Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ashiraya wrote:
To put it in other terms then: He will on average kill less than one guardsman.

My point stands.

What? His chance of killing a guardsman is about 70% in rapid fire range. He actually has a noninsignificant chance of killibg 2 Guardsmen.

He kills 0,8712 guardsmen on average in rapid fire range assuming no cover.

0,8712 < 1

 Vaktathi wrote:

If your immersion is broken because you can't just literally sweep guardsmen off a table with a broom, I'm sorry, this game has never, ever been that way. If you must see marines the way some of the more absurd BL writers portray them, well, you're never going to get a workable game out of that.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hit guardsmen on 3+, wound guardsmen on 3+ no save allowed.

Assuming rapid fire:

2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = average 0,8712 kills.

So no, on average he will kill less than one guardsman with close range rapid fire outside of cover.
Which, for reasons previously stated, is really, really immersion-breaking.

That is not how statistics work, that means that 87% of the times he fires he kills the guard, that is pretty damn consistent.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, the IA books often do a great job of rationalizing what on-table 40k games would really look like. One that sticks out particularly in my mind is the Vraks campaign. Where the SM's show up for just a couple of times in a very long war, they fight a couple of exceedingly short ranged engagements against entrenched opponents and take horrific losses. The Dark Angels show up with half the chapter, and nearly half of those are flat out killed in 4 days of fighting through hab blocks and a spaceport against heretical Vraksian militia and a few Traitor Legionnaires. The Red Scorpions show up just to exploit and hold a breach made in the defenses of the Vraksian Renegades long enough for the DKoK to get into position and consolidate it themselves, and the Red Scorpions take huge losses, with their Commander even being so grievously wounded in attacks by enemy infantry on their position that he had to be dragged from the field by the apothecary (in game terms, this would be akin to losing his last wound). It's almost exclusively engagements like this which a normal 40k game would really be portraying, and in such light 40k games then make much more sense.

There are about 1000 marines in a Chapter. Imagine how long they'd last if every decent engagement they lost 250 marines?

Marines do die, but there has to be a manageable level of attrition otherwise they'd simply be wiped out too quickly to qualify as defenders of humanity.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, the IA books often do a great job of rationalizing what on-table 40k games would really look like. One that sticks out particularly in my mind is the Vraks campaign. Where the SM's show up for just a couple of times in a very long war, they fight a couple of exceedingly short ranged engagements against entrenched opponents and take horrific losses. The Dark Angels show up with half the chapter, and nearly half of those are flat out killed in 4 days of fighting through hab blocks and a spaceport against heretical Vraksian militia and a few Traitor Legionnaires. The Red Scorpions show up just to exploit and hold a breach made in the defenses of the Vraksian Renegades long enough for the DKoK to get into position and consolidate it themselves, and the Red Scorpions take huge losses, with their Commander even being so grievously wounded in attacks by enemy infantry on their position that he had to be dragged from the field by the apothecary (in game terms, this would be akin to losing his last wound). It's almost exclusively engagements like this which a normal 40k game would really be portraying, and in such light 40k games then make much more sense.

There are about 1000 marines in a Chapter. Imagine how long they'd last if every decent engagement they lost 250 marines?

Marines do die, but there has to be a manageable level of attrition otherwise they'd simply be wiped out too quickly to qualify as defenders of humanity.

I think that's a greater issue with GW's portrayal of SM's and the fluff having such ludicrously low numbers in general meaning that they *should* face critical issues of sustainability. They're so limited in numbers that even a relatively small enemy success could wipe out a chapter. Catch half a dozen thunderhawks on their way down with interceptors and anti-aircraft fire? Well, there goes almost two companies of marines and a fifth of the chapter. Anti-orbital defenses shoot down that Battle Barge and an accompanying Strike Cruisers? Oops, there went two thirds of the chapter. Things like this just aren't even thought of (usually anyway, once again the Vraks campaign mentions no SM's were willing to engage Vraks on their own or to engage the Citadel directly) even though they're entirely possible, usually because they'd make for very poor showcases of Space Marine amazingness.

This is on top of being so mythically rare on a galactic scale as to be completely absent from the vast majority of conflicts (and even in those that they do show up in, they'd be almost nowhere), and militarily negligible on a such a scale, particularly when set against the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guardsmen and tens of thousands of entire IG regiments per each individual Space Marine (who, even if we assumed absolutely ludicrous estimates of their capabilities relative to non-astartes human troops and then multiplied that by a thousand fold, would still represent a military value for the entirety of the Astartes so small on a galactic scale as to remain negligible due to the absurd numbers gap).

And thus this reveals GW isn't good at numbers or thinking things through on a galactic scale or relative to the numbers they give for other factions (SM's would make a whole lot more sense if they numbered at least ten billion, x10,000 what they are now), and that 40k isn't really a Scifi universe but a fantasy universe set "in spaaaace"... But that's really for another thread.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think that's a greater issue with GW's portrayal of SM's and the fluff having such ludicrously low numbers in general meaning that they *should* face critical issues of sustainability. They're so limited in numbers that even a relatively small enemy success could wipe out a chapter.

It works once you completely disregard any game mechanics for what they are - game mechanics that have no relation to the fluff whatsoever and basically form a Halo tabletop game with a 40k skin.
No, you can't say 'some game mechanics are fine and some are not.' They are pretty much all bonkers. I often see the 66% protection rate of Power Armour be quoted, but people curiously leave out how their Company Commander can survive Heavy Bolter hits that would kill two Guardsmen. When naked. So no, you can't cherrypick. Either no game mechanics have any bearing on the fluff, or your fluff is some weird place where conscripts consistently parry every third sword strike the Avatar of Khaine makes against them.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Catch half a dozen thunderhawks on their way down with interceptors and anti-aircraft fire? Well, there goes almost two companies of marines and a fifth of the chapter.

Fortunately, not only are SM air vehicles heavily armoured (enough to match many ground vehicles), they are also fast. A good pre-emptive orbital strike just to be sure should render this situation very rare.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Anti-orbital defenses shoot down that Battle Barge and an accompanying Strike Cruisers? Oops, there went two thirds of the chapter.

You're assuming they are going to send their ships right into the teeth of defenses that heavy? That's what you have Navy support for. SM ships are really, really good, but they are above all designed to transport and support its inhabitants. SM ships don't do things like that, for the very reasons you give.

Things like this just aren't even thought of (usually anyway, once again the Vraks campaign mentions no SM's were willing to engage Vraks on their own or to engage the Citadel directly) even though they're entirely possible, usually because they'd make for very poor showcases of Space Marine amazingness.

They are also really rare, even in terms of how often they appear in the fluff.

This is on top of being so mythically rare on a galactic scale as to be completely absent from the vast majority of conflicts (and even in those that they do show up in, they'd be almost nowhere), and militarily negligible on a such a scale, particularly when set against the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guardsmen and tens of thousands of entire IG regiments per each individual Space Marine (who, even if we assumed absolutely ludicrous estimates of their capabilities relative to non-astartes human troops and then multiplied that by a thousand fold, would still represent a military value for the entirety of the Astartes so small on a galactic scale as to remain negligible due to the absurd numbers gap).

Aye, 1 million is a bit small. 10 million would be good. So few as to be legendary for most citizens, but thanks to their long lifespans + very high power concentration ability + rapid reaction and redeployment speed, they will be able to contribute significantly to the Imperium where it actually matters: worlds like Cadia and Armageddon that are breaking points for the fate of the Imperium.

40k isn't really a Scifi universe but a fantasy universe set "in spaaaace"... But that's really for another thread.

No gak.

When you consider that SM is an army of Achilles in SPAAAACE, everything makes more sense.

Well, looking at it now, there's two kinds of Troop Weaponry in the game - Subpar but plentiful, and Strong and Elite. The Subpar ones are rather rare - I can only think of Lasguns, actually. The others tend to have at least S 4 and AP 5, and then some kind of bonus that make them unique and not just another bolter - Shuriken Catapults has the almost-Rending thing, Shootas are Assault 2, Pulse Rifles have higher S and range and Gauss Flayers can auto-glance... But bolters have none of these properties.

I've begun to think that some sort of unique change to Bolters would be in order to make them stand up to the rest... I know the other weapons are supposed to very advanced, but Bolters aren't exactly basic either.

Shred would be nice, but I think Rending would be a bit too much. The almost-Rending thing is what Eldar does, so maybe we shouldn't steal that, either...

I just pretend chapters are one billion marines. Then the whole thing makes more sense.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The imagination that the enemies die in droves when shot by bolter wielding Marines is wrong.
I think bolters should have rending without any cost increase.

Rending or Shred? I have heard both would be both good, but am curious what you would think would be a better fix.

Adding both is kinda over kill.

Actually i think bolters should simply have Shred

its a chance that the exploding shells will wound even if it hits the enemy in a normally shruggable spot.

Rending would be a bit way OP.

I would also like to add shred or rerolls of 1s for Chainswords too

 Desubot wrote:
Adding both is kinda over kill.

Actually i think bolters should simply have Shred

its a chance that the exploding shells will wound even if it hits the enemy in a normally shruggable spot.

Rending would be a bit way OP.

I would also like to add shred or rerolls of 1s for Chainswords too

Seriously. Something to make it better than a CCW which could be a stick.

Shred might do it. It would take the wounds delivered against T4 by 10 marines from 6.67 wounds to 10 wounds. We go from 2.22 dead meqs to 3.33 dead meqs. But this is within 12" only. It's a difference of less than one marine outside 12".

I think too many quality units in the game just don't care about S4 shooting.

Martel732 wrote:
Shred might do it. It would take the wounds delivered against T4 by 10 marines from 6.67 wounds to 10 wounds. We go from 2.22 dead meqs to 3.33 dead meqs. But this is within 12" only. It's a difference of less than one marine outside 12".

I think too many quality units in the game just don't care about S4 shooting.

I'd take shred for no point increase. It would actually pretty reliably wound t6. I think at 14ppm it would be worth taking at least. Id put 20 in rhinos with 2 meltas and know that they could stand a chance in a firefight and thats what I want out of a 180 point squad.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'd take shred for no point increase.

I'm sure most people would.

The chain sword is also an underwhelming weapon.
Give them S+2 and Marines can hit hard in cc.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The chain sword is also an underwhelming weapon.
Give them S+2 and Marines can hit hard in cc.

Thats dumb.

why would it have a +2 str? and what reason?

 Desubot wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The chain sword is also an underwhelming weapon.
Give them S+2 and Marines can hit hard in cc.

Thats dumb.

why would it have a +2 str? and what reason?

Because it's a damn Chainsaw. Strength boost game wise lets it still kill more, without being too overpowered

+2 Strength does seem a bit silly, when anyone else would have to buy a 15pt power maul to get that.

Or, are you planning to make Chainswords 10pts each?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The chain sword is also an underwhelming weapon.
Give them S+2 and Marines can hit hard in cc.

Thats dumb.

why would it have a +2 str? and what reason?

Because it's a damn Chainsaw. Strength boost game wise lets it still kill more, without being too overpowered

At +2 you are instant death ing all T3. and chopping through all sorts of vehicles.

even worse if you are BA atm.

No. at best they need a flavor of shred as that is what they should be doing. gauging out meaty chunks.

Look, they are never going to fix the utter crapiness of marine basic gear. Apologists and GW as well use the justification that marines have a lot of standard gear. But having a lot of gear that isnt useful just gives them a bucket of crap for 14 pts.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The chain sword is also an underwhelming weapon.
Give them S+2 and Marines can hit hard in cc.

I agree that it's underwhelming - giving it shread or rending would be suitable basically the same argument as the bolter. You can't gain a chainsword anywhere without giving up your bolter so I think it's fair if you give up your bolter you should get a comparable weapon. +2 str would be too strong for a free weapon.

After all, we are talking about Space Marines, the saviors of mankind.
Their cc capabilities are not much better than those of an Ork.

Pondering here - Would it make sense to add a general rule for ALL Marines that granted them Shred on all melee attacks, as well as Bolter shots? To represent their heightened skills?

 The Wise Dane wrote:
To represent their heightened skills?

That would be WS4 bs4

WS 4 is a joke in gw's system. For their cost, bs 4 is also marginsl.

Then (yet gain) the problem here isn't bolters, but the cost of marines.

 Desubot wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
To represent their heightened skills?

That would be WS4 bs4

That doesn't seem that great. Given your average marine is pretty poor in CC, making WS 3 versus 4 wouldn't have much of an effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Then (yet gain) the problem here isn't bolters, but the cost of marines.

Aye. I think Shred on Bolters and Chainswords or a slight reduction in ppm would be awesome.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
To represent their heightened skills?

That would be WS4 bs4

That doesn't seem that great. Given your average marine is pretty poor in CC, making WS 3 versus 4 wouldn't have much of an effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Then (yet gain) the problem here isn't bolters, but the cost of marines.

Aye. I think Shred on Bolters and Chainswords or a slight reduction in ppm would be awesome.

Thats an issue of antiquated CC system.
But ether way i would like shred on bolters and chainswords as it makes sense that that is what they do.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Then (yet gain) the problem here isn't bolters, but the cost of marines.

I agree, but I don't know how realistic that solution is.