in which no deep strike can occur.

                      But wait, there's two other factors

                      The units in your deployment zone have the same effect, thus extending an area 6.3" out from your deployment zone which is impossible to deploy in. So we are up to 38 "by* 19". We must also consider each scout is a model an inch wide that has to be set up within 2" of each other scout. so we can create lines that instead of being a pin head value 0 are in fact a 13" long line. Adding 39" to the above rectangle, we get an area 77" by 19".in front of your deployment zone.

                      We are not denying a small corner of the battlefield, we are denying over 3/4 of the entire neutral area. Yes your scouts all die T1. But you just stopped a single fusion commander deploying in range of your army. You bought an entire turn to shoot as much as you like, and you can just bring down your own deep strike troops in T2 and do it all over again.

                      We didn't even get into the "deployed in cover 11"+ charge" fun on offer.

                      Obviously setting this up on the battlefield with terrain and such to fact in, you very rarely get to set up perfect geometric shapes, and shouldn't even if you can. However, even being half as effective, you still control more than half the battlefield, vs being penned in your own deployment zone. I apologise that once more this is a rather long winded explanation, but it is quite clear, there is a huge gap in knowledge about how scouts work and what they are capable of.

                    • Andy says:

                      "None of the things you listed in your post stop Conscripts from falling back. In fact, some of them have a good chance of losing the fight to the Conscripts pretty quickly. (S3 will drag T5 down pretty quick, especially when there's a Priest nearby and they're getting an order to Fix Bayonets.)"

                      If you manage to fall back from harlies, well done. Between flip belts, unit coherency and sheer damage output, it is exceptionally difficult to fall back from the 12 man squad. (they will be the least of your worries)

                      I think you don't know the stats of what i listed and grossly overestimate conscripts abilities. They are all 4A 3+ S4 -1 minimum. In melee alone, losing less than 25 conscripts is extremely lucky. If you have forces left with which to retaliate, you are 2/27 attacks to kill a stealer. 1/12 for an un buffed harlie. If you get stuck in melee, you are absolutely gonna die. you can't even beat the 12 harlequins (if all they do is melee with no biker/starweaver support) 22 dead conscripts to the charge. 84 strikes back over two fight phases and fix bayonets nets 7 kills. 5 remaining Harlies kill another 21 over two fight phases. End of turn 3, 4 Harlies remain, no conscripts do.

                    • abusepuppy says:

                      Harlequins charge a 50man Conscript blob. 75 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds, 3 dead Harlequins. Harlequins swing (I am assuming Caresses), 36 attacks, 24 hits, 16 wounds. Conscripts swing back with Priest in range, 40 attacks, 13 hits, 6 wounds, 3 dead Harlequins.

                      So you threw your 260+pt unit into the Conscripts, and lost half of them on the first round of combat. Good plan.

                    • Kirby says:

                      To be fair, charge a Star Weaver first to eliminate the Overwatch.

          • highwind says:

            No, they arent "fine" for every other IG unit… they are next to useless for every other IG unit!

            Do Conscripts work and have a relevant place in lists when you could not take Commissars?
            Yes, they do…
            Do Commissars work and have a relevant place in lists when you could not take Conscripts?
            Hardly…

            • Andy says:

              I think it's more a case, conscripts are next to useless full stop.

              You are paying 80+ points for a unit rather than 40 to do the exact same job. You get twice as many bodies, which is sort of useful, until you start to look into how you deal with assault units.

              Tarpitting them forever is an option if you have cost efficient troops to do it and only need to do it for a limited time (brimstone horrors). But in the end, killing them is the only option.

              Stepping back from melee to fire is a method to deal with it, but if you fail in your attempt in your own deployment zone, that's going to be game. By the time you deal with the assault forces to free up your firepower, you will have lost on VP as you gave up 2/3 to 5/6 of the objectives and its going to be T4 before you can start pushing out, even if you don't just die.

              A much better solution is to include assault forces of your own, if you are scared of a T1 charge from 20 stealers or the equivalent, and you are right to be, its sensible to devote a portion of your army to defend vs it.

              So how can you spend your points better?

              First off scouts.

              Secondly, counter assault.

              Why?

              You stall the assault forces further out with the scouts, who die easy and leave you able to shoot up the assault troops. T2 you deep strike in and charge, worst result, you have the deesptrike troops as a new shield around your shooting castle.

              This is just better than conscripts defensively, but the true power comes when you are vs another shooting army. Your scouts pressure every neutral objective, you have deep strike troops to support them, and even pressure the enemies best shooting forces.

              It's just a better way to spend the points. We're not talking breaking the bank here, 200 points is enough for 2 squads scouts and a cheap deep strike option like a captain or vanguard vets.

              • abusepuppy says:

                >conscripts are next to useless full stop.

                Hey guy? You really should stop posting if you have no clue what you're talking about. Maybe watch some tournament games, read up on some armies, get an idea what is good right now and what isn't, because as it stands you're making long-winded posts that really only showcase your ignorance of how the game works.

                • Andy says:

                  Okay so, today, given how many people have been so vehement that conscripts are good, I ran 3 games with conscripts in place of scouts.

                  Game 1 was the biggest waste of time I have ever had. I got damage on a bunch of mortar teams turn one (was all I could get range and sight on). The scions landed and proceeded to blow up every single tank I had, while the mortars just obliterated my conscripts. I conceded on turn 2, having lost 780pts to the alpha strike and failing to kill even half the tempestus. RG was going to have to tank over 30 plasma shots on Imp Guard t2.

                  Game 2 was partially bad luck, the genestealer cult got a 6 on their 20 stealer unit with the patriarch and that was pretty much the game over. The warriors put so many shots into my conscripts that the line was not long enough to stop the stealers charging into everything. They locked up both conscript squads (outright killing one and maulign the other) a dreadnought and 2 predators in melee, all without getting close enough to RG to allow me to intervene. If they rolled a 5 or 4 I think I was maybe okay, I got a deny on the hierdoules Onslaught, and would probably have been able to gun it down if I had the tanks.

                  Game 3 was very close, I gave up on marines and ran conscripts+fortifications. The conscripts were able to sit 1/2" in front of the redoubt (it cares not if it stuff is in melee and fires anyway), preventing any method of surrounding them. They stepped back and the redoubt globalled magnus. Unfortunately, the brimstones had taken all the objectives, and I just couldn't push out enough onto the map fast enough. I think I won if we went to T7 but game was lost T6 12-15 on objectives.

                  In every game, I think the scouts would have done better (perhaps not g3, I think Magnus might have one shot the redoubt, he is very close to doing it consistently.

                  So I thought, am I playing the game wrong? Do I do something different that makes conscripts bad that no one else does? Am I playing wrong with and vs scouts? How do my views differ so drastically?

                  Nope, it is just a simple case of believing what was good 2 months ago is good now. The stratagems for CSM, SM, Massive buffs to GK and addition of objective secured has made conscripts much worse, and it doesn't seem they were even good to start with, they were just not facing any quantity of armies that were properly refined.

                  • Kirby says:

                    You are not using Conscripts for damage – the fact that you can damage with them is a bonus. They are a defensive blob. You can have them move 12+2D6" turn 1 to jam the opponent. You can have them spread out to stop deep strikes. You can have them assault the opponent from T2 onwards to limit shooting and movement. You can place them to stop opponent's moving locations. You force the opponent to shoot them so they can access your army or stop you doing all of the above and if they don't, well you have a lot of shitty little shots that sooner or later will drag stuff down or plink wounds off.

                    "everyone does it" is not a good example of it being good (see Leafblower) but the fact that so many winning tournament lists use this unit and its combinations to advantage.

                    • Andy says:

                      I know the conscripts aren't for damage, they are only in the army to stop assault units getting on the tanks, because at that point, you lose the game. If 600pts of predators get tied up in melee, it is over.

                      My argument is, that they are a very poor way to do this, they cost too much and outside this use provide nothing. Furthermore, vs the armies which you have the worst macth up vs (ynarri 'nids, tempestus) they provide absolutely nothing.

                      These are three armies, with no codex, and you are going to lose well over 50% of games to them without a lot of luck.

                      Tempestus you basically can't beat while you take conscripts, it is just over, you won't have a tank left on the battlefield after the alpha strike. You also just provide something for mortars to shoot.

                      Ynarri you get very little from conscripts or scouts, but the scouts do provide you the means to down a star weaver and get you extra VP if you get the first turn (which you need to have even close to a 50% match up).

                      'Nids whilst the weakest of the 3, are still a losing match up, the conscripts can only stall the stealers for a turn, and may end up locking the stealers in combat and that's game. This match up is not about the flyrants swarmlord or hivecrones, it is avout killing the giant stealer unit, if that dies, you stand a chance of clearing off the other stuff. If it is alive at start of T2 you are likely going to lose.

                      I hope this brings some clarity as to why I am so adamant that if you want to win, bin conscripts. The assault armies are tailored to deal with Brimstones, compared to them, conscripts are ridiculously weak.

                    • Alastores says:

                      Conscripts are in the army to flood the board and increase your army's footprint. They enable you to spread out denial bubbles over a vast chunk of the board.

                      They are NOT just bubblewrapping for anti melee, they are bubblewrapping for anything that cares about range. You can put so many conscripts down that short ranged anti-tank like meltas simply cannot get into range of anything else..

                      Kirby listed a bunch of things they are for, and from that you read "They exist to block assault".

                      You also seem to persist in the idea that somehow, you are stopping 50 conscripts from falling back out of combat. That's not going to happen, because none of your assault units can actually envelop them, and if they take enough of a charge to stand a chance of doing that (remembre, they aren't in a little huddle somewhere), you are going to be able to kill them anyway, because you've charge 5 times their points at them.

                    • Andy says:

                      1) scouts > conscripts at denying the board

                      2) You can yes, but again, scouts do this better, also scouts can prevent deep strike from plasmas getting in range, which conscripts cannot.

                      3) assaulting with conscripts < assaulting with basic imp guard < scouts already deployed on the objective scoring points from T1.

                      4) I really don't understand this at all. You seem to be under the impression, that you can bubble wrap your tanks with a unit of conscripts, and still have the ability to remove models away from the unit that is going to charge them.

                      Lets use a bit more maths to show the issues:

                      A line containing RG at the centre, and units 6" either side, is 12" long if all units and RG on pin heads. If they are not and they are in fact predators or dreadnoughts or a devastator squad averaging 2" each, you have a line around 18" across.

                      To prevent anything getting at this line, you require 1 conscript spaced every inch, since no conscript can be placed within 2.5" of any other unit less it allow a consolidate to engage a tank, we need to extend the line 3" in both directions. 24" across is the area we need to prevent troops running the shortest distance across the map.

                      That means we must deploy 13 conscripts in the front of our line, and a further 6 down each side thus deploying 25 makes our box complete, nothing can now get in til the conscripts die unless it flies. That leaves us 25 conscripts who can be anywhere. They will all die in shooting pure harlies being the worst shooting assault army will likely only kill 23.

                      We now have to remove conscripts from melee damage, while retaining the ability to fall back, the issue is, we are now outnumbered, we have less troops in the fight than the assault unit has. We also can't just remove the middle, if we do, we don't have unit coherency, none of our models can move ever because we need to be able to advance to cover enough distance from one end of the rectangle to the other.

                      This is why, it is easy to surround and envelop units of 50 conscripts with assault units. No it isn't fair, it is way more points of assault units, the conscripts stand no chance, but that is the reality of the situation.

                      Again, just run the 'manders/scouts/Gk army instead of ultras/conscripts, and take a look at the versatility and firepower you get. If you miss having RG to kill things, pop Celestine and/or Draigo in there. Run it vs assault armies, and see how much more resilient you are, because theres 24" between your devstators squads, and you have much better cover.

                      Or just run ultras with scouts, I don't really care, but for the love of god, please actually try some stuff out, before unilaterally declaring conscripts are best, broken, op, need nerf. They are at best average.

                    • Alastores says:

                      I'm honestly not sure you are playing the same game as everyone else is.

                    • Andy says:

                      Try run a conscript army against tempestus/scouts and tell me how it does, then run tempestus scouts against all same armies you faced with conscripts.

                      Let me know how you do.

                      I am pretty confident, given the lists that have been posted on this site, and the armies in kirby's battle reports, that tempestus/scouts will win you a lot more games than ultra/conscripts.

                      They sure win me more games than anything but lists i can't take to tournaments (primus redoubt too strong).

                    • Kirby says:

                      "they are only in the army to stop assault units getting on the tanks,"

                      Try again. I said many more things than that Andy.

                    • Andy says:

                      Hmm must have missed something? I thought i answered all the points that conscripts could be used for?

                      I think at tournament level that is all conscripts are for, they are significantly worse than other units in a midfield brawl.

                      Quality assault units will take objectives off them with ease, and cheap nasty units from other factions either outgun or have more resilience point for point. My experience with conscripts is losing to both horrors and to termagents because the -1 to hit is too much of a swing. 6's to hit means you kill bascially nothing, you can tie up the board, but so can they, and in the end you lose.

                      I concede of course, that Tyranids struggle to back this up with decent shooting, as do chaos, but then, they were never really interested in it, they are assault armies, and they are going to assault.

                      In the end, most games are decided by VP, throwing away the VP advantage scouts provide is a really hard call, you need to be getting a significant improvement on their ability to jam armies, and i just don't think conscripts get anywhere close.

                  • abusepuppy says:

                    >I ran 3 games with conscripts in place of scouts.

                    Have you considered the reason that you aren't doing well is not the Conscripts, but you?

                    >it is just a simple case of believing what was good 2 months ago is good now

                    NOVA was less than two months ago.

                    • Andy says:

                      Yes I have considered it, I have played against multiple opponents using them and found them to be no hinderance to me. I have also played with them and attempted to find methods to make them work.

                      My suggestion to you is go and play some games, try it out, and see if you think you are still right. I am happy to provide you with a few lists that I played both with and against recently, try beat them with conscripts then try beat them with scouts.

                      I have forgotten one major massive bonus scouts have, your opponent does not know what they are going to do. I have won 2 games with a 15man scout flank because there was a weak point in my opponents set up.

                    • abusepuppy says:

                      Uh, guy, I already play games- I don't need you to tell me to do that. I played in three tournaments so far this month, and I'm getting in 2+ games pretty much every week regardless. If you and/or the players in your meta can't figure out how Conscripts work and why they're good, then the problem is on your end- because everyone everywhere else in the world picked up on that post haste. (Once again, I refer you to the results of NOVA, BAO, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.)

                      But doubtless you and your friends have stumbled on a secret strategy that invalidates Conscripts completely and is poised to take the top echelons of tournament play by storm. So post up these Scout-heavy lists you're touting so hard, because I wanna see this.

                    • Andy says:

                      I think this is the best list i have currently that uses a large number of scouts. We are still iterating on the best way to form the two detachments, and whether Kayvaan is worth it over a captain or not.
                      Imp guard brigade.

                      5 Primes
                      1 infantry squad
                      5 * 5 scions with double plas
                      5 * 5 tempestus command with quad plas.

                      3 scout sentinels
                      3 astropaths
                      5 * 3 Heavy weapons teams with mortars

                      Ravenguard Batallion Detachment

                      1 Kayvann Shrike
                      1 Lt with jetpack + relic.

                      6 * 5man Scout squad (2 H bolter, 1 missile launcher)
                      1 * 5man Aggressor squad with bolters.

                      15 units on the battlefield, 15 in reserve.

                    • abusepuppy says:

                      So… how do you kill significant numbers (100+) Conscripts backed up by artillery and Guilleman- you know, the Big Boy list? Because you have a ton of guns for murdering heavy infantry, but your entire army's anti-tank seems to live at 12" and you have no realistic solution to massed enemy infantry. I mean, hell, for all of your talk about using the Scouts, how do you stop a Tyranid list from basically wiping you out on turn 1?

                    • Andy says:

                      Errr sorry not sure how to respond to this one, maybe you read the list wrong?
                      If you get the first turn, it is simple, you just deep strike the aggressors in to near the scouts:

                      95 * 8/9 * 7/9 * 2/3 = 44 dead conscripts to the aggressors.
                      49 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 2/3 = 10 dead conscripts to the Mortars.
                      36 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 = 10 dead conscripts to the scouts. (it is usually considerably more due to scouts benefiting from auras and rapid fire).

                      If you don't get the first turn, we can expect the scouts and mortars firepower to remain roughly the same, the aggressors firepower is halved due to moving. But we can add in the 3 heavy flamers off the sentinels. Around 50 conscripts die a turn. 100 would be dead before the scions have to enter the battlefield.

                      If you think this is light on anti infantry firepower, you can swap some of the plasma for hotshot volley guns, but i really don't advise it. The only infantry i found i couldn't wipe out was an army with 3 full horror units but i beat that on VP.

                    • abusepuppy says:

                      So your plan is "I put my whole army at 12-18 inches and shoot and shoot and shoot and oh god wait I forgot the enemy also gets a shooting and assault phase as well"? Because yeah, you'll kill 50 Conscripts, but then your Aggressors are going away pretty instantaneously and so is Shrike himself, along with most of those Scouts as well (or whatever else they consider threatening.)

                      Your plan is an all-in dive because your army has _nothing_ but a couple Mortars outside of Rapid Fire range. You seem pretty much entirely predicated on "I can drop in and do anything I want to the enemy and no one has any tools to stop me because I will always be able to place my models where I want," which is a terrible assumption. Do you not have any BLOS terrain in your meta? No one ever gets first turn against your list of 30 deployments? There's tons and tons of things that can go wrong with your plan, and you really don't have any other plan besides "Plasma and S4 will take care of every problem that has ever existed so I'm fine."

                    • Andy says:

                      K so I've been tolerant til now, but getting bored. You speak of terrible assumptions, but i think it is you who is making them, your view is that conscripts are good so list must be bad thus make assumptions to support your view.

                      Lets try and dispel a few.

                      STRIKE FROM THE SHADOWS
                      Raven Guard Stratagem

                      Use this Stratagem when you can set up a RAVEN GUARD
                      INFANTRY unit during deployment. You can set up the
                      unit in the shadows instead of placing it on the battlefield.
                      At the beginning of the first battle round but before the first
                      turn begins, the unit emerges from their hiding place – set
                      them up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9"
                      away from any enemy models.

                      K so, here is the key thing: You already know, where everything is, and who is going first when you place the Aggressors on the board.

                      If they are -not- going first. The entire deployed army is hugely resilient, Mortars deploy out of LoS. Scouts are all -1 to hit and in cover, astropaths are chars, scout sentinels can move 9" before the first turn to help better LoS stuff. Finally the aggressors get to pick exactly where they want to go, to minimise exposure, and threaten the board. They will simply LoS all the High Pen High S weapons.

                      This army fears fliers, It has a massive drop off in firepower vs -1 to hit T7 targets. Only able to kill 1 storm raven a turn, vs killing 4+ predators with plasma, so it has the means to dish out 2d3 – 3d3 mw a turn to flyers and 2 HQs to charge them and kill them.

                    • Alastores says:

                      The ego is strong here.

                    • Andy says:

                      Sure, you need a bit of ego to be able to continually post factual replies when the response is, lol, won't work.

                      The thing is, it does work, it works better than conscripts do by a long way. Trying it out is all that's required to go, well shit. He's right it does work.

                      The other option is go along to a tournament, and watch as your meat shield dies turn 1, and you army dies on turn 2. Why? I think there are two super massive reasons:

                      One, the meta shifted, horrors especially are much too good to be ignored, armies have to bring an anti infantry solution to deal with it and that means they have plenty of firepower to clear up conscripts.

                      Every book that is released increases the amount of -1 to hit modifiers available to troops, it is becoming the norm to deal with it:

                      Malanthrope/Venomthropes, Dark Angels, Harlequins, Tzeentch Daemons

                      Add in:

                      Alpha Legion, Raven Guard, Death Guard, soon ad mech.

                      Putting a unit on the board that has it's firepower halved by -1 to hit on the very things it has to contest is pretty bad.

                      So there's two options, double down and go for 200 conscripts, putting you back at the point you have enough bodies to flood the board, or take none. The issue with doubling down, is you will not win vs scouts objective control, and you now have spent over 1/3 of your army budget.

                    • Alastores says:

                      Yeah, the ego comment isn't because of your "facts", it's because your response to arguments (Kirby's, Abuse's) is to tell them that they've obviously missed your superior wisdom while you completely fail to actually address any of their points.

                      That and as I said, you genuinely don't seem to be playing the same game as the rest of us.

                    • Andy says:

                      Well, my apologies, I tried to answer where possible. If you think conscripts are good, use them, have fun, i do think i am playing in a different meta.

                      The instant Space marines codex was released, Salamanders became the go to chapter for firepower, with RG's buff available while retaining the ability to spread forces out gave two important things. 1) greater deployment zone objective control 2) greater defence vs assault troops.

                      The already tactically unsound idea of clumping all your guns in one place became unnecessary, and thus the screen to protect them became the same.

                      At the same time scouts got a massive buff from chapter tactics and their anti flier firepower. Whilst all this was going on, everything got shaken out, harlies/ynarri became the top army, and something all other armies had to deal with.

                      If this is not the case, if your meta is still RG armies going toe to toe, conscripts will look and feel good, they are good vs assbacks and tac troops, able to flood objectives and control the board, if you face refined armies with better firepower and assault troops and superior objective control, then you have issues.

                      with the codex on its way, maybe conscripts will be good again, but while every book includes -1 to hit troops contesting objectives things are going to be harsh.

                    • Kirby says:

                      I made several points and you addressed one so it's not really worth the time trying to point it out again, particularly when others have made similar points and you have not addressed them either.

                      Horrors are not something new – they, like Conscripts, have been something to deal with from nearly day dot. Not hard to see why they are so important.

                      Not to mention you then outline Sallies as the go to chapter. Until Girlyman gets errata'd, he is always goings to be more efficient than Sallies and while there are certainly advantages for Sallies (not needing to be as close together to maximise Girly's bubble), we are not seeing Sallies destroying at tournaments. We are seeing Girlyman and oh look, Conscripts.

                      But of course tournament results that are consistent across multiple regions mean nothing.

                    • Andy says:

                      K i read up a lot, and i can certainly see the confusion. There's two types of conscripts in armies, there's the add on detachment to act as a screen for space marines, which is total garbage, and the massive "we overload your anti infantry firepower" 500 pt clumps that run across the map. The armies running the latter, the conscripts could be replaced with any other IG infantry, conscripts are just a bit cheaper that allows more smites to be bought.

                      There is only one conscript army doing well, in fact virtually identical armies got murdered by the chaos (the top 4 was 3*chaos and the IG). Whether the nova result was skill luck, or it was the perfect army i can't tell you. That sample size is too small for statistical analysis, but it certainly seems to be an outlier, the chaos armies are outperforming absolutely everywhere else consistently better 15-20% better.

                      I think that is enough evidence to say, conscripts are not as good as horrors.

                      In the process of my analysis, i worked out why the conscripts seem so good in some tournaments and so bad in others. They are total and utter crap in maelstrom and struggle like hell with capture the relic, they just lose game after game to scouts, because they cannot generate and score objectives close to fast enough, often getting outscored so heavily in the first two turns, they cannot even win the game if it goes to 7 turns.

                      Of the tournaments that run vanilla 40k rules, conscripts have got a losing record. However, the tournaments that run multiple "count your objectives at the end of the game" their resilience means they can actually control enough objectives at the end of the game.

                      If there's capture the relic, the scout armies have got a truly staggering 90% win rate.

                      As an aside, both armies, actually are -very- good at losing gracefully. When losing they vie with Ynarri for points scored, and it is this that allows them to be even better in multi day tournaments, in knockout, they are not so good.

                      Chaos are not as good as scouts at capture the relic and maelstrom, but are much better at score VP at end of game.

                    • Kirby says:

                      Nope you still have not addressed the majority of my points, none of which indicated I am talking about tack on detachments or whole Conscript armies.

                      Also:

                      "I think that is enough evidence to say, conscripts are not as good as horrors."

                      compared to

                      "The main thing that balances conscripts and commissars, is that they suck"

                      Do not go changing the goalposts. Malefic Lords and Smite spam is a whole other issue. You've said Conscripts suck and they do not.

                      You are also pulling numbers out of no where – how did you get to 15-20%? Show us your graphs. The only thing I have seen is average points scored on an army breakdown basis for NOVA. To hit your 15% mark you need to go down 10 slots where you have GK and Sisters (oh and look, six places below that, Ynnari who are dominating yes?).

                      You are stating things that are not happening or referring to things and then not providing reference or evidence. Why on Earth would an army with Conscripts in it, have issues with Relic? Where is this Scout army that has a 90% win rate?

                    • Andy says:

                      Sorry, read the comment below, i read up on the nova rules, its why conscripts and chaos performed so crazily and why no one gave a toss about CP why bother you can't use them.

                      I already explained NOVA is an aberration, its win conditions and tournament rules meant everyone should have just run Sokar+X (prolly aggressors)

                      I'm too tired to explain scouts vs conscripts on relic, just deploy three units of scouts and 3 scout sentinels on the relic map, work out how you are going to get to the relic and get the scouts off it in one turn, and then decide how much of your army remains after you overextended into aggressors and plasma. If you went first that is, if you went 2nd, explain how you intend to march past the entire enemy army to get the relic. You now pretty much have to kill everything or you lose. (Harlies btw is the answer)

                      Why do conscripts still suck? because brimstones are better, if something in the meta is better, and people have to take stuff to kill that, then you do not want to take anything that matches the profile of it.

                      Conscripts + astropaths is a poor mans horrors + malefic lords. The -whole- reason its a thing, is it deals with assault stuff (jam up the assault stuff then smite) it does not handle, being shot to pieces by troops that are nearly invulnerable to its guns.

                      Scouts have exactly the same issue, they don't want to be on the battlefield either, but troops mean CP, and at least they can score VP.

                      In a situation where neither VP, nor CP matter, why even bring troops? Sokar time.

                    • Andy says:

                      Sorry didn't know how much typing i'd done, on salamanders. All space marines are shit right now (under 40% win rate), they don't really have any answer to horrors except grey knights, whose HQ's are so expensive they get priced out, and at 21pts a dude, they just get mown down by plasma.

                      Ultras make up the majority of Space Marine armies, and are the worst performing, but i don't think this means anything, they just have a lot of players playing the army they possess which is ultras, not trying to play the best possible army.

                      The Aggressor Raven Guard detachment is however performing really well, it is definitely worth keeping it small, then going imperial soup, just the ability to have Space Marine Stratagems is utterly worth it.

                      I looked at the price of elysians over tempestus, and i just can't justify the cost for the benefit in points. So i think that it has to be ravenguard tempestus and GK in a tiny detachment. or Ravenguard and Tempestus.

                      I am pretty much certain, Raven Guards ability to win a variety of games on turn 1 makes them worth the inclusion in any army, but beginning to wonder if i want to pay for the lt and more than 2 sets of scouts (it is all I need to score supremacy turn 1).

                      Dropping them to a Patrol Detachment, with a Captain instead of Kayvaan, and 2 scout squads (1 HB 1 Missile Launcher, cos smite). Frees up an awful lot of points to pick up more mortars and astropaths.

                    • Andy says:

                      Okay sorry ignore all that, I really can only apologise, i just looked more into the tournament rules where conscripts did well.

                      They just changed the victory conditions so much, of course horrors and conscripts did well, there was nearly no need to take objectives in game, it was just a soak up shots and then score at the end thing. Dunno what game it was, but wasn't 40k

                      You were right, i was playing a different game, i don't know if the tournaments you entered had the same rules Kirby, the ones i played in sure did not. I played over 50% games maelstrom.

                      With Nova's rules, i would enter with Sokar + 18 Aggressors + libby + cpt + ltnt.

                      Have to think if raven guard or ultras, both are great, but prolly raven guard, sokar doesnt need help not dying, aggresors do, if they live to turn 2, game.

                      Theres too much dumb interaction with the sokar, its so big it can cut off LoS to the aggressors if it wants to.

                      With a 70% chance to be going first due to dumb ass rules, i can pretty much win games T1, its enough firepower to tear through 2 tanks and 100+ infantry.

                      I have no fucking clue what the counter is, an ultras sokar full of devastators probably.

                      But again, you have my apologies, i had no idea they changed the win conditions so much from main rule book.

                    • AngryPanda says:

                      That's a lot of sass for someone so bored.