fraser1191 wrote: If marines have such a hard time filling lists why not make Devs and ASMs troops like they were in whichever previous edition.
Give each one a special rule(devs already have the signum) and filling slots is suddenly easy
Because that doesn't help the problem units. Devastators are already playable and Assault Marines are so unplayable that making them Troops isn't an improvement, so all you'd accomplish is take all the existing Marine lists and delete all the Tactical Marines/Scouts in favour of more Devastators, which pushes the size-creep problem further by making every list all heavy weapons, which makes Space Marines even worse since there are more guns that can kill them too easily on the table.
Just a crazy idea:
Combat Squads: -1 CP Use either during deployment or at the start of the movement phase.
Target Astartes unit with the Combat Squad rule and exactly 10 members may be split into two units of 5 members each. If you choose to do so, they are two independent units.
No unit may be targetted by this stratagem more than once per game.
I totally haven't fully thought this through, but wouldn't that be cool?
Bharring wrote: Just a crazy idea:
Combat Squads: -1 CP Use either during deployment or at the start of the movement phase.
Target Astartes unit with the Combat Squad rule and exactly 10 members may be split into two units of 5 members each. If you choose to do so, they are two independent units.
I totally haven't fully thought this through, but wouldn't that be cool?
It's in the book already and it's completely useless, because it's a legacy rule from an era in which you couldn't just take multiple detachments.
Doesn't look like that and at that point just make it a special rule... Like people are adding in stratagems but why not just add them in as one time abilities or deployment abilities? It really doesn't make sense to give them a stratagem that is one time use and doesn't require any CP To use.
It could be just a special rule. But I do wish Combat Squadding were more flexible - allowing you to do it in response to the game, instead of as part of list building.
I like the idea of 10man Tac squads giving +1CP. I was thinking all 10-man Astartes squads, but that might be a bit much.
The stratagem above is one-time-per-squad use. But you could use it once per 10-man squad during deployment.
The cleaner form, I think, is just updating the Combat Squad rules with the following:
-Allow the squad splitting to be done during deployment, when arriving from Reserves, or during any Movement Phase, provided the squad is still eligible (has 10 guys).
-Each squad eligible for Combat Squadding generates +1 CP at the start of the game.
I'm usually not a fan of units providing CP. Especially not en masse like this. But if any unit should, it should be 10-man Tac Marines (and/or Intercessors).
And +1 CP/squad for three ten-man Tactical Squads makes up for the fact that I now can't get +5CP from taking six five-man squads and two extra 50pt Lieutenants, or the fact that I now have three combi-weapon sergeants instead of six, effectively cutting my special weapon load from 12 down to 9 and requiring that three of those be heavy rather than allowing 12 plasma guns?
Hence why I think this is one scenario where +CP is a viable option. I don't say that lightly.
Because of how GW did detatchemnts - by using a system that inherently rewards you for not fleshing out the choices you take - it's really hard to make Marines in squads beyond 5 not a bad idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are some other benefits:
-You can put Heavy, Special, Combi in one squad, and have a 5man Bolter squad, if you need to saturate for some reason
-You can choose to stay in 10mans if you're facing a lot of weakish skirmishers who can pick of 5mans, or you can split up if you're facing a lot of super-deadly weapons that'll overkill more on 5mans
-You can choose to stay in 10mans if you need the ablaitive wounds
And you can make those decisions *after* seeing what you're facing, what the mission is, and what the terrain is.
It doesn't do anything. Tell me "You can get +CP for combat squadding 10-man squads!" doesn't make me more likely to take 10-man squads, it makes me shrug, go "meh", and move on.
Lets just make this simpler similar to orks we can have it so that a full squad IN GENERAL for space marines gives :
+1 Attack and +1 LD and counts as two selections for the purpose of a detachment. Some units (Tacticals, Intercessors, Terminator squads) can have up to 3 special weapons / heavy weapons. All Sarges are upgraded to Veteran Sarge and have +1 wound
*encouraging people to have larger squads overall.*
Then we give termies, vanguard vets, sternguard their special rules back...
We give intercessors and tacticals their own unique 'volley' fire ability which allows them to unload all of their weapons in a single turn (shoot twice with bolt weapons) but cannot fire the next turn or we make it so they can't rapid fire the next turn.
Then we give land raiders an ability to shoot into melee combat, and give them a higher toughness and wound count. give them an ability to shrug off glancing shots, and all their equipment options are much cheaper. (decrease their cost to 250pts, 225 for crusader, 230 for redeemer)
Venerable Dreadnought gain : Ancient Wisdom and can be taken as a HQ choice. Ancient Wisdom allows them to give a squad nearby their BS Skill (must be a space marine from the same chapter)
Make all chapter rules work for all space marine units...
Give marines a benefit for when they fight in monoarmies (check a few pages back about the rules suggestions I had)
These aren't OP these are just normal rules brought back that were gotten rid for no reason.
the main issue with marines is 1 wound for the point cost this edition.
They should be a lot cheaper point wise or have a better stat line period, 2 wounds and 2 attacks for a normal marine at like a 10-12 points per marine is where a normal tactical marine needs to be this edition to be useful due to the lethality.
3 Imperial guard infantry is 12 points for 3 wounds, more shots, and in general just superior to a marine in every way. There is absolutely no reason to play a marine for 13 points this edition and CA 18 was stupid because it did nothing to fix this issue.
Basically its either cheap infantry increase in point cost a chunk- probably not going to happen or the power armor/terminator armor marines all improve basic statlines to make them playable for the point cost GW seems to want to keep.
Combat Squads should be able to be done at any time, and you're simply eligible after you reached the 10 man goal. It's silly you would need to spend CP to do it, let alone GAINING CP out of it (which also makes little sense).
The point was that you gained a CP for taking a unit that could Combat Squad, whether or not you actually *did* Combat Squad.
The idea being that a full Tac Squad (or other squad) increases the tactical depth and options that the force has, beyond what a 5-man would. In much the same way that taking more Guardsmen squads and Officiers provides CP, but via a more fitting mechanism.
You would need Strategems you want to use in the first place though.
It also proves that we need a system working backwards with CP, not forwards. It doesn't make sense that they provide more "tactical depth" than actual experienced Vets from a fluff standpoint, which therefore makes it odd mechanically to implement.
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
I'd say you've hit the nail on the head on the Intercessor/Hellblaster weapons. The issue is that they're just too similar, and it allows direct comparisons. Nobody directly compares a Heavy Bolter to a Lascannon because they're obviously intended for different targets.
Suppose the Bolt Rifle stayed as-is, the Autobolter were Assault 4, 18", S3 Ap -, Storm of Fire, and the Stalker were Heavy 1, 36" S6, Ap 2. Whether the Autobolter or Stalker were worth the points would still be a question, but which one was "best" would not be. They're too different for that now. The same is true of the Hellblasters.
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
I'd say you've hit the nail on the head on the Intercessor/Hellblaster weapons. The issue is that they're just too similar, and it allows direct comparisons. Nobody directly compares a Heavy Bolter to a Lascannon because they're obviously intended for different targets.
Suppose the Bolt Rifle stayed as-is, the Autobolter were Assault 4, 18", S3 Ap -, Storm of Fire, and the Stalker were Heavy 1, 36" S6, Ap 2. Whether the Autobolter or Stalker were worth the points would still be a question, but which one was "best" would not be. They're too different for that now. The same is true of the Hellblasters.
Uh I don't think those profiles would be even whatsoever.
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
I'd say you've hit the nail on the head on the Intercessor/Hellblaster weapons. The issue is that they're just too similar, and it allows direct comparisons. Nobody directly compares a Heavy Bolter to a Lascannon because they're obviously intended for different targets.
Suppose the Bolt Rifle stayed as-is, the Autobolter were Assault 4, 18", S3 Ap -, Storm of Fire, and the Stalker were Heavy 1, 36" S6, Ap 2. Whether the Autobolter or Stalker were worth the points would still be a question, but which one was "best" would not be. They're too different for that now. The same is true of the Hellblasters.
Uh I don't think those profiles would be even whatsoever.
They're not intended to be. That Stalker is clearly worth 2 or 3 points per model, the intention is that it be so different that you ask "is this worth the points for the very different job it does" rather than "is this worth more than the Bolt Rifle for the job that they both do".
Edit: Those aren't even suggestions with a lot of thought behind them, just an attempt to illustrate the point.
I still think they should have been called Primaris Incinerators with Hellblaster Plasma Rifles...sorry, got distracted there.
But the more I think about it, the more I realise that the problems of the game comes down to the detachment system and superheavies, and trying to tweak the rules for marine squads is just pissing in the wind so long as those issues remain unresolved.
I’ve suggested before that the current detachment system should be ‘put into reverse’. I’d go further but that’s a whole different discussion.
Future War Cultist wrote: I still think they should have been called Primaris Incinerators with Hellblaster Plasma Rifles...sorry, got distracted there.
But the more I think about it, the more I realise that the problems of the game comes down to the detachment system and superheavies, and trying to tweak the rules for marine squads is just pissing in the wind so long as those issues remain unresolved.
I’ve suggested before that the current detachment system should be ‘put into reverse’. I’d go further but that’s a whole different discussion.
Agreed, you can make a new thread with that premise, I was afraid to say it cause last time i did people gave me a lot of grief for suggesting that the detachment system does not work.
Future War Cultist wrote: I still think they should have been called Primaris Incinerators with Hellblaster Plasma Rifles...sorry, got distracted there.
But the more I think about it, the more I realise that the problems of the game comes down to the detachment system and superheavies, and trying to tweak the rules for marine squads is just pissing in the wind so long as those issues remain unresolved.
I’ve suggested before that the current detachment system should be ‘put into reverse’. I’d go further but that’s a whole different discussion.
Agreed, you can make a new thread with that premise, I was afraid to say it cause last time i did people gave me a lot of grief for suggesting that the detachment system does not work.
Donno why anyone would do that, the detachment system is easily the worst thing in 8e.
Future War Cultist wrote: I still think they should have been called Primaris Incinerators with Hellblaster Plasma Rifles...sorry, got distracted there.
But the more I think about it, the more I realise that the problems of the game comes down to the detachment system and superheavies, and trying to tweak the rules for marine squads is just pissing in the wind so long as those issues remain unresolved.
I’ve suggested before that the current detachment system should be ‘put into reverse’. I’d go further but that’s a whole different discussion.
Agreed, you can make a new thread with that premise, I was afraid to say it cause last time i did people gave me a lot of grief for suggesting that the detachment system does not work.
Donno why anyone would do that, the detachment system is easily the worst thing in 8e.
It punishes mono army players, and rewards people with spammy armies.
Its not hard to believe that this was their intention. As they have been pushing knights for a while. but super heavy detachments currently are stupidly expensive for space marines, knights are some of the cheapest super heavies in the game.
On a totally unrelated note, I think there's something to tbe accusation that GW is just "soft squatting" marines.
After CA I find myself ignoring Tacs altogether in favor of Intercessors and Scouts, to the point that I'm considering re-badging half my Tacs as Sternguard and scratch building storm shields and storm bolters to convert the other half to Company Veterans just to get some use out of them.
The Newman wrote: On a totally unrelated note, I think there's something to tbe accusation that GW is just "soft squatting" marines.
After CA I find myself ignoring Tacs altogether in favor of Intercessors and Scouts, to the point that I'm considering re-badging half my Tacs as Sternguard and scratch building storm shields and storm bolters to convert the other half to Company Veterans just to get some use out of them.
I hate all the bling with the Sternguard and Vanguard models, so I repurpose my regular Marines for that purpose already.
chaos45 wrote: the main issue with marines is 1 wound for the point cost this edition.
They should be a lot cheaper point wise or have a better stat line period, 2 wounds and 2 attacks for a normal marine at like a 10-12 points per marine is where a normal tactical marine needs to be this edition to be useful due to the lethality.
3 Imperial guard infantry is 12 points for 3 wounds, more shots, and in general just superior to a marine in every way. There is absolutely no reason to play a marine for 13 points this edition and CA 18 was stupid because it did nothing to fix this issue.
Basically its either cheap infantry increase in point cost a chunk- probably not going to happen or the power armor/terminator armor marines all improve basic statlines to make them playable for the point cost GW seems to want to keep.
No question about it. A marine isn't worth 13 points. Special rules that aren't over the top wont fix this. What would you pay for a marine at it's current stat line? This is the only place this discussion should be going. What is the value of a tactical marine? IMO they are worth roughly 10 points and even still would not be great at that cost because they don't do anything useful. At least they might be used to fill out detachments or something.
Crimson wrote: The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
Yep, very true. It's like I said earlier, there will always be one option that's the best hands down, and people will always gravitate towards it, rendering the others useless and unused, thanks to wysiwyg. It's like you might as well just have the one weapon option to begin with.
The biggest problem is the fact the playerbase loves that and will find it no matter what.
chaos45 wrote: the main issue with marines is 1 wound for the point cost this edition.
They should be a lot cheaper point wise or have a better stat line period, 2 wounds and 2 attacks for a normal marine at like a 10-12 points per marine is where a normal tactical marine needs to be this edition to be useful due to the lethality.
3 Imperial guard infantry is 12 points for 3 wounds, more shots, and in general just superior to a marine in every way. There is absolutely no reason to play a marine for 13 points this edition and CA 18 was stupid because it did nothing to fix this issue.
Basically its either cheap infantry increase in point cost a chunk- probably not going to happen or the power armor/terminator armor marines all improve basic statlines to make them playable for the point cost GW seems to want to keep.
No question about it. A marine isn't worth 13 points. Special rules that aren't over the top wont fix this. What would you pay for a marine at it's current stat line? This is the only place this discussion should be going. What is the value of a tactical marine? IMO they are worth roughly 10 points and even still would not be great at that cost because they don't do anything useful. At least they might be used to fill out detachments or something.
From my last Poll on my old thread Cost of a space marine witch had over 400 votes 23% said space marines should cost 10 26% said 11 but then 13% of people said they need a nerf and should cost 14+.
chaos45 wrote: the main issue with marines is 1 wound for the point cost this edition.
They should be a lot cheaper point wise or have a better stat line period, 2 wounds and 2 attacks for a normal marine at like a 10-12 points per marine is where a normal tactical marine needs to be this edition to be useful due to the lethality.
3 Imperial guard infantry is 12 points for 3 wounds, more shots, and in general just superior to a marine in every way. There is absolutely no reason to play a marine for 13 points this edition and CA 18 was stupid because it did nothing to fix this issue.
Basically its either cheap infantry increase in point cost a chunk- probably not going to happen or the power armor/terminator armor marines all improve basic statlines to make them playable for the point cost GW seems to want to keep.
No question about it. A marine isn't worth 13 points. Special rules that aren't over the top wont fix this. What would you pay for a marine at it's current stat line? This is the only place this discussion should be going. What is the value of a tactical marine? IMO they are worth roughly 10 points and even still would not be great at that cost because they don't do anything useful. At least they might be used to fill out detachments or something.
From my last Poll on my old thread Cost of a space marine witch had over 400 votes 23% said space marines should cost 10 26% said 11 but then 13% of people said they need a nerf and should cost 14+.
I'm convinced that anyone who wants a space marine to be 14 or more points is either trolling or doesn't know what the space marine stat line actually looks like.
Bharring wrote: "If you compare those 185 points of plasma dudes with 180 of bustas (10 of them + 1 bomb squig) you'll notice that there isn't that much difference in terms of killyness. The SM should be more deadly actually. Against monsters and characters there's even no contest here."
Wait a second. You're concerned that 10 T4 3+ models only do roughly the same damage as 11 T4 6+ models vs the ideal target for the latter unit?
Offensive output has nothing to do with the unit durability.
The difference there is Tankbustas are not a Troops choice (to the best of my knowledge anyway - traditionally they have not been). Orks can fill their Troops slots with cheap and useful squads of Gretchin, which can increase the durability of the Tankbustas by taking hits for them
And also vs Knights, the difference in durability between a SMTac Squad and a similar size squad of Ork Tankbustas is minimal. Anything Knights throw at Space Marines is apt to mostly or entirely deny them their saves anyway, and their Toughness is the same. If anything, the Orks are more durable because they can exploit Gretchin to take hits for them, and Gretchin are cheap.
All theoryhammer. In practise tankbustas are not lootas that just sit in a corner and are surrounded by gretchins, they only have a 24'' range and gretchins need to be closer to the enemy shooter to soak the firepower that goes to tankbustas, they can't just bubble-wrap the tankbustas, so it's super easy so outmaneuver them and kill the bustas behind. If you deepstrike those bustas it's quite hard to make use of the grot shield stratagem, and if you're giving them a battlewagon to ride in you're just adding a 120 points tax that is now a juicy target to the enemy anti tank.
Being troop is also a high pro, they unlock more CPs than elites. In fact those SM have an advantage towards tankbustas by being troops.
Against pure knights sure, they're more durable than SM, but the most competitive lists aren't pure knights, are imperium soups, tipycally with tons of lasguns or other weapons that are perfect against infantries with low saves. They actually just need a single mediocre anti infantry unit to wipe out 15 tankbustas. Against pure knights even pure SM should have fairly balanced matches.
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
ok, but then something like GK do not have primaris and don't have the one good troop choice. So if GW decides that the fix to power armored units is primaris and they said no to GK primaris, then GK will never get fixed, at least not in this edition.
ok, but then something like GK do not have primaris and don't have the one good troop choice. So if GW decides that the fix to power armored units is primaris and they said no to GK primaris, then GK will never get fixed, at least not in this edition.
I reckon that GK will get a Primaris equivalent this edition.
I don’t think the ‘fix’ to power armour is the same as the fix to GK either. GK can be fixed, IMO, without a change to power armour.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
I think it boils down to tacs because everybody knows what a tactical marine is, they probably know it's stats too. Now copy and paste that Statline 40-50 times, that's the marine codex. It's just easier to refer to the same unit consistently.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman? Even if the strongest lists can sorta kinda compete internal balance is completely out of whack.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman? Even if the strongest lists can sorta kinda compete internal balance is completely out of whack.
With utility rules build in to their chapters tactic. Maybe they are super specilised in one form of combat or use of specific weapons. Maybe their drop pods or some other vehicles get a big buff to a point where it becomes a based of a playstyle. Lets say someone wants to play dreadnoughts, they aren't bad, but you won't build an army around them. But here comes chapter X whose chapter tactic makes dreads more flexible or more resilient. Maybe they are the only ones who can put them in pods. The Gulliman list maybe the best list to play, but if the dreadnought list is good enough and someone wants to play such a list, it would be better to run it as non ultramarines.
ok, but then something like GK do not have primaris and don't have the one good troop choice. So if GW decides that the fix to power armored units is primaris and they said no to GK primaris, then GK will never get fixed, at least not in this edition.
I reckon that GK will get a Primaris equivalent this edition.
I don’t think the ‘fix’ to power armour is the same as the fix to GK either. GK can be fixed, IMO, without a change to power armour.
At the last seminar the anwset to when or if GK get primaris was a no. Not a we aren't planing it right now, we are maybe looking in to it later on or some other form of saying, not within the next year plus. It was a quick no, and the person giving the anwser didn't even have to think about it, from what people said that were in real life at the seminar.
I personaly have no idea how to make GK good, I think they would have to rewrite the whole codex and change the point cost. A stormbolter dude with a storm shield and special ammo, looks odd costed next to a same costed dude with no SS, no ammo and a baby smite.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman? Even if the strongest lists can sorta kinda compete internal balance is completely out of whack.
With utility rules build in to their chapters tactic. Maybe they are super specilised in one form of combat or use of specific weapons. Maybe their drop pods or some other vehicles get a big buff to a point where it becomes a based of a playstyle. Lets say someone wants to play dreadnoughts, they aren't bad, but you won't build an army around them. But here comes chapter X whose chapter tactic makes dreads more flexible or more resilient. Maybe they are the only ones who can put them in pods. The Gulliman list maybe the best list to play, but if the dreadnought list is good enough and someone wants to play such a list, it would be better to run it as non ultramarines.
But that's not what An Actual Englishman said. He said he thought it'd be enough to just make Chapter Tactics apply to everything. That's my point: giving my Predators rerolls to failed charges just isn't going to make Black Templars competetive because it's a complete non-buff. Similarly, White Scars wouldn't gain much either.
Speaking of chapter traits, I haven't seen any threads about the new Crimson Fist and Emperor's Spears traits. Does anyone think the CF trait is enough to make a noticable difference to how much Marines struggle versus cheap horde lists?
Edit: And also the Stoic Defender warlord trait. Funny how CF have three warlord traits listed and Emperor's spears didn't get any at all. Funnier that one of them is stupid better than the other two.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman? Even if the strongest lists can sorta kinda compete internal balance is completely out of whack.
With utility rules build in to their chapters tactic. Maybe they are super specilised in one form of combat or use of specific weapons. Maybe their drop pods or some other vehicles get a big buff to a point where it becomes a based of a playstyle. Lets say someone wants to play dreadnoughts, they aren't bad, but you won't build an army around them. But here comes chapter X whose chapter tactic makes dreads more flexible or more resilient. Maybe they are the only ones who can put them in pods. The Gulliman list maybe the best list to play, but if the dreadnought list is good enough and someone wants to play such a list, it would be better to run it as non ultramarines.
But that's not what An Actual Englishman said. He said he thought it'd be enough to just make Chapter Tactics apply to everything. That's my point: giving my Predators rerolls to failed charges just isn't going to make Black Templars competetive because it's a complete non-buff. Similarly, White Scars wouldn't gain much either.
That's the same issue all factions have, some of their "chapters" are simply better than other ones and some units don't get benefit at all from the chapter trait.
Orks snakebite or blood axes for example are way inferior than evil sunz, freebootas or deathskulls while bad moons are only good for small detachments. Goffs tankbustas don't get benefit from having more eventual hits in combat.
Similarly coven stuff are ranked quite high but it's all about one specific chapter, as the other two never see the table at competitive levels. Same for kabals. A ravager doesn't get any benefit at all from the poisoned tongue kabal for example.
It's biased to consider BT or CF not competitive because they're not ultramarines and put all the orks or drukhari "chapters" into the same basket labelling them competitive, overpowered or even just good.
"How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman?"
How does any Craftworld compete with CatLady?
Army-defining Special Characters are extremely hard to balance. They're about there with Gman, but the stuff you take with him hasn't kept up with his price hikes. However, Gman isn't the only offender in this regard.
"Offensive output has nothing to do with the unit durability."
Value = Sum(Capability)
Points should directly relate to value.
Offensive output is a component of capability.
Durability is a component of capability.
If you have two units for roughly the same points/value, and one has more durability, then unless it has other related downsides, the other should have more offensive output.
In other words, for the same points, offensive output should be *inversely related* to durability (roughly).
It's biased to consider BT or CF not competitive because they're not ultramarines and put all the orks or drukhari "chapters" into the same basket labelling them competitive, overpowered or even just good.
Not if the baseline units of the Drukhari or Orks are better baseline with a smaller buff in efficiency from their Chapter Tactics-equivalent. Sure, Goffs are worse than Evil Sunz, but the difference between the two is nowhere near the difference between Ultramarines and everyone else.
As an example, assume that Ork units are 7 on a scale from one to ten and that two Kultures add +1 and +2 respectively, for a total of 8 or 9. Then assume that Space Marine units are a 5, with one Chapter Tactic that adds +1 and one that adds +4, for a total of 6 or 9. While this would theoretically mean both Codices were competetive, it wouldn't change the fact that Orks would have a stronger book overall.
But that's not what An Actual Englishman said. He said he thought it'd be enough to just make Chapter Tactics apply to everything. That's my point: giving my Predators rerolls to failed charges just isn't going to make Black Templars competetive because it's a complete non-buff. Similarly, White Scars wouldn't gain much either.
Ergo chapters tactics should be different. ultramarines should be vanila with a vanila chapter tactic. Not the worse, and not the best. Their cool part would come from awesome special characters, like tigurius or gman.
On the other hand something like BT chapter tactic should either be very strong or should be more unit specific. Maybe it should also be buffed by BT specific detachments. A combination of a strong chapter tactic that makes BT players actually want to use BT units and a detachment that sprinkles BT buffs to all units could easily fix the plight BT are in right now.
The same could be done with white scars and bike units. Maybe WS bikes are the only ones that could go up stairs 0_0 etc.
Right now GW for 8th cut out so many marine rules, that the only thing carrying them are special characters. Ultras have the most, so their chance to have the best is the biggest. I could imagine Dorn making IF or BT much better, but is seems like a lazy fix.
That's the same issue all factions have, some of their "chapters" are simply better than other ones and some units don't get benefit at all from the chapter trait.
Orks snakebite or blood axes for example are way inferior than evil sunz, freebootas or deathskulls while bad moons are only good for small detachments. Goffs tankbustas don't get benefit from having more eventual hits in combat.
The difference is much bigger though, as others said. Snakebite lootaz are still an ok unit. Black Templars don't have top units, and they good units are the same ones
ultramarines get, which are a ton better when run with the ultramarine primarch.
The issue is that non-Gman Space Marines can't compete with non-Catlady Eldar either. Eldar unis are far better baseline than Marine ones. Like, try fighitng Ulthwe Eldar with Black Templars or White Scars. It's not even fun.
An important distinction, but it's hard to talk about BT ASM vs Iyanden Scorpions, because people start talking about double-move/shoot/fight and Fieldcraft. Just make sure you're consistent.
That said, it's important that even the "good books" deal with "But I don't want to play that". CatLady vs Gman make a great example of this. So you're best of either comparing Ynnari to in-Gman-aura or non-Ynnari to not-in-Gman-aura.
Let's not get girlyman conflated with the UM trait discussion. ...or the "what's wrong with 3+ saves" discussion for that matter. Girlyman (and a good stable of characters that aren't girlyman) fething up balance for the Marine codex is a whole separate issue. The solution to girlyman is to just flat-out ban named characters from competitive play in the core rules and then balance everything else like they don't exist. * And no that doesn't hurt GK; "balance everything else like named characters don't exist" applies to them too.
On the chapter trait discussion, even the good ones like UM and RG effect some units more than others. Inceptors, Jump Pack marines, and melee Termies don't get any use at all out of the UM trait, anything melee focused or with a gun range under 20" gets very little benefit out of the RG trait.
Edit: * - And then point named characters like you can't account for their buffs in cost of the units they're buffing. Or possibly asign them a Power Level but no point level to emphasize that they're only for narative play.
I'm curious where these top tables that marines are competing at?
The one off successes of a couple of the best players in 40k hamstringing themselves taking "bad" armies is more about good players with bad tools vs a competent army.
Considering Astartes have the third lowest primary win percentage (39%) in ITC events (only above necrons and GK) I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your opinion.
Or look at the TiWIP where marines are 5% of the field but 3% of the armies in position to win (competing at the top tables) with a grand total of 0 undefeated lists
Other factions with 0 undefeated lists Sisters (44% primary win rate), Custodes (47%), BA (39%), DA (43%) , DW (43%), GK (31%), Crons (39%) and space wolves(39%) See any themes. PA and necrons seem to have a problem.
Orks also have a low win rate (41%) but with only a codex recently I'm curious how that number changes over the next couple months. Bumps up to 46% if you control for events only after codex was released.
By these numbers SM and power armor in general are not competitive at top tables and there seems to be something systemically wrong with PA in general.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
So we can't complain about a unit being bad because we aren't complaining about a unit in your codex at the same time?
An Actual Englishman wrote: I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.
If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.
If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.
It's not so much that people are hung up on the Tacs as it is that Tacs are the base profile eveything else is based on. Giving Tacs W2 for example gives Assault Marines, Devastator Marines, and Veterans W2 by implication, and arguably gives Bikes and Termies W3 and Centurions W4.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.
If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.
It's not so much that people are hung up on the Tacs as it is that Tacs are the base profile eveything else is based on. Giving Tacs W2 for example gives Assault Marines, Devastator Marines, and Veterans W2, and Bikes and Termies W3 by implication.
Which is the core issues of Loyalist Scum in general.
For example, CSM for sure are based around that statline. However, each of their units overall has a defined role. With Sternguard, they're just Tactical Marines but better. Vanguard are just Assault Marines but better. Chosen are just Chaos Marines but better. Command Squads and their Biker variants are just Marines (and Bikers) but better. The other options though within the CSM codex (Cult of Destruction units, Possessed, the Cult Marines, and even cultists) aren't exactly confined to that statline. For Loyalists, you have Primaris, Terminators, Centurions, and of course Scouts. Otherwise a lot of stuff seems to be based on only one or two units.
Blood Claws
Grey Hunters
Wolf Guard in Power Armor
Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor
Long Fangs
Thunderwolf Cavalry
etc.
Saying "TAC Marines are overpriced" is a way of saying the base marine statline is overpriced.
Aside from dreadnoughts, this is the basic statline than is getting chapter tactics.
Imagine if all of the other factions had the same restrictions. For instance, Eldar CW traits only applied to the base Guardian statline.
Exactly!
ITs the same with guardsmen being the 'base' unit for all imperial guard.
Its why I am against giving marines +1 wound. If you do that then every unit in the space marine codex will get +1 wound. Which I am sorta against. W3 Intercessors is insane. That would make them the best infantry in the game period.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.
If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.
Indeed. The stack of "things that need to be compared to other things" is vastly too crowded; the fact that a Space Marine, a Veteran Space Marine, and a Primaris Space Marine all need to have different defined profiles is a big part of the problem.
interceptors would still have a better bolter, and they could define the them even more by adding 1-2 inches of movement as they really should be faster due to their size.
An just leave them at 2 wound and make them 2-3 points more than a tactical profile with 2 wounds and 2 attacks as baseline.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.
Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.
*runs and hides.
Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.
If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.
I feel like a decently clean thing to do would be to leave scouts as a 1W option and have made the intercessor profile the baseline for "full brothers" and build up from there. GW had to go and fubar the fluff and make primaris a thing to justify new models when they don't really need to be there IMO. The options to take weapons/transports that tacticals have always gotten would be okay with primaris statlines, assuming the power creep/scale gets put back in check. Thoughs?
Then what do you do with intercessors? well they shouldn't really have been a thing IMO but GW thought they needed to justify their new models i guess. If i just imagine all the options tacs usually have, packaged with intercessors and auto bolt rifles I think "meh, not bad". Though this is just for bog standard marines, doesn't even begin to address chapter tactics/preds/termies or anything else, just the plain marines.
Snakebite lootaz are still an ok unit. Black Templars don't have top units, and they good units are the same ones
ultramarines get, which are a ton better when run with the ultramarine primarch.
If lootas snakebites are "still ok" it means they're nowhere near a top unit as well, just like the black templars dudes you mentioned. Bad moons lootas are basically twice as good as snakebites ones as they come with a free re-rolling 1s and the ability to shoot twice for 2 CPs. Maybe BT don't have top units but they can definitely field a decent amount of "still ok" units then.
Honestly the gap between snakebites or blood axes to evil sunz is quite wide, but the gap between one of the most underperforming ork clans like snakebites and a list with mixed clans is absolutely huge, probably even wider than the gap between ultras and black templars.
I can easily see where Blackie is coming from (and on a side note that is an incredibly awkward forum handle to have to put in a sentence) about mixing Ork Clans even without being all that familiar with them, because I've found myself doing the same thing with Marine chapters to maximize different elements. If I'm putting a Smash Captain and Vanguards in a list then that detachment is going to be Raven Guard so I can use their combination of advanced move, relic Jump Pack, and warlord trait to get first-turn charges off that also deny overwatch, but the rest of the list is likely going to be Imperial Fist because we use the Cities of Death rules all the time and Marine shooting is even less effective than normal if you don't deny cover saves.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's an interesting conclusion to reach in light of the fact that Orks are outperforming Space Marines overall.
Top orks lists vs top SM lists maybe. I'm still waiting to see those unstoppable top tier orks.
Otherwise SM can absolutely compete. Lists with top SM chapters can be way more powerful than orks lists with the worse clans, but SM should also have reasonably fair matches even against single clans lists, even the better ones like evil sunz.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's an interesting conclusion to reach in light of the fact that Orks are outperforming Space Marines overall.
Top orks lists vs top SM lists maybe. I'm still waiting to see those unstoppable top tier orks.
Otherwise SM can absolutely compete. Lists with top SM chapters can be way more powerful than orks lists with the worse clans, but SM should also have reasonably fair matches even against single clans lists, even the better ones like evil sunz.
I'm still waiting to see that Orks are outperforming power armour armies, because last I checked a number of what I would define as space marine armies had better records in the ITC than Orks.
Granted, this was in November but as far as I'm aware there aren't many events for Orks to win, and thus jump ahead in December.
We already know that Index Orks ran circles around the worse Chapters. How are low-tier Klan Orks suddenly as bad as them? Because Boyz went up by one point?
The problems with Marines are basically that the system favors hordes over elite armies, and that players have to expect to be able to deal with Titanic units.
The system favoring hordes creates a problem because being able to throw enough dice to deal with hordes of cheap troopers also works just fine against smaller numbers of more expensive troopers, as long as those troopers are single-wound models. GW could address the situation by increasing the number of wounds higher-point models have, but thus haven't been willing to do so in any meaningful way. Decreasing the points of more elite troopers is another way to address the problem, but essentially makes them less elite. It compresses the difference between a Guardsman and a Space Marine.
Thinking outside the box a little, the problem could be addressed by having a mechanic whereby cheap horde units take more damage from weapons because they are cheap horde units. Add to the main rules a keyword and the following rule:
Cannon Fodder: For every two wounds a unit with this keyword suffers, the unit takes an additional wound with AP equal to the AP of the majority of the wounds inflicted on the unit that phase
Then give that keyword to every unit that costs less than, say, 9 points per model (pulled that number more or less out of thin air). Cheap horde units would then die faster than more elite units without upping the volume of attacks that individual weapons or unit have, which would make it easier to countermeasure cheap horde units without also unduly negatively impacting more elite units.
Having Titanic units in the system is bad for all vehicles because if one has sufficient firepower to knock down a Knight in a single turn, one will have no problem against a Land Raider or a Predator. The solution for this could be fairly simple - give all Titanic units the following rule:
Broad Side of a Barn: Due to the sheer size of this unit, all shooting targeting this unit gains +1 to hit.
Make Titanic units easier to hit, and one doesn't need so many vehicle-killing weapons to kill them. Lessen the number of vehicle-killing weapons needed to kill Titanic units, and non-Titanic vehicles (and monsters for that matter) become more survivable.
The general hitting, wounding and damaging rules lead to the fact that most 'anti-horde' weapons are point-by-point far more effective against elite infantry than actual hordes.
Titanic units would not be huge problem if vehicle points in general were scaled proportionally, the cheap relatively weak vehicles should be made cheaper because of the firepower creep.
Weapons in general need to be forced into more specialised roles, currently one can relatively easily mass enough firepower that can shoot down a Knight in one turn (like 30-40% of opponents army) while they can equally well destroy 4-5 rhinos. There is a disconnect here. If the weapons were more specialised the knight destroying lists would lose to massed cheap vehicles.
Now we get back to the poorly differentiated damaging rules and weaponry rules, so most effective way to destroy anything is combination of high volume shots, medium-high strength (S5-8) and medium AP (-1 or -2) weaponry. And of course long range. If the units, weaponry and core rules were better designed there would not be this sort of spammable middle ground.
Few quick solutions:
Make many currently T 7 or T 8 vehicles to go to far higher toughness values (T 10-12, even 14), while increasing Strength of clearly AT weapons (Lascannons, Meltaguns and similar). Amount of wounds can be then rescaled to proportionally lower values.
Make 2+ save on vehicles be more common and introduce 1+ or even 0+ save on vehicles, so it's actually impenetrable by AP 0 weapons and not so much affected by low AP values.
Introduce actually anti-horde weapons with appropriate rules that are not so good against 'elite' infantry and vehicles, and force cheap model units to have much larger minimum unit size. I mean come on, units costing below 50 points shouldn't even exist. All sorts of cheap units enable spamming and CP batteries currently. You see spamming of cheapest possible troop choices all over if you go through competitive lists.
Asherian Command wrote: You mean like the old rules where most vehicles could ignore normal infantry weapons?
Yeah. Still getting nightmares about those. /sarcasm
I mean it makes sense a simple lasgun even if it got really lucky would barely glance a warlord titan or a land raider. In older rules at least my land raider could outright ignore bolters and heavy stubbers.
cmspano wrote: Orks will wreck vanilla marines. Maybe not a girlyman list tailored to kill hordes.
A 25 man bad moonz loota unit will out shoot anything marines have and are hard to kill.
Da Jump Boyz will overwhelm parts of the board while more advance.
Dakkajet bad moons air wings will clean up a lot of infantry too
400 points less of toys so you can reroll 2's and 3's to wound in most cases is not worth it. Unbuffed DW vets actaully outperform a gman buffed list. LET THAT SINK IN A BIT.
A punisher tank commander averages a wiped ork boys unit. Show me any 200 point unit in the marine codex that can compete with that while being buffed by a 400 point unit? Youll struggle because nothing even comes close. Good luck even getting 49 shots for those points. Plus lets not forget - 3 punisher russ commanders costs as much as your trash combo. Plus it probably has better defensive stats too. Realistically - GMAN is trash. Paying for his buff is not worth it. It's only in combat where he shines because he has the stats that matters (3++ and resurection AT THE END OF THE PHASE and deals mortal wounds). Now that Clagar has been super buffed their is little reason to even run guilliman.
Lets get back to the core issue of the power armor problem.
You pay more points - to do less damage - and the only defense you get can be compeltely ignored. Meanwhile. Orks have a 5++ aura with 6+ FNP bubbles and they don't really even pay for it. Which has the durability problem?
cmspano wrote: Orks will wreck vanilla marines. Maybe not a girlyman list tailored to kill hordes.
A 25 man bad moonz loota unit will out shoot anything marines have and are hard to kill.
Da Jump Boyz will overwhelm parts of the board while more advance.
Dakkajet bad moons air wings will clean up a lot of infantry too
Orks are a problem for marines in general right now. The amount of buffs they stack on boyz for a negligible price makes them surprisingly durable.
Marines seem like the only faction that is priced with their buffs factored in.
Csm have the same situation, additionally to priced in stratagems.
The baked in pricing is only for a few units (Obliterators, Terminators, and Cultists), but yes I agree it's absolute crap. Strategems need to be balanced and priced around units, NOT the other way around. That kinda pricing bleeds into anything not marked Slaanesh automatically and makes them weaker.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We already know that Index Orks ran circles around the worse Chapters. How are low-tier Klan Orks suddenly as bad as them? Because Boyz went up by one point?
Only a single list at index times could do that. And tipycally just in 3 turns games.
The unfortunate thing is that 3+Save discussions always descend into why does codex * astartes suck.
But it's not just astartes that suck, a number of infantry with 3+ saves also suck/sucked, primarily IMHO because GWwas/is still pricing 3+ saves like it's previous editions.
CA2018 took yet more points of the cost of numerous 3+ save units, crisis suits, Sisters of Silence, anything primaris for a second time., necrons. SoB beta codex sounds like it might need points cost reductions already.
The problem is that over paying for that 3+, means you have less models who arn't as durable as equivalent points of chaff.
That extra cost reduces your model count, which also reduces your firepower. That's the set up for a perfect storm of never going to work unit imbalance.
You have the same points, less firepower, lower durability, loose a higher percentage of the firepower you do have when taking casualties, and kill less than the enemy.
Over multiple turns that fight just keeps getting more one sided, instead of it being close untill you whittle down the enemy and the odds turn infavour of the elite models. it actually just makes it favour the hoards more with every turn.
But if they are less durable, then why doesn't GW just make marines more deadly in shoting and melee. Right now if anything marine gets really efficient at killing other armies, GW nerfs it in the next FAQ or CA.
Karol wrote: But if they are less durable, then why doesn't GW just make marines more deadly in shoting and melee. Right now if anything marine gets really efficient at killing other armies, GW nerfs it in the next FAQ or CA.
Yeah, good point. I’d rather marines were jacked up in power to better suit their current points costs rather than simply having their points reduced to match their current ability. Make them actual killing machines. You’ve all seen that fan made Astrates animation doing the rounds? Make the rules reflect what that animation shows; marines as unstoppable tanks that shred through common infantry like a knife through butter.
I’ve always felt that a single tactical squad (and now, intercessors) should be the equivalent or near equivalent of a full sized IG infantry platoon in terms of firepower and durability. Even that underplays their fluff power, but I’m trying to be realistic.
Ice_can wrote: The unfortunate thing is that 3+Save discussions always descend into why does codex * astartes suck.
But it's not just astartes that suck, a number of infantry with 3+ saves also suck/sucked, primarily IMHO because GWwas/is still pricing 3+ saves like it's previous editions.
Not entirely true, GW basically prices all the armor saves on infantriy dudes like it's previous editions. Guardsmen used to get no save at all against several anti infantry weapons, now they have a 5+, so other 5+ save dudes. And yet they didn't have a price hike. Even a +1ppm for guardsmen wouldn't reflect how their save works in this edition, that +1 would be a fix against the fact that S3 weapons now can wound anything and their cheap troop role to dispose of CPs. To make a fair comparison between previous edition guardsmen and current ones they should be 7ppm, which never gonna happen (sadly).
Orks became 7ppm not because their 6+ now actually matters against most anti infantry weapons, but because boyz now have a free melta bomb every 10 models. They certainly deserved to be 7ppm even without that bomb (which adds nothing most of the times) though as their save now is actually a real save.
I also disagree that GW should make them more deadly in shooting, as they already have a good firepower, they totally lack melee though and that's mostly because they lack synergies between the melee units, the units' auras and the codex shenanigans.
It's also obvious that high amor save dudes suffer from a meta that is awfully anti tank oriented. Super heroes and super heavies that are so good and underpriced make marines less effective. When I play with my competitive group of friends we tend to avoid soups and Lows if we play purely TAC lists, and SM perform certainly better under these conditions, by a significant margin.
I’ve always felt that a single tactical squad (and now, intercessors) should be the equivalent or near equivalent of a full sized IG infantry platoon in terms of firepower and durability. Even that underplays their fluff power, but I’m trying to be realistic.
I agree about tacs, not intercessors. IMHO the min squad of the basic troops should have a similar cost for each army in the game. Of course some of them would be 5 models, others would be 10. Only extremely squishy dudes should be cheaper, like gretchins (T2 no save).
5 Tacs should cost like 10 guardsmen or 10 orks. Unfortunately it's 65 points, 40 points, 70 points instead which isn't fair at all. Guardsmen at 7ppm would fix the issue as 10 guardsmen are really equal to 5 tacs, if not even better.
They would really have to make marines god like in melee to balance how much they cost vs what they face in melee. Right now there are two things marines will melee against. Super melee units, that just stomp them dead or huge units of chaffs they can't clear. A marine would have to be something like 4A each or get multiple melee upgrades for free to be able to deal with those.
Melee only units marines have have to be smash capt tier to be considered being worth taking. The rest like termintors, primaris or assault space marines are never taken. That is why I think it would be easier for GW to buff marine shoting with an extra rule or two, then reworking the whole space marine brand to make it better at assault. Also GW seems to over price marine melee stuff, just look at GK, each one has melee weapon. they should be great, but GW costed them at least 5 more then what they should cost, with the other limitations they have.
cmspano wrote: Orks will wreck vanilla marines. Maybe not a girlyman list tailored to kill hordes.
A 25 man bad moonz loota unit will out shoot anything marines have and are hard to kill.
Da Jump Boyz will overwhelm parts of the board while more advance.
Dakkajet bad moons air wings will clean up a lot of infantry too
Orks are a problem for marines in general right now. The amount of buffs they stack on boyz for a negligible price makes them surprisingly durable.
Marines seem like the only faction that is priced with their buffs factored in.
Csm have the same situation, additionally to priced in stratagems.
The baked in pricing is only for a few units (Obliterators, Terminators, and Cultists), but yes I agree it's absolute crap. Strategems need to be balanced and priced around units, NOT the other way around. That kinda pricing bleeds into anything not marked Slaanesh automatically and makes them weaker.
It's not just the stratagems that suddenly get for some reason priced in, take a look at the Heavy and special weapon prices. They all need to be priced around full rerolls, that is a issue, because most of these weapons are just worth it for these specific , often times requiring a special Charachter, builds. Guiliman and Abbadon single handedly keep the prices of these so high, that you still pay (often overpay) more for these weapons than they are worth without these charachters. This is an issue, and personally the reroll auras should just go imo, since they lead to.
Congalines (special thanks to abbadon and Cultists)
Higher prices for all other subfactions which potentially could profit from more equipment but now get outpriced
Terrible to watch bubble shenanigans.
cut the prices on all reroll auras (make them specific targetable for 1-2 units at a time) and lower the prices on charachters and weaponry.
that then would seriously give us a more even playing field, to even start a discussion around marines and Chaos marines.
They would have zero reason to price synergies into certain units if all the buff auras and boost stratagems were more specific. Currently almost everyone and their dog can have 'Slaanesh' keyword so almost every infantry unit can shoot twice with stratagem, with CSM obviously. But then when we go look at the actual units: Terminator squad is the only one that can scale to ridiculous amounts, deep-striking in 10 combi-plasma terminators and then shooting twice with them together with VotLW. All the other units (Noise Marines, Chosen, Havocs) don't scale upwards because they have hard 2/4/5 limit in special/heavy weapons. Obliterators don't scale up much because unit of 3 is maximum one can have.
Re-rolls and other buff auras should be probably be made to target more specific units than just everything with same <Legion> or similar keyword, then there would be less pressure to price the assumed synergies to everything. Also every generic buff aura that affects everything acts as power multiplier. Now what does this mean exactly, lets consider this example: Multiply 2*2 = 4 (2 increase), 10*2 = 20 (10 increase). In both cases we have 100% increase, but in absolute terms first number increased only 20% of the second increase, i.e. bad unit are bad even with multipliers if the same multiplier works with the better units.
All the aura effects that encourage players to build congalines should be removed, this is very gamey element and the most extreme cases just look outright stupid to anyone watching the game. This is also simple, just add 'wholly within' or whatever is the exact terminology they prefer, while increasing the range in some abilities a little.
Buff auras could easily be 0 CP stratagems that are character specific, only practical difference would be better control of aura spamming and stacking and more so less incentive for players to build these huge blobs/stars/fortressess with buff auras.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Note that Haarken the Worldclaimer is inherently better designed with his buff aura currently being re-roll melee hits for Black Legion Raptors. This is very specific:
1. Works only in melee.
2. Works only with Black Legion Raptors.
I don't think this aura is good itself, I'm just saying it's designed better IMO. With current rule writing on Haarken the obvious solution to hypothetical BL Haarken Raptor spam combos would be increase price of Haarken, the combo itself is Black Legion specific so there is little reason to increase the price of Raptors, assuming Haarken Raptor combos are the problem, and not the Raptors of various <Legion> keywords.
I find it funny that, in light of the durability issues of power armour in one of the deadliest editions of the game, people are considering the solution to be increasing the lethality of the most commonly played army and whose rules form the foundation of 10 entire factions.
well it is one or the other, I doubt they would do both. Some people seem to see better resiliance as too passive. But while people may disagree on how to fix marines, I think everyone can agree that the way they are priced right now makes no sense at all.
Lemondish wrote: I find it funny that, in light of the durability issues of power armour in one of the deadliest editions of the game, people are considering the solution to be increasing the lethality of the most commonly played army and whose rules form the foundation of 10 entire factions.
A LOT of people argue for consolidation too, which would help fix a lot of problems in the long run (rules bloat being the worst, to me at least).
fraser1191 wrote: Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck
Exactly.
Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?
Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.
Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.
fraser1191 wrote: Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck
Exactly.
Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?
Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.
Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.
In that case i would increase primaris to be 18pts per. So that they are a bit more expensive. And we keep scouts being the worst infantry in the space marine codex... like they should be.
fraser1191 wrote: Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck
Exactly.
Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?
Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.
Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.
In that case i would increase primaris to be 18pts per. So that they are a bit more expensive. And we keep scouts being the worst infantry in the space marine codex... like they should be.
Yeah, I agree. I'd even consider making scouts BS/WS 4+ and stay at 1W and 1A. Granted I don't know how I'd point them, but they'd probably go down to 10.
As long as scouts have their deployment option they will be the worst choice but bring something unique to the table
fraser1191 wrote: Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck
Exactly.
Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?
Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.
Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.
In that case i would increase primaris to be 18pts per. So that they are a bit more expensive. And we keep scouts being the worst infantry in the space marine codex... like they should be.
Yeah, I agree. I'd even consider making scouts BS/WS 4+ and stay at 1W and 1A. Granted I don't know how I'd point them, but they'd probably go down to 10.
As long as scouts have their deployment option they will be the worst choice but bring something unique to the table
Scouts were actually WS/BS3+ for most of their incarnations. It would be silly to revert again just because you're sick of seeing them.
Plus, even when they were BS4+, they were STILL taken over Tactical Marines. Doesn't that say there's more an issue with one unit rather than trying to nerf the other?
13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model? What? 2w and 2a isn't going to salvage you in this fight but at least you can take out more than 3 Orks before you lose an entire assault unit.
Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.
Meanwhile what we have now is:
Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.
Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.
MEQ whether 1 or 2 wounds will still struggle until GW greatly reduces how casually they throw around 2+D weapons and AP -2 or more being super common and the best all commers option.
I remember back in 5th, due to how you killed a marine was different from how you kill a vehicle and further different from how you dealt with a horde. A 3+ save was actually worth something. These days it just isn't so just bring guardsmen.
fraser1191 wrote: I'm hardly sick of seeing scouts I just want there to be variety and choice.
Do I take the cheaper novice or the more expensive "standard" soldier?
It isn't like Scouts are just total novices either. Having the same BS as Infantry is silly as Scouts get considerably more training. In fact, the matter that Space Wolves Scouts have the same attack stat but are supposed to be Vets is utterly silly and one of GW's inconsistencies.
Marmatag wrote: 13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model? What? 2w and 2a isn't going to salvage you in this fight but at least you can take out more than 3 Orks before you lose an entire assault unit.
Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.
Meanwhile what we have now is:
Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.
Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.
That is the point isn't it? That is how bad a marine is. You could give it +1 W and +1 attack for no additional cost and it still isn't that great. Intercessors cost +4 points (after their second point drop) from that but get a marginally better gun. Obviously...it's not competitive. These threads just bore the hell out of me. The truth is - everyone that doesn't play marines - wants them to suck.
fraser1191 wrote: Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck
I'm glad you pointed this out, lest someone stopping by for a quick glance at the thread would have been concerned it wasn't addressed despite never being said.
---
What seems clear at this point is that there's no consensus of even what the problems for marines are except "they suck hurr durr". I imagine in the face of knowing no matter what you do a vocal group will still exclaim that they still suck or that it wasn't enough or some other inane drivel. In the face of that, the status quo seems almost more bearable.
fraser1191 wrote: Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck
I'm glad you pointed this out, lest someone stopping by for a quick glance at the thread would have been concerned it wasn't addressed despite never being said.
---
What seems clear at this point is that there's no consensus of even what the problems for marines are except "they suck hurr durr". I imagine in the face of knowing no matter what you do a vocal group will still exclaim that they still suck or that it wasn't enough or some other inane drivel. In the face of that, the status quo seems almost more bearable.
I like reading the creative solutions though.
Issue is that there hasn't been anything creative said in a while.
I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.
I still am sorta against giving marines an additional wound, but more special rules, stratagems and more effective shooting. (Not better ap for regular bolters though)
And maybe a rework of 8th edition to prevent certain weapons from doing damage to heavy vechicles. Like a lasgun should have 0 chance to hurt a land raider or a warlord titan.
Termies need a rework to have more firepower and ability to dish out more damage or prevent damage. (one thing that should go out the window is the -1 to hit or give them a +2BS (Only a +2BS))
Asherian Command wrote: I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.
I still am sorta against giving marines an additional wound, but more special rules, stratagems and more effective shooting. (Not better ap for regular bolters though)
And maybe a rework of 8th edition to prevent certain weapons from doing damage to heavy vechicles. Like a lasgun should have 0 chance to hurt a land raider or a warlord titan.
Termies need a rework to have more firepower and ability to dish out more damage or prevent damage. (one thing that should go out the window is the -1 to hit or give them a +2BS (Only a +2BS))
Problem is that 8the favours skew lists.
Knights force all armies to basically instagib atleast one per turn, ergo most lists see more At then ever.
Consequently the other skew is horde armies that basically try to keep the board controll and win via objectives.
I quite like scouts being 1 wound, regular marines 2 and Primarus being 3. With 2 attacks for regular marines (including scouts), and 3 for primes. However, as HoundsofDemos said, with all that super powerful weaponry knocking about and even basic rend affecting their save, these changes still feel like pissing in the wind tbh.
Current points wise, it seems only fair that a basic marine should be 3 times as good as an imperial guardsmen, and a Primarus 5 times as good! How to achieve that though...
2 wounds with a 3+ save, 2 attacks and a strength 4 ap -1 gun is surely 3 times as good as a 1 wound with a 5+ save, 1 attack model with a strength 3 ap - gun yes?
EDIT: guard are 4pts each aren’t they? And tacticals are 13 and intercessors 20 yes?
Asherian Command wrote: I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.
I still am sorta against giving marines an additional wound, but more special rules, stratagems and more effective shooting. (Not better ap for regular bolters though)
And maybe a rework of 8th edition to prevent certain weapons from doing damage to heavy vechicles. Like a lasgun should have 0 chance to hurt a land raider or a warlord titan.
Termies need a rework to have more firepower and ability to dish out more damage or prevent damage. (one thing that should go out the window is the -1 to hit or give them a +2BS (Only a +2BS))
Problem is that 8the favours skew lists.
Knights force all armies to basically instagib atleast one per turn, ergo most lists see more At then ever.
Consequently the other skew is horde armies that basically try to keep the board controll and win via objectives.
So basically super control vs super horde spammy armies got it.
To make a bit of an equivalency statement.
In hearthstone there has always been this dichotomy of Midrange - IE the perfect game state where you could play from low to high with your deck, in this case you deck has low amount of high cards, but it iss balanced about always having something on tempo, there are some control cards, and some are tempo cards, but the key thing is that your not rushing you always have cards in your hand to use. There are two other decks that are often taking center stage, control decks (super powered decks with major high tier cards, the whole point control the board and waste your opponents resources), and Aggro decks (Aggro decks are all about flooding the board). If we talk about warhammer tabletop in these terms i think we might see people come to a realization how similar a card game is to a tabletop with miniatures.
In this case marines as an aspect similar to a class has a lot of variety but nothing to formulate a balanced objective of being able to control or spam the field effectively. Marines are the mid range of 40k. Eldar are the Elite Control the Board types, but have the ability to spam certain units that are highly effective, while titans are super controllers, that need support from loyal 32.
Marines Should not be midrange. Their whole shtick is controlling the board, the ability to deploy on the board in multidudes of ways, with drop pods, rhinos and aircraft. They currently also lack the firepower to prove their engagement potential on the tabletop. In essence marines lack sufficient ways to punish opponents for positioning even with their 'rapid fire' ability, rapid-fire had been in the past a rarer ability found mostly on marines (bolters), sadly many have acquired this ability punishing marines even further and removing their identity abilities. (Combat Tactics, and ANTSKNF, along with Facitonwide Meaningful Chapter Tactics, +1 Attack on Charge, Sweeping Advance, Relentless, deployment, deep strike benefits unique to them, heavy armor vehicles, etc.)
Marines are lacking as I have said this whole thread (not the first page, believe it or not, I changed my mind), they lack abilities that are meaningful that allow for counterplay. Marines have always been known as the bulwark when it comes to leadership, with leadership not being as important this edition or stressed, marines suffer as their leaders no longer give their leadership ability just by being near or equipped to the squad.
Utility units such as Librarians lost their force dome ability which gave ALL marines in a squad a +5 invulnerable or the original might of heroes which gave more attacks to a character or squad. These all build upon one another and its clear as day for many. Marines are not overcosted, they are costed as if they already have these synergies available to them from the get-go. Marines need options to control the board, and sadly they don't have ways to punish bad positioning or to create traps for their opponents. With every unit in the game being able to contest an objective effective troop with good armor saves as choices have flown right out the window this edition.
Suggestions for Overhaul for ninth :
Only Troop Choices and Qualified units can take objectives...
If your strength of the weapon your attacking with is less than half of the total toughness of the model your attacking you cannot do any damage to it. Even on 6s (Except otherwise notified with the weapon profile, AKA RENDING).
Asherian Command wrote: I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.
I still am sorta against giving marines an additional wound, but more special rules, stratagems and more effective shooting. (Not better ap for regular bolters though)
And maybe a rework of 8th edition to prevent certain weapons from doing damage to heavy vechicles. Like a lasgun should have 0 chance to hurt a land raider or a warlord titan.
Termies need a rework to have more firepower and ability to dish out more damage or prevent damage. (one thing that should go out the window is the -1 to hit or give them a +2BS (Only a +2BS))
Problem is that 8the favours skew lists.
Knights force all armies to basically instagib atleast one per turn, ergo most lists see more At then ever.
Consequently the other skew is horde armies that basically try to keep the board controll and win via objectives.
So basically super control vs super horde spammy armies got it.
To make a bit of an equivalency statement.
In hearthstone there has always been this dichotomy of Midrange - IE the perfect game state where you could play from low to high with your deck, in this case you deck has low amount of high cards, but it iss balanced about always having something on tempo, there are some control cards, and some are tempo cards, but the key thing is that your not rushing you always have cards in your hand to use. There are two other decks that are often taking center stage, control decks (super powered decks with major high tier cards, the whole point control the board and waste your opponents resources), and Aggro decks (Aggro decks are all about flooding the board). If we talk about warhammer tabletop in these terms i think we might see people come to a realization how similar a card game is to a tabletop with miniatures.
In this case marines as an aspect similar to a class has a lot of variety but nothing to formulate a balanced objective of being able to control or spam the field effectively. Marines are the mid range of 40k. Eldar are the Elite Control the Board types, but have the ability to spam certain units that are highly effective, while titans are super controllers, that need support from loyal 32.
Marines Should not be midrange. Their whole shtick is controlling the board, the ability to deploy on the board in multidudes of ways, with drop pods, rhinos and aircraft. They currently also lack the firepower to prove their engagement potential on the tabletop. In essence marines lack sufficient ways to punish opponents for positioning even with their 'rapid fire' ability, rapid-fire had been in the past a rarer ability found mostly on marines (bolters), sadly many have acquired this ability punishing marines even further and removing their identity abilities. (Combat Tactics, and ANTSKNF, along with Facitonwide Meaningful Chapter Tactics, +1 Attack on Charge, Sweeping Advance, Relentless, deployment, deep strike benefits unique to them, heavy armor vehicles, etc.)
Marines are lacking as I have said this whole thread (not the first page, believe it or not, I changed my mind), they lack abilities that are meaningful that allow for counterplay. Marines have always been known as the bulwark when it comes to leadership, with leadership not being as important this edition or stressed, marines suffer as their leaders no longer give their leadership ability just by being near or equipped to the squad.
Utility units such as Librarians lost their force dome ability which gave ALL marines in a squad a +5 invulnerable or the original might of heroes which gave more attacks to a character or squad. These all build upon one another and its clear as day for many. Marines are not overcosted, they are costed as if they already have these synergies available to them from the get-go. Marines need options to control the board, and sadly they don't have ways to punish bad positioning or to create traps for their opponents. With every unit in the game being able to contest an objective effective troop with good armor saves as choices have flown right out the window this edition.
Suggestions for Overhaul for ninth :
Only Troop Choices and Qualified units can take objectives...
If your strength of the weapon your attacking with is less than half of the total toughness of the model your attacking you cannot do any damage to it. Even on 6s (Except otherwise notified with the weapon profile, AKA RENDING).
Yes and no,
As in eldar would be the combo deck archetype, atleast ynnari soulbourst soup shenanigans would be.
Your change would just further horde armies and generally how the game is Set up small cheap infantry is vastly superior to Elite infantry so you have made the situation worse, kinda.
The main comparison would be that you 'd have about 3 common lists in the ladder and to compete you have to hard tech against all of them. Basically you can't do that so they force all other armies out of the meta.
Martel732 wrote: The crowd on here is so uninformed compared to the real life tourney crowd. It was a given at the Toledo gt that marines were miserable af.
There really is no solid way to run marines. Deathwatch are good, that's it, because of the insane poisoned 2+ ammo.
Asherian Command wrote: I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.
You realise that whether or not anyone comments on them will make zero difference to the game though right?
Yes? And?
Let us look at it this way. No one in here is expecting GW to read our statements or discussions, this isn't GW's official forum nor are they actual game company. They are a modeling company first.
If some people expect their examples to be taken as gospel as "THIS IS WHAT GW SHOULD DO! CAUSE ISAY SO!" Are misguided. GW is under no obligation to follow a forum post, that's silly. This is a discussion between hobbyists and house rule discussions for people to try out in their own settings not for GW to take as an example. That is the major difference between a video game and a tabletop game, a tabletop game is at its heart a community-driven, people can ignore GW rules, and many do, somewhat often to make the game more fun. Not everyone is going to play a top competitive game, but people are willing to try different things to have fun on the tabletop. And that's what I advocate, honestly, GW is too stringent on certain rules, but abstract on others.
This doesn't make these discussions any less valuable but it could lead to further discussion. In the end, this isn't telling GW what to do, but it is at its heart fan criticism so others can look at what others purposed to try out. And maybe those rules get popularity. Who knows. Sometimes fans do have an effect but the original creator of that idea is probably not going to even know some of their ideas indirectly were added in.
No one here should be disillusioned that this just a thread discussing what is wrong with marines and power armored characters in general. I even said at the beginning of the thread that chaos marines and grey knights suffer horribly. We could add that as another thing, because we don't see chaos space marines played nearly as much as we do cultists, and its because they are cheap and inexpensive, GK just suck, and only have maybe two or three things they can use adequately well. But that doesn't make the GK, SW, BA, DA, or SM any better just because a couple units are good if you use them in tangent with one another.
A game should be based on whether or not a mono army is good by itself, because that is the typical tabletop game.
People will use knights though, so your list will suffer if it doesn't have anti-armor against knights (But thats another rabbit hole entirely as knights are just OP with a ++3 invulnerable)
Your change would just further horde armies
So vechicles not dying to cheap infantry fire isn't going to stop that? What?!
fraser1191 wrote: I'm hardly sick of seeing scouts I just want there to be variety and choice.
Do I take the cheaper novice or the more expensive "standard" soldier?
It isn't like Scouts are just total novices either. Having the same BS as Infantry is silly as Scouts get considerably more training. In fact, the matter that Space Wolves Scouts have the same attack stat but are supposed to be Vets is utterly silly and one of GW's inconsistencies.
True, though they also don't have the decades of experience compared to tacticals and such. But I suppose the difference would be negligible.
Marmatag wrote: 13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model? What? 2w and 2a isn't going to salvage you in this fight but at least you can take out more than 3 Orks before you lose an entire assault unit.
Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.
Meanwhile what we have now is:
Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.
Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.
Really? What about the shooting phase? How many points of orks will disappear by SM shooting?
I see it in a different way, 2 orks cost like 1 marine who have the firepower to kill them both before they manage to charge. Or, assuming average rolls, just kill one ork by shooting, charge and have decent odds to kill the second boy. Even if he fails to kill it that boy will now swing back, 3A so 2 hits, 1W and then 3+ save, the marine should tank it and survives. 1 SM definitely worths 2 orks.
There isn't a scenario in which the same amount of points of boyz will win by shooting against SM. Orks are supposed to be melee oriented, it would be a terrible unbalanced game if SM could outshoot them and also pair with them in melee.
The issue between a 7 point boyz and a 13 point SM is that the current meta is heavily anti tank oriented and armies with just T4 6+ spam and/or gretchin spam break this meta. Nerf the super dudes, and marines will come out better.
Marmatag wrote: 13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model?
No, those models now cost around 20 ppm because you've integrated buffs from a Weirdboy, a Waaaaagh banner Nob and a Big Mek in MA with KFF. They also lose the 5++ in melee.
You're dreaming if you think marines are getting an extra wound and attack at 13 points. It also barely helps assault based marines. If you want assault based marines to work, buff chainswords to be +2 attacks or +3 attacks if the unit they're fighting is over twice the size of the marine unit.
Marmatag wrote: Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.
Meanwhile what we have now is:
Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.
Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.
What on earth? Can someone provide actual proof of all these Ork lists dominating SM outside of anecdotal uselessness? I asked this a page back and had nothing but anecdotal, heavily biased theory hammer. Things like "if [the most competitive elements of an Ork list] goes against [an extremely unoptimised SM list] the Ork list will win. Yes. That is normal and to be expected. The opposite is also true. I'd be interested to see how a Crimson Fist list stacks up against my Ork Biker army, for exsmple.
And the reason there isn't a scenario where SM win in melee against Orks is because they should never be engaging Orks only in melee, they have bolters that hit on 3s or 2s depending on your tactic. They should probably use them. So by the time the Orks get to the marine lines they are thinned out enough to deal with.
Struggling to see how a T4, 6+ save unit at 7 points is in any way more durable than a T4, 3+ save unit at 13 too.
To the topic it's pretty obvious why pure SM struggle - they lack a cheap screening unit. Which they can immediately mitigate by taking Guardsmen (so it becomes a non-issue). If you aren't willing to soup and you have the option you're not playing competitively. If you want mono SM to be competitive suggest GW remove soup in competitive play and petition for a cheap, screening unit.
Future War Cultist wrote: I quite like scouts being 1 wound, regular marines 2 and Primarus being 3. With 2 attacks for regular marines (including scouts), and 3 for primes. However, as HoundsofDemos said, with all that super powerful weaponry knocking about and even basic rend affecting their save, these changes still feel like pissing in the wind tbh.
Current points wise, it seems only fair that a basic marine should be 3 times as good as an imperial guardsmen, and a Primarus 5 times as good! How to achieve that though...
2 wounds with a 3+ save, 2 attacks and a strength 4 ap -1 gun is surely 3 times as good as a 1 wound with a 5+ save, 1 attack model with a strength 3 ap - gun yes?
EDIT: guard are 4pts each aren’t they? And tacticals are 13 and intercessors 20 yes?
This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
Marmatag wrote: 13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model?
No, those models now cost around 20 ppm because you've integrated buffs from a Weirdboy, a Waaaaagh banner Nob and a Big Mek in MA with KFF. They also lose the 5++ in melee.
You're dreaming if you think marines are getting an extra wound and attack at 13 points. It also barely helps assault based marines. If you want assault based marines to work, buff chainswords to be +2 attacks or +3 attacks if the unit they're fighting is over twice the size of the marine unit.
Marmatag wrote: Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.
Meanwhile what we have now is:
Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.
Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.
What on earth? Can someone provide actual proof of all these Ork lists dominating SM outside of anecdotal uselessness? I asked this a page back and had nothing but anecdotal, heavily biased theory hammer. Things like "if [the most competitive elements of an Ork list] goes against [an extremely unoptimised SM list] the Ork list will win. Yes. That is normal and to be expected. The opposite is also true. I'd be interested to see how a Crimson Fist list stacks up against my Ork Biker army, for exsmple.
And the reason there isn't a scenario where SM win in melee against Orks is because they should never be engaging Orks only in melee, they have bolters that hit on 3s or 2s depending on your tactic. They should probably use them. So by the time the Orks get to the marine lines they are thinned out enough to deal with.
Struggling to see how a T4, 6+ save unit at 7 points is in any way more durable than a T4, 3+ save unit at 13 too.
To the topic it's pretty obvious why pure SM struggle - they lack a cheap screening unit. Which they can immediately mitigate by taking Guardsmen (so it becomes a non-issue). If you aren't willing to soup and you have the option you're not playing competitively. If you want mono SM to be competitive suggest GW remove soup in competitive play and petition for a cheap, screening unit.
The thing is 7ppm boys arn't the base line for shooting troop units 4ppm guardsmen are, (and some people complain they underperform) who can boost their shooting by 95% for 15 points
Orks are the baseline for assualt troops and they also have some insane buffs built in, necessary in some cases but unbuffed unit of ork choppa boys can get how many attacks?
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior
Fire warrior is only 8 points with the pistol 7 points without it.
And they already loose to guardsmen aswell,
Also how do they compair to 5ppm cultists? Short version you can't be balanced against 4ppm Guard and 5ppm cultists.
fraser1191 wrote: Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck
Exactly.
Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?
Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.
Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.
Well with those bumps to marines we'd need to buff my beloved Tyranid warriors as they would look so inferior in comparison, and S5 and T5 primaris would have me absolutely annoyed compared to my options in the Tyranid book. Buffing marine Wounds would need a lot of other units would need buffs their wounds otherwise you have a marine being more durable with W2 and 3+ than a lot of Tyranid medium options point for point.
Buffing marines leaves Warriors even worse, and I'd love to see a more eloquent option for the fix. Then again I want W4 or 5, T6 Tyrant guard so they can actually do their job of protecting a foot tyrant.
Issue is that there hasn't been anything creative said in a while.
But can there be anything creative writen about them, within the way GW writes their rules or changes them? We can write 2000 pages about exploding bolter ammo getting some wacky rules and interactions, but in the end GW way of doing things is. Nerf stuff, and they are not going to nerf eldar, IG,knights etc, they had enough chances to do that. Plus they can just make an errata to "fix" stuff in like 10 min and put it up on their site.
Other option is to give marines points drops. And here we hit the place where we find out that rule stacking, rule synergies are much important then basic stats. To make marines "good" they would have to stay with the same point costs and get something crazy like stock t5-6 or bolters that shot 4 times. That will never happen.
Then there is GW buff to the marine stat line in the form of primaris. At first glance +1A and +1 wound seems like a 100% buff to how efficient a model is, but then as someone else has show in this treat a 7pts boy gets better rules and overlaping stat buffs then a almost 20pts primaris.
GW could make them good, but to make them good they would have to rewrite the whole marine codex. Probablly dumping all old models, and giving the same level of synergy other armies have. Having some weapons or rules that are of the OP kind wouldn't hurt either. But for something like that to happen, GW would have to make at least a new marine codex, and probably start a new edition.
Till that happens marines are relagated to gimmik single models like the smash captin or army build that pray for opponent to focus on countering horde or knights, and somehow not taking anything that is very efficient vs marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the reason there isn't a scenario where SM win in melee against Orks is because they should never be engaging Orks only in melee, they have bolters that hit on 3s or 2s depending on your tactic. They should probably use them. So by the time the Orks get to the marine lines they are thinned out enough to deal with.
Dude, but unless you change your army every game, an avarge marine army can't do shoting and melee at the same time. There just isn't enough points, and sometimes units, that can do both things, then get the units to buff them, and then get the counter to specific builds in the army too. Marines aren't eldar they don't have reapers and s spears to run in their lists.
If a marine players go full melee he still loses to horde, because marine melee is overpriced, and doesn't have a huge edge over shoting armies other factions have. If a marine goes only shoting, he has to spam units, gets rolled over by horde armies, still struggles vs melee armies, and is no where near as shoty as shoting armies of other factions go. The shoty the melee and melee the shoty advice just doesn't work for marines.
If a marine players go full melee he still loses to horde, because marine melee is overpriced, and doesn't have a huge edge over shoting armies other factions have. If a marine goes only shoting, he has to spam units, gets rolled over by horde armies, still struggles vs melee armies, and is no where near as shoty as shoting armies of other factions go. The shoty the melee and melee the shoty advice just doesn't work for marines.
It's true but a TACSM list should kill all the boyz within 3 turns of shooting. Of course it's impossible to do that if the meta is centered around knights and SM lists have 75% of their firepower dedicated to armored stuff. But just 3 razorbacks with assault cannons, a unit of devastators with heavy bolters and bolters from various units should kill 30ish orks per turn with just 25% of the SM list. it doesn't look a big deal if 500ish points of SM kill 215 points of orks but remember that those orks are melee only so they won't have their retaliation soon. If you do that for 3 turns those 500 points of SM will kill 650 points of orks and so on. Things like the stormraven alone combined with characters auras can wipe out a full unit of boyz or at least 20 of them plus 2 CPs to avoid them running away. What happens in practise is that 30 boyz arrive from deep strike and charge. If they fail then the next round of fire will delete them with no problem, remember that they won't have the LD from other units as they'll be probably too far away. But even if they charge just put scouts or min squad of tacs to mess their deep strike arrival so those 30 orks are forced to overkill some expendable unit and then they'll vanish in the following turn. Many competitive orks lists that are focussed on assault just use 1 or 2 mob of boyz that arrive by strike, anything else is gretchins and toys. The full green tide with 90+ boyz can be meta breaking but it isn't always rewarding.
Now orks can be very good at competitive levels not only because horde armies are meta breaking, but mostly because those games actually last 3 turns due to time limitations. A list that performs well in 3 turns can be tabled with no particular effort in a regular game. Keep it in mind when you talk about orks and their rankings at major events.
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior
Fire warrior is only 8 points with the pistol 7 points without it.
And they already loose to guardsmen aswell,
Also how do they compair to 5ppm cultists? Short version you can't be balanced against 4ppm Guard and 5ppm cultists.
Because 5 ppm cultists are actually balanced,?
Issue is guardsmen could be 5 ppm or have a mandatory vox.
Secondly firewarriors actually do a fairly good Job at dealing with guardsmen what with the 30" range and 15" double tapping.
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior
Fire warrior is only 8 points with the pistol 7 points without it.
And they already loose to guardsmen aswell,
Also how do they compair to 5ppm cultists? Short version you can't be balanced against 4ppm Guard and 5ppm cultists.
Because 5 ppm cultists are actually balanced,?
Issue is guardsmen could be 5 ppm or have a mandatory vox.
Secondly firewarriors actually do a fairly good Job at dealing with guardsmen what with the 30" range and 15" double tapping.
How on earth are 5 point Cultists balanced? They aren't a 5 point model to begin with.
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior
Fire warrior is only 8 points with the pistol 7 points without it.
And they already loose to guardsmen aswell,
Also how do they compair to 5ppm cultists? Short version you can't be balanced against 4ppm Guard and 5ppm cultists.
Because 5 ppm cultists are actually balanced,?
Issue is guardsmen could be 5 ppm or have a mandatory vox.
Secondly firewarriors actually do a fairly good Job at dealing with guardsmen what with the 30" range and 15" double tapping.
How on earth are 5 point Cultists balanced? They aren't a 5 point model to begin with.
If a marine players go full melee he still loses to horde, because marine melee is overpriced, and doesn't have a huge edge over shoting armies other factions have. If a marine goes only shoting, he has to spam units, gets rolled over by horde armies, still struggles vs melee armies, and is no where near as shoty as shoting armies of other factions go. The shoty the melee and melee the shoty advice just doesn't work for marines.
It's true but a TACSM list should kill all the boyz within 3 turns of shooting. Of course it's impossible to do that if the meta is centered around knights and SM lists have 75% of their firepower dedicated to armored stuff. But just 3 razorbacks with assault cannons, a unit of devastators with heavy bolters and bolters from various units should kill 30ish orks per turn with just 25% of the SM list. it doesn't look a big deal if 500ish points of SM kill 215 points of orks but remember that those orks are melee only so they won't have their retaliation soon. If you do that for 3 turns those 500 points of SM will kill 650 points of orks and so on. Things like the stormraven alone combined with characters auras can wipe out a full unit of boyz or at least 20 of them plus 2 CPs to avoid them running away. What happens in practise is that 30 boyz arrive from deep strike and charge. If they fail then the next round of fire will delete them with no problem, remember that they won't have the LD from other units as they'll be probably too far away. But even if they charge just put scouts or min squad of tacs to mess their deep strike arrival so those 30 orks are forced to overkill some expendable unit and then they'll vanish in the following turn. Many competitive orks lists that are focussed on assault just use 1 or 2 mob of boyz that arrive by strike, anything else is gretchins and toys. The full green tide with 90+ boyz can be meta breaking but it isn't always rewarding.
Now orks can be very good at competitive levels not only because horde armies are meta breaking, but mostly because those games actually last 3 turns due to time limitations. A list that performs well in 3 turns can be tabled with no particular effort in a regular game. Keep it in mind when you talk about orks and their rankings at major events.
The logic here is simply bizarre. You bring up the non-PA units as proof PA is fine, when those units have been nerfed already and are just okay at best? When was the last time you saw somebody fear a Razorback because it was being buffed by Roboute (which you assumed in your math probably).
I don't expect much from a Space Wolves player though. They've been spoiled for so long they think other Marines are fine!
If a marine players go full melee he still loses to horde, because marine melee is overpriced, and doesn't have a huge edge over shoting armies other factions have. If a marine goes only shoting, he has to spam units, gets rolled over by horde armies, still struggles vs melee armies, and is no where near as shoty as shoting armies of other factions go. The shoty the melee and melee the shoty advice just doesn't work for marines.
It's true but a TACSM list should kill all the boyz within 3 turns of shooting. Of course it's impossible to do that if the meta is centered around knights and SM lists have 75% of their firepower dedicated to armored stuff. But just 3 razorbacks with assault cannons, a unit of devastators with heavy bolters and bolters from various units should kill 30ish orks per turn with just 25% of the SM list. it doesn't look a big deal if 500ish points of SM kill 215 points of orks but remember that those orks are melee only so they won't have their retaliation soon. If you do that for 3 turns those 500 points of SM will kill 650 points of orks and so on. Things like the stormraven alone combined with characters auras can wipe out a full unit of boyz or at least 20 of them plus 2 CPs to avoid them running away. What happens in practise is that 30 boyz arrive from deep strike and charge. If they fail then the next round of fire will delete them with no problem, remember that they won't have the LD from other units as they'll be probably too far away. But even if they charge just put scouts or min squad of tacs to mess their deep strike arrival so those 30 orks are forced to overkill some expendable unit and then they'll vanish in the following turn. Many competitive orks lists that are focussed on assault just use 1 or 2 mob of boyz that arrive by strike, anything else is gretchins and toys. The full green tide with 90+ boyz can be meta breaking but it isn't always rewarding.
Now orks can be very good at competitive levels not only because horde armies are meta breaking, but mostly because those games actually last 3 turns due to time limitations. A list that performs well in 3 turns can be tabled with no particular effort in a regular game. Keep it in mind when you talk about orks and their rankings at major events.
The logic here is simply bizarre. You bring up the non-PA units as proof PA is fine, when those units have been nerfed already and are just okay at best? When was the last time you saw somebody fear a Razorback because it was being buffed by Roboute (which you assumed in your math probably).
I don't expect much from a Space Wolves player though. They've been spoiled for so long they think other Marines are fine!
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior
Fire warrior is only 8 points with the pistol 7 points without it.
And they already loose to guardsmen aswell,
Also how do they compair to 5ppm cultists? Short version you can't be balanced against 4ppm Guard and 5ppm cultists.
Because 5 ppm cultists are actually balanced,?
Issue is guardsmen could be 5 ppm or have a mandatory vox.
Secondly firewarriors actually do a fairly good Job at dealing with guardsmen what with the 30" range and 15" double tapping.
How on earth are 5 point Cultists balanced? They aren't a 5 point model to begin with.
What would they then be?
They're a 4 point model, full stop. Are we gonna price Gaunts like they have Synapse and a -1 to hit and a 6+++? They would certainly be a 5 model if you think about it.
The justification is that you mark them Slaanesh, use the double shooting strat, and VotLW. The double shooting stratetem is dumb to begin with anyway, so why isn't that being fixed? Why do ALL Cultists from the other Cult Legions have to suffer because of Slaanesh?
Strategems need to be priced around units, not the other way around. That's simply bad game design.
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior
Fire warrior is only 8 points with the pistol 7 points without it.
And they already loose to guardsmen aswell,
Also how do they compair to 5ppm cultists? Short version you can't be balanced against 4ppm Guard and 5ppm cultists.
Because 5 ppm cultists are actually balanced,?
Issue is guardsmen could be 5 ppm or have a mandatory vox.
Secondly firewarriors actually do a fairly good Job at dealing with guardsmen what with the 30" range and 15" double tapping.
How on earth are 5 point Cultists balanced? They aren't a 5 point model to begin with.
What would they then be?
They're a 4 point model, full stop. Are we gonna price Gaunts like they have Synapse and a -1 to hit and a 6+++? They would certainly be a 5 model if you think about it.
The justification is that you mark them Slaanesh, use the double shooting strat, and VotLW. The double shooting stratetem is dumb to begin with anyway, so why isn't that being fixed? Why do ALL Cultists from the other Cult Legions have to suffer because of Slaanesh?
Strategems need to be priced around units, not the other way around. That's simply bad game design.
Yeah if you compare them to guardsquads, imo you could easily up guardsquads to 5ppm, cultists at 4 and conscripts could even sit at 3 ppmatm since the commisars got nerfed out of existence, that atleast would keep the scale consistent. unlike what we have now....
Ice_can wrote: This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.
How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?
7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior
Fire warrior is only 8 points with the pistol 7 points without it.
And they already loose to guardsmen aswell,
Also how do they compair to 5ppm cultists? Short version you can't be balanced against 4ppm Guard and 5ppm cultists.
Because 5 ppm cultists are actually balanced,?
Issue is guardsmen could be 5 ppm or have a mandatory vox.
Secondly firewarriors actually do a fairly good Job at dealing with guardsmen what with the 30" range and 15" double tapping.
How on earth are 5 point Cultists balanced? They aren't a 5 point model to begin with.
What would they then be?
They're a 4 point model, full stop. Are we gonna price Gaunts like they have Synapse and a -1 to hit and a 6+++? They would certainly be a 5 model if you think about it.
The justification is that you mark them Slaanesh, use the double shooting strat, and VotLW. The double shooting stratetem is dumb to begin with anyway, so why isn't that being fixed? Why do ALL Cultists from the other Cult Legions have to suffer because of Slaanesh?
Strategems need to be priced around units, not the other way around. That's simply bad game design.
Yeah if you compare them to guardsquads, imo you could easily up guardsquads to 5ppm, cultists at 4 and conscripts could even sit at 3 ppmatm since the commisars got nerfed out of existence, that atleast would keep the scale consistent. unlike what we have now....
You read my mind like a book.
Either Infantry go to 5 a model or they pay an extra 5 points for their Sergeant for a 4.5 per model. At 4 they're ridiculous.
If a marine players go full melee he still loses to horde, because marine melee is overpriced, and doesn't have a huge edge over shoting armies other factions have. If a marine goes only shoting, he has to spam units, gets rolled over by horde armies, still struggles vs melee armies, and is no where near as shoty as shoting armies of other factions go. The shoty the melee and melee the shoty advice just doesn't work for marines.
It's true but a TACSM list should kill all the boyz within 3 turns of shooting. Of course it's impossible to do that if the meta is centered around knights and SM lists have 75% of their firepower dedicated to armored stuff. But just 3 razorbacks with assault cannons, a unit of devastators with heavy bolters and bolters from various units should kill 30ish orks per turn with just 25% of the SM list. it doesn't look a big deal if 500ish points of SM kill 215 points of orks but remember that those orks are melee only so they won't have their retaliation soon. If you do that for 3 turns those 500 points of SM will kill 650 points of orks and so on. Things like the stormraven alone combined with characters auras can wipe out a full unit of boyz or at least 20 of them plus 2 CPs to avoid them running away. What happens in practise is that 30 boyz arrive from deep strike and charge. If they fail then the next round of fire will delete them with no problem, remember that they won't have the LD from other units as they'll be probably too far away. But even if they charge just put scouts or min squad of tacs to mess their deep strike arrival so those 30 orks are forced to overkill some expendable unit and then they'll vanish in the following turn. Many competitive orks lists that are focussed on assault just use 1 or 2 mob of boyz that arrive by strike, anything else is gretchins and toys. The full green tide with 90+ boyz can be meta breaking but it isn't always rewarding.
Now orks can be very good at competitive levels not only because horde armies are meta breaking, but mostly because those games actually last 3 turns due to time limitations. A list that performs well in 3 turns can be tabled with no particular effort in a regular game. Keep it in mind when you talk about orks and their rankings at major events.
The logic here is simply bizarre. You bring up the non-PA units as proof PA is fine, when those units have been nerfed already and are just okay at best? When was the last time you saw somebody fear a Razorback because it was being buffed by Roboute (which you assumed in your math probably).
I don't expect much from a Space Wolves player though. They've been spoiled for so long they think other Marines are fine!
it doesn't look a big deal if 500ish points of SM kill 215 points of orks but remember that those orks are melee only so they won't have their retaliation soon.
that is an odd assumption, first that the jump is somehow not used and that somehow the orc army does not have lootaz. The problem with your example is that marines use more points to counter fewer points, against an army which is going to be deleting whole marine units per turn. So it looks like a huge deal, for non marine players at least.
And the reason there isn't a scenario where SM win in melee against Orks is because they should never be engaging Orks only in melee, they have bolters that hit on 3s or 2s depending on your tactic. They should probably use them. So by the time the Orks get to the marine lines they are thinned out enough to deal with..
So, I'm curious, why do Lootas exist? Or Mek Gunz? I mean, CLEARLY Orks are just supposed to wail on things in melee until it dies, right?
I must have just imagined the part where Black Templars were supposed to be focussed around melee.
Plus, the irony of being on a web site that is literally named after the Ork sound for more shooting, that Orks claim they can never have enough of, and claiming Orks aren't about shooting stuff.
Ghorgul wrote: Note that Haarken the Worldclaimer is inherently better designed with his buff aura currently being re-roll melee hits for Black Legion Raptors. This is very specific:
1. Works only in melee.
2. Works only with Black Legion Raptors.
I don't think this aura is good itself, I'm just saying it's designed better IMO. With current rule writing on Haarken the obvious solution to hypothetical BL Haarken Raptor spam combos would be increase price of Haarken, the combo itself is Black Legion specific so there is little reason to increase the price of Raptors, assuming Haarken Raptor combos are the problem, and not the Raptors of various <Legion> keywords.
Cultists are easily a 5 point model. Having a *wound* in 8th edition is worth at least 5 points. I would say Veterans of the Long war and available morale immunity should make them 6 points at least.
The problem is that Imperial Guardsmen are really 7 point models, and no one wants to admit that.
Marmatag wrote: Cultists are easily a 5 point model. Having a *wound* in 8th edition is worth at least 5 points. I would say Veterans of the Long war and available morale immunity should make them 6 points at least.
The problem is that Imperial Guardsmen are really 7 point models, and no one wants to admit that.
The available morale immunity comes from already a 250 point model or a 70 point minimum that needs to use a Warlord trait to do so.
So when I pay for those units and abilities, why does the Cultist need to pay even more? That makes no sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the idea that Infantry should be 7 points is laughable and is sure to make people not take you seriously.
The race at the bottom is out of hand, and the race at the top (super heavies) is equally out of hand.
In order for a flamer to be equally effective at killing guardsmen as it is at killing marines, guardsmen would need to be over 7 points per model.
The whole scale is off. Like it or not. You just take marines being absolute garbage for granted.
7 pts IG squad is laughable.
No Seriously you pay half as much as a marine and get neither half the durability nor damage?
Common that is even for you low
The race at the bottom is out of hand, and the race at the top (super heavies) is equally out of hand.
In order for a flamer to be equally effective at killing guardsmen as it is at killing marines, guardsmen would need to be over 7 points per model.
The whole scale is off. Like it or not. You just take marines being absolute garbage for granted.
7 pts IG squad is laughable. No Seriously you pay half as much as a marine and get neither half the durability nor damage? Common that is even for you low
So is the argument then that flamers should be more effective at killing marines, than it is guardsmen? Because that's where we are. Either marines come way down or guard go way up. Or they meet in the middle. But even then you're looking at 6point gaurdsmen unless you want 8 point marines.
13 points for 1 attack and 1 wound is bonkers. The only saving grace is that 3+ save, but it doesn't much matter because it's either AP-for-days or volume-of-attacks/shots for days.
Pretty funny when a mobbed-up squad of 20 guardsmen puts out 3 attacks at strength 4 per guy, and can be ordered to fight out of phase if they survive. Pretty difficulty to remove 20 bodies unless you're Orks or Tyranids in melee.
The scale IS off, and the situation is that bad for everyone except deathwatch (hello, poisoned 2+ ammo).
The race at the bottom is out of hand, and the race at the top (super heavies) is equally out of hand.
In order for a flamer to be equally effective at killing guardsmen as it is at killing marines, guardsmen would need to be over 7 points per model.
The whole scale is off. Like it or not. You just take marines being absolute garbage for granted.
7 pts IG squad is laughable.
No Seriously you pay half as much as a marine and get neither half the durability nor damage?
Common that is even for you low
So is the argument then that flamers should be more effective at killing marines, than it is guardsmen? Because that's where we are. Either marines come way down or guard go way up. Or they meet in the middle. But even then you're looking at 6point gaurdsmen unless you want 8 point marines.
13 points for 1 attack and 1 wound is bonkers. The only saving grace is that 3+ save, but it doesn't much matter because it's either AP-for-days or volume-of-attacks/shots for days.
Pretty funny when a mobbed-up squad of 20 guardsmen puts out 3 attacks at strength 4 per guy, and can be ordered to fight out of phase if they survive. Pretty difficulty to remove 20 bodies unless you're Orks or Tyranids in melee.
The scale IS off, and the situation is that bad for everyone except deathwatch (hello, poisoned 2+ ammo).
I never argued the scalling isn't off.
Heck just cannonfodder comparison between human fodder shows this alone, but 7ppm guardsmen?
Astra Militarum is the best faction in the game, in terms of tournament placings, and has been for some time.
If you can justify a 4 point model being strength 4, with 3 attacks, and having a rapid fire 2 gun and can fight twice, as well as go to ground, etc, i'd like to see it. I'll wait.
Marmatag wrote: Because Guardsmen in practice are strength 4, have rapid fire 2 guns, 3 attacks in melee, and fight twice for free.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Not as laughable as where marines placed at the Toledo gt.
do you have the list?
..........
You realise that this requires multiple charachters? So they are not 4ppm?
You don't it seems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: I don't care if you don't take me seriously.
Astra Militarum is the best faction in the game, in terms of tournament placings, and has been for some time.
If you can justify a 4 point model being strength 4, with 3 attacks, and having a rapid fire 2 gun and can fight twice, as well as go to ground, etc, i'd like to see it. I'll wait.
And this statement is were i draw the line and demand a citation.
None?
Because the tournament results show guard only been taken as the "asshats cp32"
The problem is marines are being charge for stats and abilities that in a vacuum are not bad but on the actual table top end up not mattering. Yes marines fight and are more durable than guardmens against small arms fire. But when weapons that ignore all the marines advantages are super common that neglects any reason to take MEQ over guardsmen.
HoundsofDemos wrote: The problem is marines are being charge for stats and abilities that in a vacuum are not bad but on the actual table top end up not mattering. Yes marines fight and are more durable than guardmens against small arms fire. But when weapons that ignore all the marines advantages are super common that neglects any reason to take MEQ over guardsmen.
And why might such weapons are these days that liked?
Surely knights have had no impact on that situation right?
Marmatag wrote: I don't care if you don't take me seriously.
Astra Militarum is the best faction in the game, in terms of tournament placings, and has been for some time.
If you can justify a 4 point model being strength 4, with 3 attacks, and having a rapid fire 2 gun and can fight twice, as well as go to ground, etc, i'd like to see it. I'll wait.
Because they're not 4ppm at that point, you're involving at least two buff characters, one of which is a named SC, a specific subfaction, and it can't do all those things at the same time (cant receive fix bayonets and frfsrf in the same turn).
If we're going to assume this as the basic starting point for Guardsmen, then we're going to have to assume "always on" Gman and Librarian & Chaplain support for Marines.
On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
Except a marine only shoots 16.7% better saves 33.3% better and is only 16.7% tougher and 16.7% stronger(non Catachan) so mathematically a marine is only 2.12 times better than a guardsmen or 8.5 points.
Even if you add in their 1.167 more accurate slapping a marine is worth 10 points in a 4ppm guardsmen game.
If marines truly are the base line non catachan guardsmen are 5.27 ppm. And Catachans are 6.13 ppm.
kingheff wrote: On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
It's just more evidence to the guardsmen are brutally undercosted column.
And i'm laughing at people saying you can't assume guardsmen will have HQs. Dirt cheap HQs are (a) required and (b) dirt cheap so everyone brings them. You can't bring guardsmen without bringing an HQ, and when your HQ costs less than 50 points it's laughably easy.
People are also saying that marines are more defensible against small arms fire.
Consider the following gun:
Strength 2, AP0, 1dmg.
The worst gun for killing marines. Assuming it auto-hits (to make math easy), as it would hit guardsmen and marines equally -
It kills 0.72 points of marines per shot compared to 0.88 points of guardsmen. So the worst conceivable weapon to target marines, while being the best at targeting guardsmen, is only 23% more effective against guardsmen than it is marines.
Once you go up to strength 3 the guns kill marines faster than they kill guardsmen.
There is a real problem here. Guard players don't see it.
kingheff wrote: On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
Guardians have been overcosted since...ever. That said, I don't think they should be cheap, but they should add utility (these are after all, where the artisans and merchants and craftsmen of the Eldar serve) and be made more akin to Combat engineers than grunt infantry.
However, looking at combat potential, within their range, 10 naked Guardians are killing 3.33 Marines a turn, equivalent numbers of naked Guardsmen kill 1.06, and with an Officer providing FRFSRF are killing 2.06.
The guardsmen fair a lot better if they use their 3x strength 4 melee attacks.
80 points of guardsmen backed by a trivially costed priest and straken will kill 50% more marines than guardians, on their melee alone. And fun fact: they can still FRFSRF before they charge. Derp. All in all they expect to wipe a squad of 10 marines.
pelicaniforce wrote: Guardians can deep strike into range and do pretty good damage. In gameplay they aren’t similar units at all.
Ok, let's go with dire avengers. Same as guardians but with 18" guns, 4+ save, 8ld and overwatch on a 5+. For nearly three times the points. So for 110 pts you get a squad of ten versus 27 guardsmen. Who do you think wins that fight?
kingheff wrote: On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
It's just more evidence to the guardsmen are brutally undercosted column.
And i'm laughing at people saying you can't assume guardsmen will have HQs. Dirt cheap HQs are (a) required and (b) dirt cheap so everyone brings them. You can't bring guardsmen without bringing an HQ, and when your HQ costs less than 50 points it's laughably easy.
Moving goalpost are fun!
This is absolutely not the scenario you presented before, which was that Guardsmen could be assumed to always be S4 with 3 attacks and RF2 guns able to fight twice. You are welching into a different position here.
Yes, Guardsmen HQ's can be cheap and you have to bring them.
No, you are not getting S4 Guardsmen with 3 attacks with the dirt cheap HQ options, and you have to take a non-mandatory Elites unit as well. Not an expensive one, but they also do literally nothing else. You also have to be a specific sub-faction to get the S4. Not all Eldar have -1 to hit either
Yes you can potentially fight twice or have RF2 guns.
No, you cannot do both at the same time, you have to be within range of an officer to do so, and you need enough officers to go around.
Marmatag wrote: The guardsmen fair a lot better if they use their 3x strength 4 melee attacks.
80 points of guardsmen backed by a trivially costed priest and straken will kill 50% more marines than guardians, on their melee alone. And fun fact: they can still FRFSRF before they charge. Derp. All in all they expect to wipe a squad of 10 marines.
Meanwhile the guardians don't even come close.
Except at this point we're not talking 80pts. We're including HQ and Elites units and talking almost 200pts naked...
If we want to assume the Eldar player gets a Farseer (hey, Eldar *have* to take HQs too, just like IG) in the mix, ok, but we're being more than a wee bit disingenuous otherwise.
Marmatag wrote: The guardsmen fair a lot better if they use their 3x strength 4 melee attacks.
80 points of guardsmen backed by a trivially costed priest and straken will kill 50% more marines than guardians, on their melee alone. And fun fact: they can still FRFSRF before they charge. Derp. All in all they expect to wipe a squad of 10 marines.
Meanwhile the guardians don't even come close.
Trivially costed? How much exactly?
35 priest and 75 for straken.
Further, no they can not do both orders, each 1 order per 1 squad per turn.
Respectively straken can issue 2 orders however he has to split them between two squads.
If he wants to give the same order twice that would be a relic slot.
kingheff wrote: On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
It's just more evidence to the guardsmen are brutally undercosted column.
And i'm laughing at people saying you can't assume guardsmen will have HQs. Dirt cheap HQs are (a) required and (b) dirt cheap so everyone brings them. You can't bring guardsmen without bringing an HQ, and when your HQ costs less than 50 points it's laughably easy.
People are also saying that marines are more defensible against small arms fire.
Consider the following gun:
Strength 2, AP0, 1dmg.
The worst gun for killing marines. Assuming it auto-hits (to make math easy), as it would hit guardsmen and marines equally -
It kills 0.72 points of marines per shot compared to 0.88 points of guardsmen. So the worst conceivable weapon to target marines, while being the best at targeting guardsmen, is only 23% more effective against guardsmen than it is marines.
Once you go up to strength 3 the guns kill marines faster than they kill guardsmen.
There is a real problem here. Guard players don't see it.
But their is no S2 gun so its a useless advantage.
Exactly. And i'm not the one moving goalposts. I've been very straightforward in my prompt to guard players. You're the one attempting to shift the goalposts by saying unit buffs cannot be considered for balance. That is absurd.
Marmatag wrote: Exactly. And i'm not the one moving goalposts. I've been very straightforward in my prompt to guard players. You're the one attempting to shift the goalposts by saying unit buffs cannot be considered for balance. That is absurd.
Marmatag wrote: The guardsmen fair a lot better if they use their 3x strength 4 melee attacks.
80 points of guardsmen backed by a trivially costed priest and straken will kill 50% more marines than guardians, on their melee alone. And fun fact: they can still FRFSRF before they charge. Derp. All in all they expect to wipe a squad of 10 marines.
Meanwhile the guardians don't even come close.
Trivially costed? How much exactly?
35 priest and 75 for straken.
Further, no they can not do both orders, each 1 order per 1 squad per turn.
Respectively straken can issue 2 orders however he has to split them between two squads.
If he wants to give the same order twice that would be a relic slot.
Marmatag wrote: Exactly. And i'm not the one moving goalposts. I've been very straightforward in my prompt to guard players.
As was directly shown above, this is simply not true.
You're the one attempting to shift the goalposts by saying unit buffs cannot be considered for balance. That is absurd.
Nobody is saying that.
What they are saying however is:
1: that if you're going to include buffs, you need to include the cost of the buffing stuff in the equation, not hand-wave it away. If comparing S4 A3 Catachan infantry with Orders to Guardians, you dont get to ignore the cost of the Priest and Straken when belting out about a mere 80pts.
2: the configuration buffs you're talking about are hardly universal or ubiquitous in all or even most Guard armies.
3: keep the comparisons consistent, dont talk about dirt cheap mandatory HQ's and then use examples involving Special Characters and Elites units.
If you're going to insist that Guardsmen all have S4 and 3 attacks, then we need to be talking about Catachan Straken lists, not Guardsmen in general.
kingheff wrote: On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
It's just more evidence to the guardsmen are brutally undercosted column.
And i'm laughing at people saying you can't assume guardsmen will have HQs. Dirt cheap HQs are (a) required and (b) dirt cheap so everyone brings them. You can't bring guardsmen without bringing an HQ, and when your HQ costs less than 50 points it's laughably easy.
People are also saying that marines are more defensible against small arms fire.
Consider the following gun:
Strength 2, AP0, 1dmg.
The worst gun for killing marines. Assuming it auto-hits (to make math easy), as it would hit guardsmen and marines equally -
It kills 0.72 points of marines per shot compared to 0.88 points of guardsmen. So the worst conceivable weapon to target marines, while being the best at targeting guardsmen, is only 23% more effective against guardsmen than it is marines.
Once you go up to strength 3 the guns kill marines faster than they kill guardsmen.
There is a real problem here. Guard players don't see it.
But their is no S2 gun so its a useless advantage.
Marmatag wrote: I don't care if you don't take me seriously.
Astra Militarum is the best faction in the game, in terms of tournament placings, and has been for some time.
If you can justify a 4 point model being strength 4, with 3 attacks, and having a rapid fire 2 gun and can fight twice, as well as go to ground, etc, i'd like to see it. I'll wait.
Because they're not 4ppm at that point, you're involving at least two buff characters, one of which is a named SC, a specific subfaction, and it can't do all those things at the same time (cant receive fix bayonets and frfsrf in the same turn).
If we're going to assume this as the basic starting point for Guardsmen, then we're going to have to assume "always on" Gman and Librarian & Chaplain support for Marines.
Dude the HQ's are auto include. Unlike lots of armies that only take HQ's because they have to. Just stop - you can't defend this crap. You do realize the HQ's are also extremely under-costed for what they do to right? For 30 points...they fill hq requirements (they could do nothing and still be worth 30 points) they also double the firepower of 2 40 points units...Sounds like 80 points of firepower to me for 30 points. Plus they have a 5++ (are you freaking serious?). Not even getting into the fact that they can also double the close combat ability of the same unit as well.
Like - I really want to take something other than IG to LVO. I really have no choice though. The units are just that much better that there is literally no choice if you are trying to win. It's disgusting. It's so obvious that I know you know it to. You just don't care cause it's your chosen faction.
kingheff wrote: On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
It's just more evidence to the guardsmen are brutally undercosted column.
And i'm laughing at people saying you can't assume guardsmen will have HQs. Dirt cheap HQs are (a) required and (b) dirt cheap so everyone brings them. You can't bring guardsmen without bringing an HQ, and when your HQ costs less than 50 points it's laughably easy.
People are also saying that marines are more defensible against small arms fire.
Consider the following gun:
Strength 2, AP0, 1dmg.
The worst gun for killing marines. Assuming it auto-hits (to make math easy), as it would hit guardsmen and marines equally -
It kills 0.72 points of marines per shot compared to 0.88 points of guardsmen. So the worst conceivable weapon to target marines, while being the best at targeting guardsmen, is only 23% more effective against guardsmen than it is marines.
Once you go up to strength 3 the guns kill marines faster than they kill guardsmen.
There is a real problem here. Guard players don't see it.
But their is no S2 gun so its a useless advantage.
Marmatag wrote: I don't care if you don't take me seriously.
Astra Militarum is the best faction in the game, in terms of tournament placings, and has been for some time.
If you can justify a 4 point model being strength 4, with 3 attacks, and having a rapid fire 2 gun and can fight twice, as well as go to ground, etc, i'd like to see it. I'll wait.
Because they're not 4ppm at that point, you're involving at least two buff characters, one of which is a named SC, a specific subfaction, and it can't do all those things at the same time (cant receive fix bayonets and frfsrf in the same turn).
If we're going to assume this as the basic starting point for Guardsmen, then we're going to have to assume "always on" Gman and Librarian & Chaplain support for Marines.
Dude the HQ's are auto include. Unlike lots of armies that only take HQ's because they have to. Just stop - you can't defend this crap. You do realize the HQ's are also extremely under-costed for what they do to right? For 30 points...they fill hq requirements (they could do nothing and still be worth 30 points) they also double the firepower of 2 40 points units...Sounds like 80 points of firepower to me for 30 points. Plus they have a 5++ (are you freaking serious?). Not even getting into the fact that they can also double the close combat ability of the same unit as well.
Like - I really want to take something other than IG to LVO. I really have no choice though. The units are just that much better that there is literally no choice if you are trying to win. It's disgusting. It's so obvious that I know you know it to. You just don't care cause it's your chosen faction.
If your last point would be a fact Chaos would run in all armies renegade and heretics detachments.
Guess what they don't do?
They don't run them and they are even cheaper the guard battalions.
105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
People don't run guard just to get CP. That is the ultimate dakka fallacy from people who don't understand competitive play, and only look at lists, doing basic math and twisting anything they can to suggest that guard aren't clearly the best faction in the game.
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
So in your eyes exalted Champions are broken too because they grant full rerolls under 100pts for 1 model?
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
So in your eyes exalted Champions are broken too because they grant full rerolls under 100pts for 1 model?
Just stop.
Full rerolls is NOTHING compared to TRIPLING attacks, and also having free +1 strength, and having 4 point infantry.
Giving marines full rerolls is also entirely different because the attack volume is a whole lot lower.
One marine with full rerolls: 1 attack 3 guardsmen with +attacks, and str: 9 attacks
guardsmen are STILL CHEAPER even factoring in buff toons. WUT
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
People don't run guard just to get CP. That is the ultimate dakka fallacy from people who don't understand competitive play, and only look at lists, doing basic math and twisting anything they can to suggest that guard aren't clearly the best faction in the game.
Asmodeus recently precented you the math even with this statement included. Infact he had shown that the more guard there was in soup the worse it's chances at a win were. ....
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
So in your eyes exalted Champions are broken too because they grant full rerolls under 100pts for 1 model?
Just stop.
Full rerolls is NOTHING compared to TRIPLING attacks, and also having free +1 strength, and having 4 point infantry.
Giving marines full rerolls is also entirely different because the attack volume is a whole lot lower.
kingheff wrote: On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
It's just more evidence to the guardsmen are brutally undercosted column.
And i'm laughing at people saying you can't assume guardsmen will have HQs. Dirt cheap HQs are (a) required and (b) dirt cheap so everyone brings them. You can't bring guardsmen without bringing an HQ, and when your HQ costs less than 50 points it's laughably easy.
People are also saying that marines are more defensible against small arms fire.
Consider the following gun:
Strength 2, AP0, 1dmg.
The worst gun for killing marines. Assuming it auto-hits (to make math easy), as it would hit guardsmen and marines equally -
It kills 0.72 points of marines per shot compared to 0.88 points of guardsmen. So the worst conceivable weapon to target marines, while being the best at targeting guardsmen, is only 23% more effective against guardsmen than it is marines.
Once you go up to strength 3 the guns kill marines faster than they kill guardsmen.
There is a real problem here. Guard players don't see it.
But their is no S2 gun so its a useless advantage.
Marmatag wrote: I don't care if you don't take me seriously.
Astra Militarum is the best faction in the game, in terms of tournament placings, and has been for some time.
If you can justify a 4 point model being strength 4, with 3 attacks, and having a rapid fire 2 gun and can fight twice, as well as go to ground, etc, i'd like to see it. I'll wait.
Because they're not 4ppm at that point, you're involving at least two buff characters, one of which is a named SC, a specific subfaction, and it can't do all those things at the same time (cant receive fix bayonets and frfsrf in the same turn).
If we're going to assume this as the basic starting point for Guardsmen, then we're going to have to assume "always on" Gman and Librarian & Chaplain support for Marines.
Dude the HQ's are auto include. Unlike lots of armies that only take HQ's because they have to. Just stop - you can't defend this crap. You do realize the HQ's are also extremely under-costed for what they do to right? For 30 points...they fill hq requirements (they could do nothing and still be worth 30 points) they also double the firepower of 2 40 points units...Sounds like 80 points of firepower to me for 30 points. Plus they have a 5++ (are you freaking serious?). Not even getting into the fact that they can also double the close combat ability of the same unit as well.
Like - I really want to take something other than IG to LVO. I really have no choice though. The units are just that much better that there is literally no choice if you are trying to win. It's disgusting. It's so obvious that I know you know it to. You just don't care cause it's your chosen faction.
If your last point would be a fact Chaos would run in all armies renegade and heretics detachments.
Guess what they don't do?
They don't run them and they are even cheaper the guard battalions.
So you think people will take a worse option when they can have a much better option? With army traits and broken orders? Paying exactly the same? No - people don't even consider doing that.
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
So in your eyes exalted Champions are broken too because they grant full rerolls under 100pts for 1 model?
Just stop.
Full rerolls is NOTHING compared to TRIPLING attacks, and also having free +1 strength, and having 4 point infantry.
Giving marines full rerolls is also entirely different because the attack volume is a whole lot lower.
One marine with full rerolls: 1 attack
3 guardsmen with +attacks, and str: 9 attacks
guardsmen are STILL CHEAPER even factoring in buff toons. WUT
And this is how you do not make a comparison since you have no meassuring Element like points included for both sides nor the impact the charachters themselves would have, etc.
kingheff wrote: On the subject of guardsmen being fair at 4ppm, how does that compare to guardians at 8ppm?
For double the points guardians get 1" of movement, bs/ws 3 and 1ld with 12" guns that are slightly better once in range.
It's just more evidence to the guardsmen are brutally undercosted column.
And i'm laughing at people saying you can't assume guardsmen will have HQs. Dirt cheap HQs are (a) required and (b) dirt cheap so everyone brings them. You can't bring guardsmen without bringing an HQ, and when your HQ costs less than 50 points it's laughably easy.
People are also saying that marines are more defensible against small arms fire.
Consider the following gun:
Strength 2, AP0, 1dmg.
The worst gun for killing marines. Assuming it auto-hits (to make math easy), as it would hit guardsmen and marines equally -
It kills 0.72 points of marines per shot compared to 0.88 points of guardsmen. So the worst conceivable weapon to target marines, while being the best at targeting guardsmen, is only 23% more effective against guardsmen than it is marines.
Once you go up to strength 3 the guns kill marines faster than they kill guardsmen.
There is a real problem here. Guard players don't see it.
But their is no S2 gun so its a useless advantage.
Marmatag wrote: I don't care if you don't take me seriously.
Astra Militarum is the best faction in the game, in terms of tournament placings, and has been for some time.
If you can justify a 4 point model being strength 4, with 3 attacks, and having a rapid fire 2 gun and can fight twice, as well as go to ground, etc, i'd like to see it. I'll wait.
Because they're not 4ppm at that point, you're involving at least two buff characters, one of which is a named SC, a specific subfaction, and it can't do all those things at the same time (cant receive fix bayonets and frfsrf in the same turn).
If we're going to assume this as the basic starting point for Guardsmen, then we're going to have to assume "always on" Gman and Librarian & Chaplain support for Marines.
Dude the HQ's are auto include. Unlike lots of armies that only take HQ's because they have to. Just stop - you can't defend this crap. You do realize the HQ's are also extremely under-costed for what they do to right? For 30 points...they fill hq requirements (they could do nothing and still be worth 30 points) they also double the firepower of 2 40 points units...Sounds like 80 points of firepower to me for 30 points. Plus they have a 5++ (are you freaking serious?). Not even getting into the fact that they can also double the close combat ability of the same unit as well.
Like - I really want to take something other than IG to LVO. I really have no choice though. The units are just that much better that there is literally no choice if you are trying to win. It's disgusting. It's so obvious that I know you know it to. You just don't care cause it's your chosen faction.
If your last point would be a fact Chaos would run in all armies renegade and heretics detachments.
Guess what they don't do?
They don't run them and they are even cheaper the guard battalions.
So you think people will take a worse option when they can have a much better option? With army traits and broken orders? Paying exactly the same? No - people don't even consider doing that.
What better option, it was simply a fact that cheap hq that do nothing are not taken unlike your statement before which he said at 30 pts they could do nothing and still would be taken.
Which is as you understood incorrect, congratulations
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
So in your eyes exalted Champions are broken too because they grant full rerolls under 100pts for 1 model?
Just stop.
Full rerolls is NOTHING compared to TRIPLING attacks, and also having free +1 strength, and having 4 point infantry.
Giving marines full rerolls is also entirely different because the attack volume is a whole lot lower.
Also works on, gasp, cultists.
.....
So cultists who are currently 5ppm and can't get the Catachan bonus lines up with guardsmen being atleast 5ppm with Catachan pushing that to 6ppm. Or are you claiming 4ppm guardsmen are fine in comparison to 5ppm cultists?
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
So in your eyes exalted Champions are broken too because they grant full rerolls under 100pts for 1 model?
Just stop.
Full rerolls is NOTHING compared to TRIPLING attacks, and also having free +1 strength, and having 4 point infantry.
Giving marines full rerolls is also entirely different because the attack volume is a whole lot lower.
Also works on, gasp, cultists.
.....
So cultists who are currently 5ppm and can't get the Catachan bonus lines up with guardsmen being atleast 5ppm with Catachan pushing that to 6ppm. Or are you claiming 4ppm guardsmen are fine in comparison to 5ppm cultists?
Never, albeit World Eaters cultists could come close, fight twice with 3 attacks base and full rerolls, not to mention outflank and recycle if of course we go and don't contextualize.
That is because you are ignoring the fact that a 4 point guardsmen is infinitely better than a heratic gaurdsmen for MULTIPLE reasons. Not only including army rules but access to the best allies in the game with the best army traits. When you get amazing units - a 30 point tax HQ would not be a big deal instead you get a unit that gives you 80 points of firepower. It literally insane that after over a year people are still defending this rubbish.
Xenomancers wrote: That is because you are ignoring the fact that a 4 point guardsmen is infinitely better than a heratic gaurdsmen for MULTIPLE reasons. Not only including army rules but access to the best allies in the game with the best army traits. When you get amazing units - a 30 point tax HQ would not be a big deal instead you get a unit that gives you 80 points of firepower. It literally insane that after over a year people are still defending this rubbish.
So neither bloodletter bombs nor arhiman etc for Chaos soup are top Tier?
Guard can also - while doing this - generate a ridiculous amount of CP to fuel whatever super heavy they stable onto their lists.
They also get infinite board control and denial.
They also get screens for all of their MUCH cheaper ranged shooting.
This is indefensible. Guard are winning GTs more than anyone else for a reason. And 2019 is coming up all Guard, too.
Soup is not guard
"Soup is not guard."
This is what people say when they're tapping out.
It's a horrible argument and against the core design of 8th edition, attempting to justify overpowered units by saying that it's a fundamental flaw with the edition itself. If that's the case, let's rework the AP system entirely? Or what other pipe dreams do you have in regards to game balance?
Guard can also - while doing this - generate a ridiculous amount of CP to fuel whatever super heavy they stable onto their lists.
They also get infinite board control and denial.
They also get screens for all of their MUCH cheaper ranged shooting.
This is indefensible. Guard are winning GTs more than anyone else for a reason. And 2019 is coming up all Guard, too.
Soup is not guard
"Soup is not guard."
This is what people say when they're tapping out.
It's a horrible argument and against the core design of 8th edition, attempting to justify overpowered units by saying that it's a fundamental flaw with the edition itself. If that's the case, let's rework the AP system entirely? Or what other pipe dreams do you have in regards to game balance?
The game is the game. Allies are a part of it.
"Mono is not 8th."
Again missing the keypart that Asmodeus did show you with proof from statistics that the more points were invested in guard the lower the winrate for the top imperial souplists.
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
So in your eyes exalted Champions are broken too because they grant full rerolls under 100pts for 1 model?
Just stop.
Full rerolls is NOTHING compared to TRIPLING attacks, and also having free +1 strength, and having 4 point infantry.
Giving marines full rerolls is also entirely different because the attack volume is a whole lot lower.
Also works on, gasp, cultists.
.....
So cultists who are currently 5ppm and can't get the Catachan bonus lines up with guardsmen being atleast 5ppm with Catachan pushing that to 6ppm. Or are you claiming 4ppm guardsmen are fine in comparison to 5ppm cultists?
Never, albeit World Eaters cultists could come close, fight twice with 3 attacks base and full rerolls, not to mention outflank and recycle if of course we go and don't contextualize.
Wait what does world eaters getting +1 attack have to do with even remotely justify 4ppm guardsmen?
Guard can also - while doing this - generate a ridiculous amount of CP to fuel whatever super heavy they stable onto their lists.
They also get infinite board control and denial. They also get screens for all of their MUCH cheaper ranged shooting.
This is indefensible. Guard are winning GTs more than anyone else for a reason. And 2019 is coming up all Guard, too.
Soup is not guard
"Soup is not guard."
This is what people say when they're tapping out.
It's a horrible argument and against the core design of 8th edition, attempting to justify overpowered units by saying that it's a fundamental flaw with the edition itself. If that's the case, let's rework the AP system entirely? Or what other pipe dreams do you have in regards to game balance?
The game is the game. Allies are a part of it.
"Mono is not 8th."
Again missing the keypart that Asmodeus did show you with proof from statistics that the more points were invented in guard the lower the wirkte for the top imperial souplists.
Think before you type, Jesus.
Asmodeus's data was discredited. I've actually seen the best coast pairings data, and Guard is the number 1. They're also number 1 in ITC GTs/Majors, where in order to be faction:Astra Militarum, you need to have AM as your largest detachment.
Again missing the keypart that Asmodeus did show you with proof from statistics that the more points were invested in guard the lower the winrate for the top imperial souplists.
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Nothing in the marine universe comes remotely close to this level of efficiency.
So in your eyes exalted Champions are broken too because they grant full rerolls under 100pts for 1 model?
Just stop.
Full rerolls is NOTHING compared to TRIPLING attacks, and also having free +1 strength, and having 4 point infantry.
Giving marines full rerolls is also entirely different because the attack volume is a whole lot lower.
Also works on, gasp, cultists.
.....
So cultists who are currently 5ppm and can't get the Catachan bonus lines up with guardsmen being atleast 5ppm with Catachan pushing that to 6ppm. Or are you claiming 4ppm guardsmen are fine in comparison to 5ppm cultists?
Never, albeit World Eaters cultists could come close, fight twice with 3 attacks base and full rerolls, not to mention outflank and recycle if of course we go and don't contextualize.
Wait what does world eaters getting +1 attack have to do with even remotely justify 4ppm guardsmen?
My point was that his supposedly broken trippleing of attacks and +1 S would be broken beyond reason. The closest can go to an as equal as possible analogue would be World Eater cultists with full rerolls wich baseline tripple their attack value and with stratagem can multiply their base attack value by 6 on a charge and have full rerolls and it still is not played. Part of it ofcourse thanks to the slaaneshy double shooting shenanigans but there you don't get as cheap full rerolls.
Guard can also - while doing this - generate a ridiculous amount of CP to fuel whatever super heavy they stable onto their lists.
They also get infinite board control and denial.
They also get screens for all of their MUCH cheaper ranged shooting.
This is indefensible. Guard are winning GTs more than anyone else for a reason. And 2019 is coming up all Guard, too.
Soup is not guard
"Soup is not guard."
This is what people say when they're tapping out.
It's a horrible argument and against the core design of 8th edition, attempting to justify overpowered units by saying that it's a fundamental flaw with the edition itself. If that's the case, let's rework the AP system entirely? Or what other pipe dreams do you have in regards to game balance?
The game is the game. Allies are a part of it.
"Mono is not 8th."
Again missing the keypart that Asmodeus did show you with proof from statistics that the more points were invented in guard the lower the wirkte for the top imperial souplists.
Think before you type, Jesus.
Asmodeus's data was discredited. I've actually seen the best coast pairings data, and Guard is the number 1. They're also number 1 in ITC GTs/Majors, where in order to be faction:Astra Militarum, you need to have AM as your largest detachment.
Ok then give this data,
And having 1001 pts in a IG brigade and the rest in a smashcaptain and knight still shows you the heavy Lifiting is done by them not the guard, except were terrible terrain rules interact with the itc rulesets with unatackable squads in buildings.
Marmatag wrote: I don't care if you don't take me seriously.
Astra Militarum is the best faction in the game, in terms of tournament placings, and has been for some time.
If you can justify a 4 point model being strength 4, with 3 attacks, and having a rapid fire 2 gun and can fight twice, as well as go to ground, etc, i'd like to see it. I'll wait.
Because they're not 4ppm at that point, you're involving at least two buff characters, one of which is a named SC, a specific subfaction, and it can't do all those things at the same time (cant receive fix bayonets and frfsrf in the same turn).
If we're going to assume this as the basic starting point for Guardsmen, then we're going to have to assume "always on" Gman and Librarian & Chaplain support for Marines.
Dude the HQ's are auto include. Unlike lots of armies that only take HQ's because they have to. Just stop - you can't defend this crap. You do realize the HQ's are also extremely under-costed for what they do to right? For 30 points...they fill hq requirements (they could do nothing and still be worth 30 points) they also double the firepower of 2 40 points units...Sounds like 80 points of firepower to me for 30 points. Plus they have a 5++ (are you freaking serious?). Not even getting into the fact that they can also double the close combat ability of the same unit as well.
That was a lot of text to miss the fundamental context of the conversation that involved no 30pt Company Commanders if we're talking S4 A3 guardsmen, but rather Straken and Ministorum Priests.
Like - I really want to take something other than IG to LVO. I really have no choice though. The units are just that much better that there is literally no choice if you are trying to win. It's disgusting. It's so obvious that I know you know it to. You just don't care cause it's your chosen faction.
Yup, it's all just because I play Guard, nevermind that I have almost as much Chaos marine stuff as Guard stuff (hence the Iron Warriors motto in the sig) and have sizeable Tau, Eldar, GK armies as well (and enough loyalist SM stuff to field a 2.5k force if I ever painted it)
Marmatag wrote: 105 points for 3 attacks at strength 4 for all guardsmen within bubble distance is bonkers. It's indefensible. You can drop a couple hundred points and have an insane melee & objective grabbing wall of bodies.
Ok, this is a for real real reasonable argument, but is however very different arguments than "Guardsmen should be 7ppm because they're all S4 with 3 attacks with RF2 guns who can fight twice" or comparing 80pts of Guard+Straken+Priest to 80 naked points of Guardians, which was monstrously disingenuous.
In which case, I'd agree that the Catachan doctrine needs toning down and reworking. I've said this numerous times before. Straken and the Priest together may offer much more than was intended coupled with the Catachan doctrine. One will note that outside of this scenario however, neither Straken nor the Priest generally appear to be particularly big issues, in fact I dont even think ive seen a Priest outside of that.
Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
Actually that's a GW rule, ITC implements GW rules. GW specifically said wobbly model cannot be used to justify a charge. ITC has sense *worked that back for LVO,* because *it makes guard too strong.* Check their updated terrain rules packet.
Wobbly is now sufficient to attack invincible guardsmen.
And you can't claim that the heavy lifting of a list isn't done by the majority of the list. I'm blown away by this nonsense. 1000 points of Guard buys so you so much. If you wanted you could double brigade and have points leftover to spam basilisks.
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Marmatag wrote: Actually that's a GW rule, ITC implements GW rules. GW specifically said wobbly model cannot be used to justify a charge. ITC has sense *worked that back for LVO,* because *it makes guard too strong.* Check their updated terrain rules packet.
Wobbly is now sufficient to attack invincible guardsmen.
And you can't claim that the heavy lifting of a list isn't done by the majority of the list. I'm blown away by this nonsense. 1000 points of Guard buys so you so much. If you wanted you could double brigade and have points leftover to spam basilisks.
Are you sure? I can claim that actually, because bringing a Castellan with a 3++ literally dictates the list of my enemy.
As for the itc / gw ruleset idc. Common sense would've dictated that an attack should've been possible.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I genuinely can't believe the 4ppm Guardsmen debate still exists. I suppose that's GW balancing for you though.
Frankly IG squads should go to 5 ppm atleast, if cultists were eregonious enough then guardsmen are too, veterans could either stay and remain Elite or go to 6 ppm and become once more troop choices. Conscripts could drop back to 3 so long commisars don't Auto pass morale for them.
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Yeah I wouldn't say that. Because mono faction tournaments aren't a thing, and therefore shouldn't be a metric for discussion.
Drukkari and Orks are also REALLY good.
However, 4ppm guardsman are too cheap and Marmatags argument regarding that guardsman are better at everything per point vs spacemarines is true.
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Yeah I wouldn't say that. Because mono faction tournaments aren't a thing, and therefore shouldn't be a metric for discussion.
Drukkari and Orks are also REALLY good.
However, 4ppm guardsman are too cheap and Marmatags argument regarding that guardsman are better at everything per point vs spacemarines is true.
Yes and no, guardsmen just profit from the fact that anti horde weaponry is not taken because you are forced to face down knights. Basically you have the knight that skews the lists to the point that they have to take every Ressource really to take the knight down. The counter for Chaos was literally to conga line cultists surounding abbadon or spamming psykers.
Eldar just solved their issue with soulbourst.
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Yeah I wouldn't say that. Because mono faction tournaments aren't a thing, and therefore shouldn't be a metric for discussion.
Drukkari and Orks are also REALLY good.
However, 4ppm guardsman are too cheap and Marmatags argument regarding that guardsman are better at everything per point vs spacemarines is true.
Yes and no, guardsmen just profit from the fact that anti horde weaponry is not taken because you are forced to face down knights. Basically you have the knight that skews the lists to the point that they have to take every Ressource really to take the knight down. The counter for Chaos was literally to conga line cultists surounding abbadon or spamming psykers.
Eldar just solved their issue with soulbourst.
Except which weapons actually kill more points of guardsmen than anything else in the game?
I would love to know of this mythical anti horde weapons that is apparently never taken because orks and infantry squads are so not terrifying compaired to a knight?
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Yeah I wouldn't say that. Because mono faction tournaments aren't a thing, and therefore shouldn't be a metric for discussion.
Drukkari and Orks are also REALLY good.
However, 4ppm guardsman are too cheap and Marmatags argument regarding that guardsman are better at everything per point vs spacemarines is true.
Yes and no, guardsmen just profit from the fact that anti horde weaponry is not taken because you are forced to face down knights. Basically you have the knight that skews the lists to the point that they have to take every Ressource really to take the knight down. The counter for Chaos was literally to conga line cultists surounding abbadon or spamming psykers.
Eldar just solved their issue with soulbourst.
Except which weapons actually kill more points of guardsmen than anything else in the game?
Normally small arms, massed small arms but you can't bring that to bear since you need to buy expensive AT equipment.
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Yeah I wouldn't say that. Because mono faction tournaments aren't a thing, and therefore shouldn't be a metric for discussion.
Drukkari and Orks are also REALLY good.
However, 4ppm guardsman are too cheap and Marmatags argument regarding that guardsman are better at everything per point vs spacemarines is true.
Yes and no, guardsmen just profit from the fact that anti horde weaponry is not taken because you are forced to face down knights. Basically you have the knight that skews the lists to the point that they have to take every Ressource really to take the knight down. The counter for Chaos was literally to conga line cultists surounding abbadon or spamming psykers.
Eldar just solved their issue with soulbourst.
Agree,, that is part of the problem too.
However the fact that cheap horde is the largest beneficiary of the meta means it's an issue that should be adressed. Especially for the effective hordes. Which is what we saw,, orks got a price bump, and so did cultists. Why guard didn't is baffling.
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Yeah I wouldn't say that. Because mono faction tournaments aren't a thing, and therefore shouldn't be a metric for discussion.
Drukkari and Orks are also REALLY good.
However, 4ppm guardsman are too cheap and Marmatags argument regarding that guardsman are better at everything per point vs spacemarines is true.
Yes and no, guardsmen just profit from the fact that anti horde weaponry is not taken because you are forced to face down knights. Basically you have the knight that skews the lists to the point that they have to take every Ressource really to take the knight down. The counter for Chaos was literally to conga line cultists surounding abbadon or spamming psykers.
Eldar just solved their issue with soulbourst.
Except which weapons actually kill more points of guardsmen than anything else in the game?
Normally small arms, massed small arms but you can't bring that to bear since you need to buy expensive AT equipment.
I'd like a weapon on a unit please as even lasguns kill more points of marines than guardsmen.
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Yeah I wouldn't say that. Because mono faction tournaments aren't a thing, and therefore shouldn't be a metric for discussion.
Drukkari and Orks are also REALLY good.
However, 4ppm guardsman are too cheap and Marmatags argument regarding that guardsman are better at everything per point vs spacemarines is true.
Yes and no, guardsmen just profit from the fact that anti horde weaponry is not taken because you are forced to face down knights. Basically you have the knight that skews the lists to the point that they have to take every Ressource really to take the knight down. The counter for Chaos was literally to conga line cultists surounding abbadon or spamming psykers.
Eldar just solved their issue with soulbourst.
Agree,, that is part of the problem too.
However the fact that cheap horde is the largest beneficiary of the meta means it's an issue that should be adressed. Especially for the effective hordes. Which is what we saw,, orks got a price bump, and so did cultists. Why guard didn't is baffling.
The horde is literally a reaction against knights, heck greentide literally was a reaction against it. Win via objective and swamp
Lists that have tailored against knights wont be able to wipe you since the have not the necessary volume of fire, and knights can't really wipe you if you just win via objectives.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I genuinely can't believe the 4ppm Guardsmen debate still exists. I suppose that's GW balancing for you though.
Nobody is really talking about the 4ppm price tag. What started this kerfluffle over the past couple pages was the assertion that Guardsmen should be 7ppm, because they're all apparently always running around with S4 and A3 in every list all the time without support
They already have 5 ppm Guardsmen and can't get +1 Str from Catachan or Straken support.
nor can they take heavy weapons in Infantry Squads and don't have FRFSRF at all.
My DKoK collection is actually almost entirely Grenadiers and was run as an Assault Brigade in previous editions and a Stormtrooper company before that, I havent used the FW rules much because the Index is really awkward for building that kind of army, particularly as I'd had it built with everyone in Chimeras I have a converted cadian force for normal codex lists using Pig Iron gasmask heads.
Sluggaloo wrote: Yeah sorry. Asmodeus's data shows that people willing to pick the best parts of guard (THE ABSURDLY CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE INFANTRY) + the best parts of other imperial books BEAT people who just stick to the AM codex when competing in tournaments which allow for soup. Do you see where that logic fails?
You can go two pages back and literally read the statement from Marmatag about guard beeing the best faction ever atm.
Yeah I wouldn't say that. Because mono faction tournaments aren't a thing, and therefore shouldn't be a metric for discussion.
Drukkari and Orks are also REALLY good.
However, 4ppm guardsman are too cheap and Marmatags argument regarding that guardsman are better at everything per point vs spacemarines is true.
Yes and no, guardsmen just profit from the fact that anti horde weaponry is not taken because you are forced to face down knights. Basically you have the knight that skews the lists to the point that they have to take every Ressource really to take the knight down. The counter for Chaos was literally to conga line cultists surounding abbadon or spamming psykers.
Eldar just solved their issue with soulbourst.
Agree,, that is part of the problem too.
However the fact that cheap horde is the largest beneficiary of the meta means it's an issue that should be adressed. Especially for the effective hordes. Which is what we saw,, orks got a price bump, and so did cultists. Why guard didn't is baffling.
The horde is literally a reaction against knights, heck greentide literally was a reaction against it. Win via objective and swamp
Lists that have tailored against knights wont be able to wipe you since the have not the necessary volume of fire, and knights can't really wipe you if you just win via objectives.
Any meta is a reactionary state of rock paper scissors. Horde is the king now. Knight's having a 3++ invuln is a dumb issue that will only be fixed when GW has sold enough Imperial Knights.
In the exact same way knights have made landraiders or baneblades obscolete, guardsmen have made tactical marines obsolete.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I genuinely can't believe the 4ppm Guardsmen debate still exists. I suppose that's GW balancing for you though.
Nobody is really talking about the 4ppm price tag. What started this kerfluffle over the past couple pages was the assertion that Guardsmen should be 7ppm, because they're all apparently always running around with S4 and A3 in every list all the time without support
With free hq!
Or negligible price Tag, or so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any meta is a reactionary state of rock paper scissors. Horde is the king now. Knight's having a 3++ invuln is a dumb issue that will only be fixed when GW has sold enough Imperial Knights.
In the exact same way knights have made landraiders or baneblades obscolete, guardsmen have made tactical marines obsolete.
The fact that THE horde shooting list is also in the same faction as THE cheapest ultra melee hq and Knights certainly did not help the situation at all.
The way I see it, on a battlefield, put 120 pts up against each other and who wins?
Ten marines, ten dire avengers, thirteen guardians with a scatter laser and thirty guardsmen. I'd say the other three are fairly well balanced, I'd probably say the guardians are the strongest choice of the others but guard easily beat the marines and avengers,the guardians are more of a match, able to use the scatter laser platform to outrange the guard and force them forward, giving the guardians the ability to get the first volley off plus the platform has a 3+ to tank but that's only two wounds.
Marines versus guardians is interesting, If the marines can keep it at 24" they can start to thin out the guardians since the scatter laser doesn't really scare marines much.
With frfsrf against protect if you want to bring in an hq protect is amazing on the platform giving a 2+ but the guard do get a lot of shots, especially within 12" where the guardians need to be, with the caveat that protect isn't guaranteed by any means.
Oh, this is all completely me judging by eye, obviously. I'm too lazy to math it out but if I was a betting man I know where my money's going.
Except which weapons actually kill more points of guardsmen than anything else in the game?
Normally small arms, massed small arms but you can't bring that to bear since you need to buy expensive AT equipment.
I'd like a weapon on a unit please as even lasguns kill more points of marines than guardsmen.
Marines are one of the few "elite" units that are more vulnerable to small arms than guardsmen. Hence why marines in general suck. Currently even Primaris are more durable per point than guardsmen against lasgun/boltgun
Just some math to prove my point:
Boltgun shooting Primaris and guardsmen (skip shooting and go straight to wounding):
- Primaris: 1*1/2*1/3=1/6 wounds = .17 W = .17*17/2= 1.42 pts lost
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W = 4/9*4 1.77 pts lost
So, a primaris marine is 25% more durable per point against boltguns than a guardsmen. It's not great, but that can be fixed with points. And the truth is that tact marines are way overcosted and guardsmen are undercosted. Iron that out (10 pt marines and 5 pt guard) and boltguns are easily anti-horde.
Doing the math again with 5 pt guard:
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W =4/9*5= 2.22 pts lost, which makes Primaris 50% more durable per point against boltguns. So there you go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kingheff wrote: The way I see it, on a battlefield, put 120 pts up against each other and who wins?
Ten marines, ten dire avengers, thirteen guardians with a scatter laser and thirty guardsmen. I'd say the other three are fairly well balanced, I'd probably say the guardians are the strongest choice of the others but guard easily beat the marines and avengers,the guardians are more of a match, able to use the scatter laser platform to outrange the guard and force them forward, giving the guardians the ability to get the first volley off plus the platform has a 3+ to tank but that's only two wounds.
Marines versus guardians is interesting, If the marines can keep it at 24" they can start to thin out the guardians since the scatter laser doesn't really scare marines much.
With frfsrf against protect if you want to bring in an hq protect is amazing on the platform giving a 2+ but the guard do get a lot of shots, especially within 12" where the guardians need to be, with the caveat that protect isn't guaranteed by any means.
Oh, this is all completely me judging by eye, obviously. I'm too lazy to math it out but if I was a betting man I know where my money's going.
Why did you give the guardians a support weapon but not give the guardsmen heavy weapons? or the marines for that matter? tbh though, marines, dire avengers and guardians are behind the power curve. When kabalites are 6 pts to the guardians 8pt... yeah.
Also, consider that the guardians have 12" guns, meaning that aside from the laser they are outranged. and the laser is only going to kill a couple guardsmen per turn (4*2/3*5/6*2/3= 1.5 kills). At 24" those 30 guardsmen will kill 30*1/2*1/2*2/3= 5 guardians per turn. Oh, and the guardsmen have way more wounds. Oh, and guardsmen can take 2 heavy bolters for the same price as 1 scatter laser. 6*1/2*2/3*5/6=1.66 kills.
Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it. Being able to fight after you die with 3 str 4 attacks for a couple CP and 4 points is insane. It's even crazier once you get units of 20-30 benefiting from it. Combined with ITC rules this unit can sit in a building and reliably kill 2-3x its points value reliably.
GW obviously has no idea how to create a balanced game and are either intentionally breaking units to sell them (knights) or have no idea what they are doing (primaris). There's enough examples of both to support either argument which is really weird.
End of the day the units we are complaining about are great because of strategem interactions of special rules, both of which SM should be trying to get (instead of point reductions). The problem is both of these things are going to be monetized like hell from GW and leave a bitter "pay to win" taste in my mouth at least.
And making bolt guns as efficient at killing guardsmen as marines doesn't help if it takes 2k points of bolt guns to kill 50 guardsmen. Marines are just too inefficient at killing hordes and things with invluns due to weapons designed and costed for previous editions. Las/melta/grav are all pretty useless this edition leaving plasma/storm bolters/A.Cs the only choices left but the bodies/vehicles that carry it are over costed/fragile/slow.
Except which weapons actually kill more points of guardsmen than anything else in the game?
Normally small arms, massed small arms but you can't bring that to bear since you need to buy expensive AT equipment.
I'd like a weapon on a unit please as even lasguns kill more points of marines than guardsmen.
Marines are one of the few "elite" units that are more vulnerable to small arms than guardsmen. Hence why marines in general suck. Currently even Primaris are more durable per point than guardsmen against lasgun/boltgun
Just some math to prove my point:
Boltgun shooting Primaris and guardsmen (skip shooting and go straight to wounding):
- Primaris: 1*1/2*1/3=1/6 wounds = .17 W = .17*17/2= 1.42 pts lost
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W = 4/9*4 1.77 pts lost
So, a primaris marine is 25% more durable per point against boltguns than a guardsmen. It's not great, but that can be fixed with points. And the truth is that tact marines are way overcosted and guardsmen are undercosted. Iron that out (10 pt marines and 5 pt guard) and boltguns are easily anti-horde.
Doing the math again with 5 pt guard:
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W =4/9*5= 2.22 pts lost, which makes Primaris 50% more durable per point against boltguns. So there you go.
Except you had to go to intercessors who pay 8.5 points per T4 3+ wound to make the bolter better against guardsmen.
Which is inline with what I said a couple of pages ago in a world of 4ppm guardsmen old marines are worth 8 points probably less.
What this also doesn't allow for the fact you get 4 guardsmen for 1 intercessor at current points. So 4 wounds instead of 2 (double the durability) as a bonus you also get more firepower, board control and less vulnerability to multi damage weapons.
Hence why Guard Infantry are competitive and marines infantry isn't, always helped by to achieve a 90%+ improvement in firepower for a 38% points increase.
Except which weapons actually kill more points of guardsmen than anything else in the game?
Normally small arms, massed small arms but you can't bring that to bear since you need to buy expensive AT equipment.
I'd like a weapon on a unit please as even lasguns kill more points of marines than guardsmen.
Marines are one of the few "elite" units that are more vulnerable to small arms than guardsmen. Hence why marines in general suck. Currently even Primaris are more durable per point than guardsmen against lasgun/boltgun
Just some math to prove my point:
Boltgun shooting Primaris and guardsmen (skip shooting and go straight to wounding):
- Primaris: 1*1/2*1/3=1/6 wounds = .17 W = .17*17/2= 1.42 pts lost
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W = 4/9*4 1.77 pts lost
So, a primaris marine is 25% more durable per point against boltguns than a guardsmen. It's not great, but that can be fixed with points. And the truth is that tact marines are way overcosted and guardsmen are undercosted. Iron that out (10 pt marines and 5 pt guard) and boltguns are easily anti-horde.
Doing the math again with 5 pt guard:
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W =4/9*5= 2.22 pts lost, which makes Primaris 50% more durable per point against boltguns. So there you go.
Except you had to go to intercessors who pay 8.5 points per T4 3+ wound to make the bolter better against guardsmen.
Which is inline with what I said a couple of pages ago in a world of 4ppm guardsmen old marines are worth 8 points probably less.
What this also doesn't allow for the fact you get 4 guardsmen for 1 intercessor at current points. So 4 wounds instead of 2 (double the durability) as a bonus you also get more firepower, board control and less vulnerability to multi damage weapons.
Hence why Guard Infantry are competitive and marines infantry isn't, always helped by to achieve a 90%+ improvement in firepower for a 38% points increase.
a 3 ppm drop would allready help all old marines and any faction that uses them tbh.
F.e Raptors would now be 12ppm an acceptable price, regular 5 model CSM break now even for CP with min cultists, etc.
Edit: especially for regular CSM armies this would be interesting, since you now A, actually have a debate of HP over Armor, versatility vs horde builds.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I genuinely can't believe the 4ppm Guardsmen debate still exists. I suppose that's GW balancing for you though.
The lead designer is the imperial guard guy. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Meanwhile the space wolf designer was running around promising 2 point stormshields for thunderwolf cavalry. Hint: they're 10 points after CA.
LoL, this is pure kino. Does someone at the studio main eldar maybe?
In the exact same way knights have made landraiders or baneblades obscolete, guardsmen have made tactical marines obsolete.
before the knight codex came out, landraiders weren't being used either. baneblades were, they only got replaced by knights, because of how much efficient knights are not because baneblades were suddenly nerfed or got worse. A ravellan is just a better option for around the same points.
Ice_can wrote: Which is inline with what I said a couple of pages ago in a world of 4ppm guardsmen old marines are worth 8 points probably less.
Now I've stopped laughing and gotten up off the floor, I do have a serious question - if you're pricing a Tactical Marine at 8 points, where would you price a Stormtrooper?
Ice_can wrote: Which is inline with what I said a couple of pages ago in a world of 4ppm guardsmen old marines are worth 8 points probably less.
Now I've stopped laughing and gotten up off the floor, I do have a serious question - if you're pricing a Tactical Marine at 8 points, where would you price a Stormtrooper?
The other option is to properly price guard at 5ppm and Catachans at 6ppm, in that world marines are still probably only 12 points maybe 11 but if 4ppm Guard aren't going anywhere all other infantry in the game is overcosted.
As stormtroopers no longer exsist in 40k at whatever you want in your home games.
Scions can go to 7 points each as deepstiking obsec plasma spam shouldn't be cheap.
Couldn''t GW just remove some units from the normal game. In gaming terms a veteran IG and a noob IG shouldn't matter much, but the options could still exist for narrative games. GW could even give them power levels for those people that want to use them.
Then matched play designers wouldn't have to worry if a IG vet should cost 6.5 or 6,75pts.
Karol wrote: Couldn''t GW just remove some units from the normal game. In gaming terms a veteran IG and a noob IG shouldn't matter much, but the options could still exist for narrative games. GW could even give them power levels for those people that want to use them.
Then matched play designers wouldn't have to worry if a IG vet should cost 6.5 or 6,75pts.
You know what?...that’s an excellent idea. I could actually back that fully.
But if it helps, vets could carry on as a chapter master style stratagem. Though I wouldn’t even bother with that.
They could just merge the matched play vets load outs with scions. And then if someone really wanted to play non scions that are vet IG, they could make a vigilus style detachment, where everything would have to be a veteran. It would cost more, be it in CP or points, but would give extra rules or options to units. IMO a much better way to deal with the whole thing.
people playing normal games would have a much better setting rules wise, while those who don't care and maybe already play with house rules could just go power levels.
Same thing could be done to many other units in the game. The CSM for example, should be merged with chosen and possessed as matched play goes. A bit better stats, a bit better weapon load out. Maybe a mutation options. At the same time they could do crazy rules possessed or uber chosen with PL, for those that want to use those models.
GK termintors and paladins could be redone the same.
Ice_can wrote: Which is inline with what I said a couple of pages ago in a world of 4ppm guardsmen old marines are worth 8 points probably less.
Now I've stopped laughing and gotten up off the floor, I do have a serious question - if you're pricing a Tactical Marine at 8 points, where would you price a Stormtrooper?
The other option is to properly price guard at 5ppm and Catachans at 6ppm, in that world marines are still probably only 12 points maybe 11 but if 4ppm Guard aren't going anywhere all other infantry in the game is overcosted.
As stormtroopers no longer exsist in 40k at whatever you want in your home games.
Scions can go to 7 points each as deepstiking obsec plasma spam shouldn't be cheap.
Scions are just GW's Harry-Potter-Space-Latin renaming of Stormtroopers.
If you think Scions should be 7ppm, well, that's an unexpected suggestion from this thread
Karol wrote: Couldn''t GW just remove some units from the normal game. In gaming terms a veteran IG and a noob IG shouldn't matter much, but the options could still exist for narrative games. GW could even give them power levels for those people that want to use them.
Then matched play designers wouldn't have to worry if a IG vet should cost 6.5 or 6,75pts.
Aside from just removing options from the IG book, how does that help Space Marines?
So, from following this thread, I would posit the following things to be broadly agreed to:
1: IG Infantry Squads are undercosted.
2: Most things Space Marines (but particularly Tactical Squads) are overcosted.
Things that are in contention:
1: If IGHQs are appropriately costed
2: If buff abilities should be considered when calculating appropriate cost on a model.
It's been mentioned that IG Company Commanders can only buff 2 units a turn whereas other factions' buffs are auras that affect all units within range. That is a fair point, but the flipside is that IG officers get about a half dozen different buffs they can apply, and can apply them automatically as the situation requires. Also, one can get 2 Company Commanders for less than 1 Space Marine (well, Dark Angels) Captain. From a practical standpoint, it is hard to get more than 4 units into an aura without sacrificing board control, which makes the aura vs specific units buff argument rather moot. I would argue there's rough equivalency there, both in effect and in points.
I think the reason this issue has been so contentious is that we're not used to the new, more responsive GW. In the past, if there was an egregious power imbalance, there was no hope of it getting fixed until the edition changed. That generated a lot of hard feeling. Now, we can reasonably hope for improvement every 6 months. GW may not deliver everything we want every time, but at the same time we don't want them to overcorrect either. GW dropped the price of Intercessors and of Scout sniper rifles. I don't think that was enough and I doubt few people do, but it was movement in the right direction, and we didn't have to wait 4 years for it. We don't have to wait 4 years for another chance at seeing improvement either.
And maybe can we not accuse people of factional fanboyism because they don't agree with our opinions? Even if it's true, stating it openly isn't going to help change anybody's mind.
bananathug wrote: Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's the only context in which Guardsmen should be discussed. Guardsmen should be balanced without any of those taken into consideration, and those overperforming buffs can be nerfed to make them also balanced as needed. Nerfing Guard as a whole until that specific combo stops overperforming just ensures that it becomes the only viable build, like how Marines are currently stuck taking Guilliman to be at all viable.
This discussion never goes anywhere because some players keep framing it in an unproductive way. They start with the claim that it's Guardsmen that are intrinsically unfair at their current base cost. Then to support that claim, they compare that base cost against performance under the effects of a doctrine, a character, a named character, a formation, and outright lies (eg Marmatag continuing to claim Fix Bayonets is a 'fight twice' ability, rather than an order that is virtually never usable).
Like, it's not hard to make the case that Guardsmen should be 5ppm when their raw stats make them the best basic infantry in the game, and both the Catachan doctrine and Straken provide too much benefit. That's addressing both the base cost, and the disproportionate benefit provided by that specific set of buffs. I just don't understand why some vocal anti-Guard players feel incapable of saying '4 points for the basic Guardsman profile is too low, and some of their buffs are undercosted' and instead go with '4 points for SIX S4 ATTACKS and SHOOTING FOUR TIMES NERF NOW'. It's just ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Things that are in contention:
1: If IGHQs are appropriately costed
2: If buff abilities should be considered when calculating appropriate cost on a model.
The handy thing about Guard is that, unlike aura abilities that can affect a wide variety of units, the way orders behave is extremely predictable. There's a very small roster of units that can be buffed by orders, and a specific number of orders that can be issued per turn.
Assuming that there are no changes to how orders work, FRFSRF doubles the firepower of a naked squad, but doesn't affect their durability. Mathematically, that makes the FRFSRF squads about 41% more effective than their unbuffed counterparts. FRFSRF doesn't perform as ideally if you have any specials, heavies, or take the Sergeant into account, but there are more orders than just FRFSRF, so let's say that flexibility confers a 50% increase in performance.
Since giving orders is basically all officers are good for, I think we can fairly price an officer at (0.5 * Infantry Squad price * # of orders). If Infantry stay at 4pts, this means the fair price of a CC should be 40pts, and the Loyal 32 is 200pts. If Infantry go up to 5pts, then the CC should be 50pts, and the Loyal 32 become 250pts.
The thing is, FRFSRF and Move Move Move kind of break the orders system, since they're so much more useful than anything else (except, situationally, Get Back In The Fight). Take Aim, for example, only provides a 17% increase in firepower, meaning that even in a kitted-up infantry squad it's virtually always better to FRFSRF than to Take Aim. Move Move Move lets you outrun aircraft. In my ideal world, we'd nerf FRFSRF to be just +1 shot and/or only usable while stationary, nerf Move Move Move to just allow you to count an Advance roll as an auto-6, and add a -1 to hit penalty for Get Back In The Fight.
Then, with orders being the more subtle buffs they should be rather than game-changing performance enhancement, Infantry can be bumped up to 5ppm, and the CC can stay at 30pts. That puts the Loyal 32 at 210pts, a 30pt hike over their current cost, and with reduced performance. Rework the Catachan regimental bonus in some fashion, and give Straken a cost hike, and then I should think all reasonable players will be happy.
bananathug wrote: Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's the only context in which Guardsmen should be discussed. Guardsmen should be balanced without any of those taken into consideration
Sorry to burst your bubble but GW has pretty good track record so far in balancing units based on the best buffs available and not in the basic state, atleast with Marines. I do agree with you that that's how it should be done, but there is no indication GW is doing it that way atm.
bananathug wrote: Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it.
This is accurate.
for 100 points of HQs, you can have strength 4 guardsmen with 3 attacks and a ton of extra benefits via CP, which they have plenty of.
I'll put my challenge back out there:
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).
180 points will buy you 10 Khorne Berzerkers with an Icon and Chainaxes. Assuming they're ran as World Eaters, they'd get 62 S6 AP-1 and 20 S5 AP0 attacks on the charge.
Meanwhile, the Guardsmen give 5 CPs, have better shooting (by roughly a metric fethton, since the Berzerkers can throw a whopping one grenade per turn), are more durable against everything and take up more space. Sure, the Khorne Berzerkers have a better melee output, but not by much, and let's not forget WHY ARE KHORNE BERZERKERS COMPARABLE IN MELEE TO GUARDSMEN?! WHAT?!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: 180 points will buy you 10 Khorne Berzerkers with an Icon and Chainaxes. Assuming they're ran as World Eaters, they'd get 62 S6 AP-1 and 20 S5 AP0 attacks on the charge.
Meanwhile, the Guardsmen give 5 CPs, have better shooting (by roughly a metric fethton, since the Berzerkers can throw a whopping one grenade per turn), are more durable against everything and take up more space. Sure, the Khorne Berzerkers have a better melee output, but not by much, and let's not forget WHY ARE KHORNE BERZERKERS COMPARABLE IN MELEE TO GUARDSMEN?! WHAT?!
Also they only get that extra attack on the charge itself. If someone else counter charges you, you get zip.
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).
Challange accepted:
First: Colonel straken is 75 pts. Ministorum priests are 35 pts. SUMMA SUMARUM 110 PTS.
Secondly it is a HQ and a elite. So once again i caught you either lying or you are just ignorant again.
3 squads of IG = 120 pts.
So we are looking for a combination that costs 230 pts.
Chaos can have a full reroll dude for 70 pts. leaves us with 140 pts. which are 28 cultists atm. Give them world eaters, that means they double their Attack value. Give them pistols and brutal assult weapons, they are now at three attacks. use the double fighting stratagem. They are now at six attacks. 28 x6 full rerolls. that would be a measly 168 attacks with rerolls. Equal points.
Recyclable and have basically outflank.
Edit: if charged, you could still employ 28x4 attacks, which would be 112 attacks. Not to mention that the exalted champion technically can mark an enemy Charachter for death.
Ghorgul wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble but GW has pretty good track record so far in balancing units based on the best buffs available and not in the basic state, atleast with Marines. I do agree with you that that's how it should be done, but there is no indication GW is doing it that way atm.
This thread is evaluating Marines' points cost based on their statline, not based on their statline as Ultramarines with Guilliman hanging nearby to give them full re-rolls. If we're going to limit ourselves to what GW is likely to do, then close the thread already, because what they're certainly not likely to do is go to DakkaDakka to take balancing cues.
Marmatag wrote:This is accurate.
for 100 points of HQs, you can have strength 4 guardsmen with 3 attacks and a ton of extra benefits via CP, which they have plenty of.
I'll put my challenge back out there:
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).
Every single time you complain about Guard, you get something wrong about their rules. It'd almost make me think you don't know enough about the army to fairly evaluate it.
-Straken + Priest is 110pts, not 100.
-The Priest is an Elites choice, not HQ.
-Getting the mandatory 2 HQs means adding a CC, for 140pts on just characters. Three squads + Straken + Priest + CC is 260pts.
-They're not 'marine level attacks' when they don't have Marine-level WS.
-Three squads have 96 attacks, not 90. Not really working against your point, but details.
So anyways: Catachans shouldn't be S4. WS3+ would be more appropriate, and less effective against T4. Infantry should be 50pts per squad. Straken should be 100pts. That puts the price of this deathball at 315 points.
At 12ppm, 315pts would buy you 26 Marines and some change. Against S3 fire, those Marines would be over two and a half times harder to kill than the 30 Guardsmen (four times harder to kill in cover), and could throw 52 shots at BS3+ S4, while the Catachans need to get into melee to use their 96 WS3+ S3 attacks (which, statistically, is only marginally better at anti-MEQ than 26 Marines' bolters Rapid Firing). The Marines would beat the Guardsmen handily at range, even withFRFSRF- at rapid fire range, 26 Marines will kill over half the Guardsmen in one volley, while 30 Guardsmen with FRFSRF will kill just 6 Marines.
I'm not going to address the challenge of 'equivalent number of attacks', because being dramatically harder to kill and better at ranged combat means they absolutely should not be as powerful in melee as the one-trick-pony, no-delivery-system, I-sure-hope-there-aren't-any-Vindicares, effectively-10ppm-for-T3-5+ blob.
You may now proceed to concoct another bad reading of the rules to whinge about how Guard need to be 7ppm.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Things that are in contention:
1: If IGHQs are appropriately costed
2: If buff abilities should be considered when calculating appropriate cost on a model.
The handy thing about Guard is that, unlike aura abilities that can affect a wide variety of units, the way orders behave is extremely predictable. There's a very small roster of units that can be buffed by orders, and a specific number of orders that can be issued per turn.
Assuming that there are no changes to how orders work, FRFSRF doubles the firepower of a naked squad, but doesn't affect their durability. Mathematically, that makes the FRFSRF squads about 41% more effective than their unbuffed counterparts. FRFSRF doesn't perform as ideally if you have any specials, heavies, or take the Sergeant into account, but there are more orders than just FRFSRF, so let's say that flexibility confers a 50% increase in performance.
Since giving orders is basically all officers are good for, I think we can fairly price an officer at (0.5 * Infantry Squad price * # of orders). If Infantry stay at 4pts, this means the fair price of a CC should be 40pts, and the Loyal 32 is 200pts. If Infantry go up to 5pts, then the CC should be 50pts, and the Loyal 32 become 250pts.
The thing is, FRFSRF and Move Move Move kind of break the orders system, since they're so much more useful than anything else (except, situationally, Get Back In The Fight). Take Aim, for example, only provides a 17% increase in firepower, meaning that even in a kitted-up infantry squad it's virtually always better to FRFSRF than to Take Aim. Move Move Move lets you outrun aircraft. In my ideal world, we'd nerf FRFSRF to be just +1 shot and/or only usable while stationary, nerf Move Move Move to just allow you to count an Advance roll as an auto-6, and add a -1 to hit penalty for Get Back In The Fight.
Then, with orders being the more subtle buffs they should be rather than game-changing performance enhancement, Infantry can be bumped up to 5ppm, and the CC can stay at 30pts. That puts the Loyal 32 at 210pts, a 30pt hike over their current cost, and with reduced performance. Rework the Catachan regimental bonus in some fashion, and give Straken a cost hike, and then I should think all reasonable players will be happy.
This is quite possibly the most reasonable post I've seen in this entire thread! And the proposed changes to the orders look like they may balance things out a bit. Well done.
As for the Catachan doctrine, making it +1 S in the fight phase immediately after they make a successful charge, and not at other times, might be enough to tone it down some - at least make them less scary to attack, but still somewhat worrying to be charged by.
This is quite possibly the most reasonable post I've seen in this entire thread! And the proposed changes to the orders look like they may balance things out a bit. Well done.
As for the Catachan doctrine, making it +1 S in the fight phase immediately after they make a successful charge, and not at other times, might be enough to tone it down some - at least make them less scary to attack, but still somewhat worrying to be charged by.
That would be very much prudent. considering World eaters only gives you bonus attacks on a successfull charge, this should most certainly change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So anyways: Catachans shouldn't be S4. WS3+ would be more appropriate, and less effective against T4. Infantry should be 50pts per squad. Straken should be 100pts. That puts the price of this deathball at 315 points.
At 12ppm, 315pts would buy you 26 Marines and some change. Against S3 fire, those Marines would be over two and a half times harder to kill than the 30 Guardsmen (four times harder to kill in cover), and could throw 52 shots at BS3+ S4, while the Catachans need to get into melee to use their 96 WS3+ S3 attacks (which, statistically, is only marginally better at anti-MEQ than 26 Marines' bolters Rapid Firing). The Marines would beat the Guardsmen handily at range, even with FRFSRF- at rapid fire range, 26 Marines will kill over half the Guardsmen in one volley, while 30 Guardsmen with FRFSRF will kill just 6 Marines.
I'm not going to address the challenge of 'equivalent number of attacks', because being dramatically harder to kill and better at ranged combat means they absolutely should not be as powerful in melee as the one-trick-pony, no-delivery-system, I-sure-hope-there-aren't-any-Vindicares, effectively-10ppm-for-T3-5+ blob.
You may now proceed to concoct another bad reading of the rules to whinge about how Guard need to be 7ppm.
FRFSRF, really just should give 1 additional shot and not impact the rapidfire weapon beyond that.
bananathug wrote: Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it.
This is accurate.
for 100 points of HQs, you can have strength 4 guardsmen with 3 attacks and a ton of extra benefits via CP, which they have plenty of.
I'll put my challenge back out there:
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).
The problem with insisting on the CP thing here is that GW just isn't pricing stuff around that, mainly because units can be taken in many different kinds of detachments and managing that is clearly not something they care to do. Command Points aren't something GW is making an element of points costs.
More fundamentally, IG work differently from just about every other army in the game, being extreme MSU by nature, and this has always messed with army building structure (requiring platoons in previous editions so that Guard armies could bring more than just 300pts of troops), and changing that would require some sort of platoon solution or creating giant units, something that would require a radical rewrite of the army's construction.
Also, you really need to re-review the IG codex again, a lot of your IG comments in threads like this have errors, the minimum cost for the above would be 260pts, again, as the Priest is not an HQ, you'd need an additional Company Commander to fill out the detachment and be able to issue Orders to all units, and Straken/Priest is 110, not 100.
So while you wont be able to get the CP, you can absolutely get equivalent close combat killing power (or better) for 260pts in other armies. A naked 30man Boyz mob will more than match that CC ability for 210pts.
Except which weapons actually kill more points of guardsmen than anything else in the game?
Normally small arms, massed small arms but you can't bring that to bear since you need to buy expensive AT equipment.
I'd like a weapon on a unit please as even lasguns kill more points of marines than guardsmen.
Marines are one of the few "elite" units that are more vulnerable to small arms than guardsmen. Hence why marines in general suck. Currently even Primaris are more durable per point than guardsmen against lasgun/boltgun
Just some math to prove my point:
Boltgun shooting Primaris and guardsmen (skip shooting and go straight to wounding):
- Primaris: 1*1/2*1/3=1/6 wounds = .17 W = .17*17/2= 1.42 pts lost
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W = 4/9*4 1.77 pts lost
So, a primaris marine is 25% more durable per point against boltguns than a guardsmen. It's not great, but that can be fixed with points. And the truth is that tact marines are way overcosted and guardsmen are undercosted. Iron that out (10 pt marines and 5 pt guard) and boltguns are easily anti-horde.
Doing the math again with 5 pt guard:
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W =4/9*5= 2.22 pts lost, which makes Primaris 50% more durable per point against boltguns. So there you go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kingheff wrote: The way I see it, on a battlefield, put 120 pts up against each other and who wins?
Ten marines, ten dire avengers, thirteen guardians with a scatter laser and thirty guardsmen. I'd say the other three are fairly well balanced, I'd probably say the guardians are the strongest choice of the others but guard easily beat the marines and avengers,the guardians are more of a match, able to use the scatter laser platform to outrange the guard and force them forward, giving the guardians the ability to get the first volley off plus the platform has a 3+ to tank but that's only two wounds.
Marines versus guardians is interesting, If the marines can keep it at 24" they can start to thin out the guardians since the scatter laser doesn't really scare marines much.
With frfsrf against protect if you want to bring in an hq protect is amazing on the platform giving a 2+ but the guard do get a lot of shots, especially within 12" where the guardians need to be, with the caveat that protect isn't guaranteed by any means.
Oh, this is all completely me judging by eye, obviously. I'm too lazy to math it out but if I was a betting man I know where my money's going.
Why did you give the guardians a support weapon but not give the guardsmen heavy weapons? or the marines for that matter? tbh though, marines, dire avengers and guardians are behind the power curve. When kabalites are 6 pts to the guardians 8pt... yeah.
Also, consider that the guardians have 12" guns, meaning that aside from the laser they are outranged. and the laser is only going to kill a couple guardsmen per turn (4*2/3*5/6*2/3= 1.5 kills). At 24" those 30 guardsmen will kill 30*1/2*1/2*2/3= 5 guardians per turn. Oh, and the guardsmen have way more wounds. Oh, and guardsmen can take 2 heavy bolters for the same price as 1 scatter laser. 6*1/2*2/3*5/6=1.66 kills.
I just gave the guardians the scatter laser as a defensive buff, originally I had 15 guardians which for the comparison would have been better I admit.
Regardless, the guard are still way ahead of some of the most iconic troops in the game and not by a small margin.
You’re right. But I can’t see the old platoon system coming back (it was only ever to get around the limitations of the old FOC anyway). The alternative though, forcing them into bigger squads, might work. If the minimum size was 20 models (matching the old two squad minimum of the platoons) and the Max was 50, it might help eleviate the cheap cost and easy CP generating problems of the IG. Maybe.
Kcalehc wrote:As for the Catachan doctrine, making it +1 S in the fight phase immediately after they make a successful charge, and not at other times, might be enough to tone it down some - at least make them less scary to attack, but still somewhat worrying to be charged by.
Not Online!!! wrote:That would be very much prudent. considering World eaters only gives you bonus attacks on a successfull charge, this should most certainly change.
I mostly object to S4 on the grounds that it's odd from a design perspective. Catachans shouldn't rival Marines in strength, or be able to peel open tanks. And there are lots of humans in the game who are supposed to be big, buff dudes, but are S3.
WS3+ says 'I'm still a human, but I'm good at fighting' to me. Then Renegades can have their Mark of Khorne conferring +1S on the charge, and be conceptually distinct.
Not Online!!! wrote:FRFSRF, really just should give 1 additional shot and not impact the rapidfire weapon beyond that.
Oh yeah, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. My point was that even just small tweaks to each of the problematic areas (Infantry cost, Straken cost, Catachan buff, and Marine cost) can combine to significantly address the current imbalance without requiring Marmatag's hyperbolic overreactions. Throw in some tweaks to FRFSRF and MMM and we're good to go.
The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.
Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.
There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.
However it's difficult to price in the inherent value of 'cheap wounds' when the game is lacking effective anti-horde weapons. And by anti-horde weapons I mean weapons that kill cheap infantry like guardsmen far more effectively than elite infantry like marines. These mythical weapons are really rare and barely exist. This problem is further compounded by the fact that because of low amount of total wounds, or high price per wound, the MEQs are particularly weak, the old 'anti-horde' weapons are efficient against them and so are 'anti-tank' weapons, atleast when compared against GEQs. That's why there is inherent value in cheap wounds.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.
Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.
There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.
Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.
Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.
There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.
Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.
Agreed dude.
In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.
Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.
There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.
Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.
Agreed dude.
In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.
No what gw did do is lower the point cost from 7th to 8th
Of kabalites, firewarriors, guardsmen, whilest leaving units like base spacemarines at 13pts.
Not Online!!! wrote: So basically you remove other armies units because the main problem lies with your army?
I'd say that is Envy at top level!
If they seem to be a problem for balanced rules and there isn't much mechanical difference between the units why not. Has nothing to do with envy. Can someone explain to me why vets and scions have to exist as an option in the same codex? Or sternguard and space marine veterans?
Aside from just removing options from the IG book, how does that help Space Marines?
leaves space for design to work their magic. Right now any point changes bring up the argument from IG users that, this or that point shift makes this or that IG unit cost like another IG unit. This way they can never be balanced.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.
Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.
There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.
Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately. Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.
Agreed dude.
In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.
Yep. The price of having a single wound needs to be evaluated.
Just like the price of super heavies should be evaluated.
I find it hilarious that guard players think everything would be fair if the loyal32 would just cost 210 points instead of 180. Sorry, that isn't changing anything. I guess the goal is to remain the best faction in the game by a country mile, rather than achieve true & fair balance.
Not Online!!! wrote: So basically you remove other armies units because the main problem lies with your army?
I'd say that is Envy at top level!
If they seem to be a problem for balanced rules and there isn't much mechanical difference between the units why not. Has nothing to do with envy. Can someone explain to me why vets and scions have to exist as an option in the same codex? Or sternguard and space marine veterans?
Aside from just removing options from the IG book, how does that help Space Marines?
leaves space for design to work their magic. Right now any point changes bring up the argument from IG users that, this or that point shift makes this or that IG unit cost like another IG unit. This way they can never be balanced.
You realise you could just, let's say double all the point costs and then beginn the finetuning.
That would yield better results.
I will however accept you removal idea especially in the case of primaris marines.
Not Online!!! wrote: So basically you remove other armies units because the main problem lies with your army?
I'd say that is Envy at top level!
If they seem to be a problem for balanced rules and there isn't much mechanical difference between the units why not. Has nothing to do with envy. Can someone explain to me why vets and scions have to exist as an option in the same codex? Or sternguard and space marine veterans?
Aside from just removing options from the IG book, how does that help Space Marines?
leaves space for design to work their magic. Right now any point changes bring up the argument from IG users that, this or that point shift makes this or that IG unit cost like another IG unit. This way they can never be balanced.
Traditionally Stormtroopers were basicallly an ELITE choice, and were not a troop choice. In certain armies you could take them as a troop choice but only if you fufilled a certain requirement IE were playing stormtroopers.
Company Veterans were basically for command squads and were an HQ Choice. They would accompany company commanders / captains similar to Command Squads for Guard who also used to be an HQ choice. This was changed for only this edition for some reason.
Sternguard were for a long time the go to for special weapons and had special ammunition..
Veterans for Guardsmen could have a better armor save but weren't stormtroppers they were better than normal on the line guardsmen and concripts and could be taken in squads of ten, and could take more heavy weapons than a normal platoon. They were also a troop choice along with guardsmen, and conscripts.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.
Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.
There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.
Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.
Agreed dude.
In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.
Yep. The price of having a single wound needs to be evaluated.
Just like the price of super heavies should be evaluated.
I find it hilarious that guard players think everything would be fair if the loyal32 would just cost 210 points instead of 180. Sorry, that isn't changing anything. I guess the goal is to remain the best faction in the game by a country mile, rather than achieve true & fair balance.
Again a generalization after you were showen that even a by you dictated challenge got out done.
Just stop it allready.
It didn't get out done, people haven't come up with a fair cost.
90 attacks at strength 4 should cost more than roughly 220 points. You flipped your lid when i said "roughly 220" and it came out to be like 225. Hint, that's roughly 220. Approximate costs are fine when something is so absurdly undercosted.
A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right? except it isn't, because guard melee is broken. Guard shooting is an entirely different thing, which we haven't even really touched on yet. (Hi, commander russ, artillery, etc).
Oh no, we have to add a company commander in the mix. WHERE WILL WE GET THE 30 POINTS TO MAKE A BATTALION? This conversation is clownish. Guard players = the new Eldar players.
You realise you could just, let's say double all the point costs and then beginn the finetuning.
That would yield better results.
I will however accept you removal idea especially in the case of primaris marines.
That would be sophism in rules writing form. If you doble the point costs the differences stay the same And now instead of saying that IG units cost 3,4,5 ,6 pts everyone would be going about how they csot 6,8,10 and 12 pts. There is no mechanical ground for units which should have little difference in rules between them. Want cheap "conscripts" buy 20-40 guardsman withtout weapons. Want vets buy all the hvy weapons, and plasma and upgrades a IG squad can take. Want "normal" IG take 10 with a mortar. And if you want really super elite IG, then here are scions. If someone wants play with actual veteran IG rules they can A house rule it or B play the version of the unit given for open or narrative play.
Karol wrote: Couldn''t GW just remove some units from the normal game. In gaming terms a veteran IG and a noob IG shouldn't matter much, but the options could still exist for narrative games. GW could even give them power levels for those people that want to use them.
Then matched play designers wouldn't have to worry if a IG vet should cost 6.5 or 6,75pts.
We shouldn't have multiple Marine dexes - but we do.
Instead of deleting other armies units Merge the massive unwiedly blob of so so mnay ever so slightly different marine units, just keep actual unique units not the mass of fake ones and balance the remaining units.
Marmatag wrote: It didn't get out done, people haven't come up with a fair cost.
90 attacks at strength 4 should cost more than roughly 220 points. You flipped your lid when i said "roughly 220" and it came out to be like 225. Hint, that's roughly 220. Approximate costs are fine when something is so absurdly undercosted.
A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right? except it isn't, because guard melee is broken. Guard shooting is an entirely different thing, which we haven't even really touched on yet. (Hi, commander russ, artillery, etc).
You did and now you move the goalposts again.
Just to repeat myself since you are also selectivly blind it seems:
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).
Challange accepted:
First: Colonel straken is 75 pts. Ministorum priests are 35 pts.
SUMMA SUMARUM 110 PTS.
Secondly it is a HQ and a elite.
So once again i caught you either lying or you are just ignorant again.
3 squads of IG = 120 pts.
So we are looking for a combination that costs 230 pts.
Chaos can have a full reroll dude for 70 pts.
leaves us with 140 pts.
which are 28 cultists atm.
Give them world eaters, that means they double their Attack value. Give them pistols and brutal assult weapons, they are now at three attacks.
use the double fighting stratagem.
They are now at six attacks.
28 x6 full rerolls. that would be a measly 168 attacks with rerolls.
Equal points.
Recyclable and have basically outflank.
Edit: if charged, you could still employ 28x4 attacks, which would be 112 attacks.
Not to mention that the exalted champion technically can mark an enemy Charachter for death.
You realise you could just, let's say double all the point costs and then beginn the finetuning.
That would yield better results.
I will however accept you removal idea especially in the case of primaris marines.
That would be sophism in rules writing form. If you doble the point costs the differences stay the same And now instead of saying that IG units cost 3,4,5 ,6 pts everyone would be going about how they csot 6,8,10 and 12 pts. There is no mechanical ground for units which should have little difference in rules between them. Want cheap "conscripts" buy 20-40 guardsman withtout weapons. Want vets buy all the hvy weapons, and plasma and upgrades a IG squad can take. Want "normal" IG take 10 with a mortar. And if you want really super elite IG, then here are scions. If someone wants play with actual veteran IG rules they can A house rule it or B play the version of the unit given for open or narrative play.
Except If you actually read the full Text you would realise that i said after the doubling begin the finetuning which would have more effect because the points would be decompresed so you would see potentially a 9 pts guardsmen and a 18pts bog Standard marine in a new 4000pts match wich would replace the 2000 pts Standard.
Secondly it is a HQ and a elite.
So once again i caught you either lying or you are just ignorant again.
Yep. Toss in a 30 point company commander with Kurov's. It's 30 points. 30 fething points. Which you'd be spending anyway. So up it by 30. Who cares? The result remains the same. Go ahead and give chaos 30 more points.
Chaos can have a full reroll dude for 70 pts.
leaves us with 140 pts.
which are 28 cultists atm.
Give them world eaters, that means they double their Attack value. Give them pistols and brutal assult weapons, they are now at three attacks.
use the double fighting stratagem.
They are now at six attacks.
28 x6 full rerolls. that would be a measly 168 attacks with rerolls.
Equal points.
#1. This requires you make a charge. This is not equal.
#2. I assume you're referring to the exalted champion. You can reroll failed wound rolls for units within 6". Only the champion himself can reroll hits.
#3. That leaves them at 2 attacks base, because they've got chainswords.
#4. You're counting pistols as attacks. LOL
#5. Since you're counting pistols let's count FRFSRF in the 260 points of guard. That's a fun 7 attacks per guardsmen.
So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).
Secondly it is a HQ and a elite.
So once again i caught you either lying or you are just ignorant again.
Yep. Toss in a 30 point company commander with Kurov's. It's 30 points. 30 fething points. Which you'd be spending anyway. So up it by 30. Who cares? The result remains the same. Go ahead and give chaos 30 more points.
Chaos can have a full reroll dude for 70 pts.
leaves us with 140 pts.
which are 28 cultists atm.
Give them world eaters, that means they double their Attack value. Give them pistols and brutal assult weapons, they are now at three attacks.
use the double fighting stratagem.
They are now at six attacks.
28 x6 full rerolls. that would be a measly 168 attacks with rerolls.
Equal points.
#1. This requires you make a charge. This is not equal.
#2. I assume you're referring to the exalted champion. You can reroll failed wound rolls for units within 6". Only the champion himself can reroll hits.
#3. That leaves them at 2 attacks base, because they've got chainswords.
#4. You're counting pistols as attacks. LOL
#5. Since you're counting pistols let's count FRFSRF in the 260 points of guard. That's a fun 7 attacks per guardsmen.
So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).
100 = 110 pts now? Ok
Charge requirement easily met via tide of traitors.
I don't count pistol shots,
1 base 1 for brutal assult weapon 1 for WE charge = 3,
Fight again stratagem 3x2 = 6 PURE MELEE ATTACKS.
Soooooo again nonsense statement by you.
Edit if you throw in a company commander i can technically pick additional 6 cultists that would then lead to 34 cultists.
That would add another 36 attacks on a successful charge.
Hint brutal assult weapon is like a chainsword.
Not to mention that you also need a succsessfull charge for your comparison catachan wreking Ball.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.
Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.
There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.
Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.
Agreed dude.
In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.
Yep. The price of having a single wound needs to be evaluated.
Just like the price of super heavies should be evaluated.
I find it hilarious that guard players think everything would be fair if the loyal32 would just cost 210 points instead of 180. Sorry, that isn't changing anything. I guess the goal is to remain the best faction in the game by a country mile, rather than achieve true & fair balance.
I mean, maybe when you can remember what the actual costs and functionality of units in the Guard codex are, the discussion will move better.
You have a remarkable penchant for misrepresenting IG units, from doubling Russ plasma cannon sponson shots, orders functionality, making Battalion comparisons without actually filling the detachment, ignoring support unit costs, presenting cherry picked specialized builds as being universally representative, etc.
People are totally willing to talk about issues with the IG codex, just not when presented with the above scenarios.
Especially when you go around saying Guardsmen should be 7ppm and that IG characters should be tripled in cost.
It didn't get out done, people haven't come up with a fair cost.
90 attacks at strength 4 should cost more than roughly 220 points.
I pointed out the a single mob of Ork Boyz can put out a whole lot more CC hurt for the same price.
You flipped your lid when i said "roughly 220" and it came out to be like 225. Hint, that's roughly 220. Approximate costs are fine when something is so absurdly undercosted.
It's 230, 260 with the required additional Company Commander you forgot.
A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee.
I don't recall seeing a tremendous amount of opposition to improving Space Marine melee...
That sounds fair right? except it isn't, because guard melee is broken.
Oh no, we have to add a company commander in the mix. WHERE WILL WE GET THE 30 POINTS TO MAKE A BATTALION? This conversation is clownish. Guard players = the new Eldar players.
If you're making a comparison and you're points are off by 20% because you can't remember the costs, detachment requirements, and orders coverage you don't get to be mad at other people when they call you out on it.
You have a bad, and consistent, habit of "forgetting" stuff when talking about IG units.
260 vs 220 is a big difference, particularly if we're looking at direct comparisons.
If and IG brigade went up 60 points. It really doesn't change much. Not with the Castellan still being 600ish. It should be between 700 and 800 points. Plus the relics and WL traits ALSO need adjustment.
Xenomancers wrote: If and IG brigade went up 60 points. It really doesn't change much. Not with the Castellan still being 600ish. It should be between 700 and 800 points. Plus the relics and WL traits ALSO need adjustment.
This here would be a solution because it would force the lists to actually either get the bread or the chocolate.
Subsequently also lowering the ammount of AT required and therefore lowering the ammount of ap.
Marmatag wrote: A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right?
What I'm reading is that if your generalist basic infantry, with no other buffs, can't compete in melee on a point-for-point basis against a force using a specific character, named character, doctrine, and formation all explicitly geared towards melee- despite the fact that your basic, unbuffed infantry are better at shooting and more resilient than them even under current points costs- then you feel it's unfair.
You can feel free to address my post on the previous page anytime.
Marmatag wrote: So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).
Meanwhile you base your conclusions on bad data (you don't know where a Priest is on the FOC), unfair assumptions (all these infantry and characters will make it into melee without getting shot!) and flat out lulz (Fix Bayonets = fight twice!).
You ever wonder why even the people who agree that Guard are undercosted aren't clamoring for 7ppm Guardsmen? Especially people that are more familiar with the army than you? And don't constantly complain that their specific army is terrible and the specific one they face most is broken?
Marmatag wrote: A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right?
What I'm reading is that if your generalist basic infantry, with no other buffs, can't compete in melee on a point-for-point basis against a force using a specific character, named character, doctrine, and stratagem all explicitly geared towards melee- despite the fact that you're better at shooting and more resilient than them even under current points costs- then you feel it's unfair.
You can feel free to address my post on the previous page anytime.
Marmatag wrote: So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).
Meanwhile you base your conclusions on bad data (you don't know where a Priest is on the FOC), unfair assumptions (all these infantry and characters will make it into melee without getting shot!) and flat out lulz (Fix Bayonets = fight twice!).
You ever wonder why even the people who agree that Guard are undercosted aren't clamoring for 7ppm Guardsmen? Especially people that are more familiar with the army than you? And don't constantly complain that their specific army is terrible and the specific one they face most is broken?
Nonononononon, catachan surely affects lasguns and makes them shoot harder and stronger, ain't that right Marmatag? /SARCASM
And additionally it is very much more likely that i get into melee with cultists thanks to tide of traitors, then catachan units will in the same way.
I understand that it's the nature of conversations to flow and branch off, but I don't understand why we're having this conversation on IG when the topic is how to make Marines better. Yeah, IG is a stronger army then SM armies and yes Guard infantry is too efficient, but that's 1 piece of the puzzle for MEQs problems. Before IG was making MEQ obsolete it was Eldar, before them it was Tau (circa 6th), etc. For as long as I've been playing 40K (~5th edition) Marines have been by and large underwhelming with a few brief flashes of relevancy in the meta. There isn't just one faction or group of units that's responsible for making them look bad.
No the real main issue is knights which dictate the heavy favoritism torwards AT weaponry in conjunction with the fact that the main counter for knights is a (preferably msu) horde to win via objectives.
Knights feth marines with their weaponry, hordes feth marines with their numbers.
Eldar soulbourst you out.
Conclusion the meta forces elite armies like marines out.
Additionally 7th to 8th edition changed various troop costs (guardsmen, kabalites and firewariors) went down whilest regular space marines stuck at 13ppm.
Bolters lost in essence 1 ap that would also be helpfull.
Space Marines and csm chapter /legion traits don't apply to vehicles.
BlaxicanX wrote: I understand that it's the nature of conversations to flow and branch off, but I don't understand why we're having this conversation on IG when the topic is how to make Marines better. Yeah, IG is a stronger army then SM armies and yes Guard infantry is too efficient, but that's 1 piece of the puzzle for MEQs problems. Before IG was making MEQ obsolete it was Eldar, before them it was Tau (circa 6th), etc. For as long as I've been playing 40K (~5th edition) Marines have been by and large underwhelming with a few brief flashes of relevancy in the meta. There isn't just one faction or group of units that's responsible for making them look bad.
Aye, you could remove IG from the game and Marines would still have the problems they have now, not much would change. Issues of scale, weapons availability, the kinds of units GW is now introducing, etc have all really compressed the value of generalist eliteish single wound infantry.
Thus far, the easy solutions seem to be W2 A2 or cutting costs by 15-25% so that a Tac is 10/11pts. I'm ok with either.
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually i just realised that i completly fudged my math, i would've had 160pts for cultists that would've been 32 cultists in the 230 pts challenge.
That would've been 96 attacks without even the doubling stratagem, with it it would've been 192 attacks for 230 pts.
No the real main issue is knights which dictate the heavy favoritism torwards AT weaponry in conjunction with the fact that the main counter for knights is a (preferably msu) horde to win via objectives.
Knights feth marines with their weaponry, hordes feth marines with their numbers.
Eldar soulbourst you out.
Conclusion the meta forces elite armies like marines out.
Additionally 7th to 8th edition changed various troop costs (guardsmen, kabalites and firewariors) went down whilest regular space marines stuck at 13ppm.
Bolters lost in essence 1 ap that would also be helpfull.
Space Marines and csm chapter /legion traits don't apply to vehicles.
Xenomancers wrote: If and IG brigade went up 60 points. It really doesn't change much. Not with the Castellan still being 600ish. It should be between 700 and 800 points. Plus the relics and WL traits ALSO need adjustment.
This here would be a solution because it would force the lists to actually either get the bread or the chocolate.
Subsequently also lowering the ammount of AT required and therefore lowering the ammount of ap.
Well 60 points isn't much for an IG brigade. IMOCC should be at least 45 and gaurdsmen should be 5 points with 6 point vets. Plus a lot of other infantry going down in price...like gardians/tactical marines/ direavengers/ termigants/ sorry for the have nots that I am not mentioning. Army traits need to be redesigned. They are quite simply way to powerful.
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results.
Let me bite. Vanguard Veteran costs 14 points. Since we cherrypick everything toward melee, let's make them Blood Angels with chainswords. For 260 points, the real cost of IG above, you can field 19 of them, 3 units with 3 sarges. Together, they output, oh, only 79 attacks, with +1 to wound pretty much negating the difference, on faster and more durable unit. And they don't even need to be BA, unlike IG that can do it only with Catachans, SW, DW, or even several other chapters with similar bonuses work just as well.
So, yeah, SM have no way of matching dreaded Catachan boogeyman for the same points, none at all
catbarf wrote: I mostly object to S4 on the grounds that it's odd from a design perspective. Catachans shouldn't rival Marines in strength, or be able to peel open tanks. And there are lots of humans in the game who are supposed to be big, buff dudes, but are S3.
WS3+ says 'I'm still a human, but I'm good at fighting' to me.
You guys realize S4 is lesser bonus than WS3+ and that change would make them better at attacking tanks, not worse?
Why so many people here just rely on gut feelings and don't bother to look at the math for even a second...?
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually i just realised that i completly fudged my math, i would've had 160pts for cultists that would've been 32 cultists in the 230 pts challenge.
That would've been 96 attacks without even the doubling stratagem, with it it would've been 192 attacks for 230 pts.
No the real main issue is knights which dictate the heavy favoritism torwards AT weaponry in conjunction with the fact that the main counter for knights is a (preferably msu) horde to win via objectives.
Knights feth marines with their weaponry, hordes feth marines with their numbers.
Eldar soulbourst you out.
Conclusion the meta forces elite armies like marines out.
Additionally 7th to 8th edition changed various troop costs (guardsmen, kabalites and firewariors) went down whilest regular space marines stuck at 13ppm.
Bolters lost in essence 1 ap that would also be helpfull.
Space Marines and csm chapter /legion traits don't apply to vehicles.
Psy, especially sm is not really great.
Basically this.
The issue isn't even that unique, other "durability elite" armies face the same issues. Necrons f.e.
The scale escalation and the further compression has done nothing for marines.
It also does not help that gullliman or abbadon exist since they singlehandedly dictate the price for special and heavy weapons in the army.
Csm still stands better overall thanks to cultists but if we are really honest about CSM lists they mostly base themselves on daemon princes Ahirman or whoever atm is the top Psyker and spam smite. The one or the other bloodletter bomb and that's it.
AL legion got nerfed into the ground consequently taking the berzerker build with it.
As for the legions /chapters the internal balance is so over the place that it is nearly funny again. Compare that with many other dexes, there isn't nearly as much discrepancy between subfaction traits.
Marmatag wrote: A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right?
What I'm reading is that if your generalist basic infantry, with no other buffs, can't compete in melee on a point-for-point basis against a force using a specific character, named character, doctrine, and formation all explicitly geared towards melee- despite the fact that your basic, unbuffed infantry are better at shooting and more resilient than them even under current points costs- then you feel it's unfair.
You can feel free to address my post on the previous page anytime.
Marmatag wrote: So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).
Meanwhile you base your conclusions on bad data (you don't know where a Priest is on the FOC), unfair assumptions (all these infantry and characters will make it into melee without getting shot!) and flat out lulz (Fix Bayonets = fight twice!).
You ever wonder why even the people who agree that Guard are undercosted aren't clamoring for 7ppm Guardsmen? Especially people that are more familiar with the army than you? And don't constantly complain that their specific army is terrible and the specific one they face most is broken?
Just going to point out that IG infantry are so obviously undercosted that to argue against it - it basically makes you a troll.
Xenomancers wrote: If and IG brigade went up 60 points. It really doesn't change much. Not with the Castellan still being 600ish. It should be between 700 and 800 points. Plus the relics and WL traits ALSO need adjustment.
This here would be a solution because it would force the lists to actually either get the bread or the chocolate.
Subsequently also lowering the ammount of AT required and therefore lowering the ammount of ap.
Well 60 points isn't much for an IG brigade. IMOCC should be at least 45 and gaurdsmen should be 5 points with 6 point vets. Plus a lot of other infantry going down in price...like gardians/tactical marines/ direavengers/ termigants/ sorry for the have nots that I am not mentioning. Army traits need to be redesigned. They are quite simply way to powerful.
Honestly 40pts is fine for a cc.
Maybee we would also see psykers again picked then but anyways that is hairsplitting.
Conscripts could also go back to 3 ppm in this scenario.
I am not sure about the gants though because of how synapses work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah I ran some numbers, and ten tactical marines at 13pts each can slightly outperform 20 guardsmen FRFSRFing (120pts of IG) if they have:
2 wounds each
Rapid Fire 2, Rend -1 boltguns
2 attacks apiece
However, this doesn’t take into account faction abilities, stratagems etc. They do complicate things.
Honestly traits are just everywhere and mostly make or break a codex.
Ravenguard and AL got nerfed. IG just has solid traits.
Sm and csm traits don't affect half the codex and are in cases of word Bearers f.e. Useless as feth.
7 point infantry squads makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness of small arms fire versus Guardsmen compared to other factions.
I have said in the past that 7ppm assumes everything else stays fixed. You could easily drop marines points and have guardsmen only see a small increase, and achieve the same effect.
And, to repeat: all infantry should be reviewed. It's not healthy for the game to see it - in general - so cheap. Guardsmen are just the most glaring example, but you have other factions that are too cheap for what they are, as well. Such as Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, etc. It isn't just guard, but guard are the biggest offender.
Relative scale is a big reason why marines are bad.
I'm also on board with a fixed CP reward with penalties that Xenomancers created, or a system where CP are rewarded based on points spent in a detachment, up to a point. So it doesn't hurt marines that they spend 500 points to create a basic battalion, whereas guard can get it done for 180. You could still have the cheap guard battalion, but you'd get less CP than someone who spends 500 points filling out his battalion. It also damages "mono" armies less (although, such things do not exist in 8th).
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results.
Let me bite. Vanguard Veteran costs 14 points. Since we cherrypick everything toward melee, let's make them Blood Angels with chainswords. For 260 points, the real cost of IG above, you can field 19 of them, 3 units with 3 sarges. Together, they output, oh, only 79 attacks, with +1 to wound pretty much negating the difference, on faster and more durable unit. And they don't even need to be BA, unlike IG that can do it only with Catachans, SW, DW, or even several other chapters with similar bonuses work just as well.
So, yeah, SM have no way of matching dreaded Catachan boogeyman for the same points, none at all
catbarf wrote: I mostly object to S4 on the grounds that it's odd from a design perspective. Catachans shouldn't rival Marines in strength, or be able to peel open tanks. And there are lots of humans in the game who are supposed to be big, buff dudes, but are S3.
WS3+ says 'I'm still a human, but I'm good at fighting' to me.
You guys realize S4 is lesser bonus than WS3+ and that change would make them better at attacking tanks, not worse?
Why so many people here just rely on gut feelings and don't bother to look at the math for even a second...?
LOL okay - try it sometime. Try to win games with BAVV with chainswords. Keep in mind - you have practically no shooting. Lets also keep in mind that - those aren't troops - you aren't getting CP for it. Plus you can't possibly get a brigade out of that army in a reasonable fashion ether. Guardsmen are a complete package. Range Damage/CC damage/CP/Durability + mobility. Just stop arguing about it. It is indisputable. What is your motivation here?
Just going to point out that IG infantry are so obviously undercosted that to argue against it - it basically makes you a troll.
Such generalization will not help.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: 7 point infantry squads makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness of small arms fire versus Guardsmen compared to other factions.
I have said in the past that 7ppm assumes everything else stays fixed. You could easily drop marines points and have guardsmen only see a small increase, and achieve the same effect.
And, to repeat: all infantry should be reviewed. It's not healthy for the game to see it - in general - so cheap. Guardsmen are just the most glaring example, but you have other factions that are too cheap for what they are, as well. Such as Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, etc. It isn't just guard, but guard are the biggest offender.
Relative scale is a big reason why marines are bad.
I'm also on board with a fixed CP reward with penalties that Xenomancers created, or a system where CP are rewarded based on points spent in a detachment, up to a point. So it doesn't hurt marines that they spend 500 points to create a basic battalion, whereas guard can get it done for 180. You could still have the cheap guard battalion, but you'd get less CP than someone who spends 500 points filling out his battalion. It also damages "mono" armies less (although, such things do not exist in 8th).
Orks are offenders now? 7ppm boyz that got preemptivly pricehiked because of "da jump" which made the whole codex a one trick Pony?
Nuts.
Edit: the cp changes would however be good but then a lot, and I mean A LOT, of stratagems would need to be looked at.
catbarf wrote: I mostly object to S4 on the grounds that it's odd from a design perspective. Catachans shouldn't rival Marines in strength, or be able to peel open tanks. And there are lots of humans in the game who are supposed to be big, buff dudes, but are S3.
WS3+ says 'I'm still a human, but I'm good at fighting' to me.
You guys realize S4 is lesser bonus than WS3+ and that change would make them better at attacking tanks, not worse?
Why so many people here just rely on gut feelings and don't bother to look at the math for even a second...?
You mind explaining that one?
WS4+ S4 vs T7/T8 is 4+ hit, 5+ wound = 0.166 ave wounds.
WS3+ S3 vs T7/T8 is 3+ hit, 6+ wound = 0.11 ave wounds.
It's 2/3 as effective as having S4.
Furthermore, while WS3+ versus WS4+ is a consistent 33% increase in hits, the difference between S3 and S4 against T4 is a 50% increase in wounds. WS3+ S3 is less effective against T4 than WS4+ S4.
Just going to point out that IG infantry are so obviously undercosted that to argue against it - it basically makes you a troll.
Such generalization will not help.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: 7 point infantry squads makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness of small arms fire versus Guardsmen compared to other factions.
I have said in the past that 7ppm assumes everything else stays fixed. You could easily drop marines points and have guardsmen only see a small increase, and achieve the same effect.
And, to repeat: all infantry should be reviewed. It's not healthy for the game to see it - in general - so cheap. Guardsmen are just the most glaring example, but you have other factions that are too cheap for what they are, as well. Such as Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, etc. It isn't just guard, but guard are the biggest offender.
Relative scale is a big reason why marines are bad.
I'm also on board with a fixed CP reward with penalties that Xenomancers created, or a system where CP are rewarded based on points spent in a detachment, up to a point. So it doesn't hurt marines that they spend 500 points to create a basic battalion, whereas guard can get it done for 180. You could still have the cheap guard battalion, but you'd get less CP than someone who spends 500 points filling out his battalion. It also damages "mono" armies less (although, such things do not exist in 8th).
Orks are offenders now? 7ppm boyz that got preemptivly pricehiked because of "da jump" which made the whole codex a one trick Pony? Nuts.
Edit: the cp changes would however be good but then a lot, and I mean A LOT, of stratagems would need to be looked at.
Stop looking for a fight. Orks are one of the top factions in the game right now, and Boyz are the backbone of any Ork list.
And maybe Orks don't need to change. Again, all cheap infantry needs to be looked at.
And you should consider taking some time off of the forums. My goodness.
Xenomancers wrote:Just going to point out that IG infantry are so obviously undercosted that to argue against it - it basically makes you a troll.
In nearly every post I've made discussing Guard balance, I've said IG infantry are undercosted. I've also said Straken is undercosted, FRFSRF and MMM are too powerful, and the Catachan trait is too good. I suggested fixes in a couple of posts on the last page. They're right there.
And you're calling me a troll. Read the thread or get out.
Marmatag wrote:7 point infantry squads makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness of small arms fire versus Guardsmen compared to other factions.
Same price as Fire Warriors, worse gun, worse save, no advantages. Sure. Relative effectiveness.
Maybe when a Tau player shows up in your meta we'll start hearing about how Fire Warriors need to be 13pts because 'it makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness'.
Stop looking for a fight. Orks are one of the top factions in the game right now, and Boyz are the backbone of any Ork list.
Nope, cp is the backbone of Orks thanks to "da jump".
Cp is generated by gretchin atm.
Ork boyz are merely one of the better targets to throw in your opponents face.
Also stating facts or calling you out for incorrect /non -factual
Statements is not lying.
What if we re-evaluated the price on orders? What if we did some sort of analysis of how much an order is worth, and costed commanders appropriately?
What if you made any effort to engage the posts where I've explained this?
Marmatag wrote: and don't scale nearly as well as Guardsmen do.
Literally meaningless. There is no number of models on the table where unbuffed Guard infantry start outperforming an equivalent number of Fire Warriors.
Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)
With guardsmen not being the major issue but they are easily fixed with a point increase and switching around their organization and troop choices. (moving veterans back to troop choices, storm troopers to elite choices) requiring a regular guardsmen squad be a platoon at most... etc.
Space marines also as I've said previously have terrible rules and a points problem. Combat Squad is useless and will remain useless because no one wants a full space marine squad as it is far too expensive. But this is because of this editions stretch towards forcing players to have more detachments to have more CP generated. Because of that bigger squads are bad because they don't generate as much CP as they should. CP should be tied to points per a detachment or group. HQ, TROOPS, etc. It would punish certain horde armies but reward others. If your running 3 detachments and it only costs in total 690pts then that is an obvious oversight on the designers part.
Asherian Command wrote: Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)
With guardsmen not being the major issue but they are easily fixed with a point increase and switching around their organization and troop choices. (moving veterans back to troop choices, storm troopers to elite choices) requiring a regular guardsmen squad be a platoon at most... etc.
Space marines also as I've said previously have terrible rules and a points problem. Combat Squad is useless and will remain useless because no one wants a full space marine squad as it is far too expensive. But this is because of this editions stretch towards forcing players to have more detachments to have more CP generated. Because of that bigger squads are bad because they don't generate as much CP as they should. CP should be tied to points per a detachment or group. HQ, TROOPS, etc. It would punish certain horde armies but reward others. If your running 3 detachments and it only costs in total 690pts then that is an obvious oversight on the designers part.
Correct, except knights don't abuse the mechanics but rather break the meta via relic, rotate and the cp battery to Fund the shenanigans.
Then there are outliers like the smashcaptain that just ignore whole mechanics via relic. (No overwatch? Why?!?)
Csm just use the x ammount of dp' varations to go around the rule of three.
Any army that can't do atleast something of these is not top bracket.
Asherian Command wrote: Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)
Honestly not seeing that much lately, to be frank.
Top 5 lists from LCO, one of the premiere ITC events in the UK, saw lists either built with barely 8 CP, or revolved entirely around their troop choices being valuable contributors on the table.
If you're taking cheap detachments to spam CP, you're using a crutch to cover your poor play.
Marmatag wrote: and don't scale nearly as well as Guardsmen do.
Literally meaningless. There is no number of models on the table where unbuffed Guard infantry start outperforming an equivalent number of Fire Warriors.
Their might not be a number of model for model where unbuffed guard beat firewarriors, but their is a points cost which is 4ppm.
Adding officer's just makes it more one sided.
Marmatag wrote: and don't scale nearly as well as Guardsmen do.
Literally meaningless. There is no number of models on the table where unbuffed Guard infantry start outperforming an equivalent number of Fire Warriors.
Their might not be a number of model for model where unbuffed guard beat firewarriors, but their is a points cost which is 4ppm.
Adding officer's just makes it more one sided.
I think you missed the fact that this is a response to the first guy saying infantry squads should be costed at 7 points like firewarriors, wich is ridiculous.
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results.
Let me bite. Vanguard Veteran costs 14 points. Since we cherrypick everything toward melee, let's make them Blood Angels with chainswords. For 260 points, the real cost of IG above, you can field 19 of them, 3 units with 3 sarges. Together, they output, oh, only 79 attacks, with +1 to wound pretty much negating the difference, on faster and more durable unit. And they don't even need to be BA, unlike IG that can do it only with Catachans, SW, DW, or even several other chapters with similar bonuses work just as well.
So, yeah, SM have no way of matching dreaded Catachan boogeyman for the same points, none at all
Catachans are Troops, more durable, take up more space and get to actually shoot while matching a Blood Angels CC specialist in melee. How is this in your favour again?
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results.
Let me bite. Vanguard Veteran costs 14 points. Since we cherrypick everything toward melee, let's make them Blood Angels with chainswords. For 260 points, the real cost of IG above, you can field 19 of them, 3 units with 3 sarges. Together, they output, oh, only 79 attacks, with +1 to wound pretty much negating the difference, on faster and more durable unit. And they don't even need to be BA, unlike IG that can do it only with Catachans, SW, DW, or even several other chapters with similar bonuses work just as well.
So, yeah, SM have no way of matching dreaded Catachan boogeyman for the same points, none at all
Catachans are Troops, more durable, take up more space and get to actually shoot while matching a Blood Angels CC specialist in melee. How is this in your favour again?
Since that was never spcified and only the points were to be regarded.
Secondly there were allready other builds that showed clearly that the challange is easy to break, even with troops that recently got nerfed cough cultists cough.
As for durability that is an very debatable statement and depedns wholly on what it is opposing.
Asherian Command wrote: Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)
With guardsmen not being the major issue but they are easily fixed with a point increase and switching around their organization and troop choices. (moving veterans back to troop choices, storm troopers to elite choices) requiring a regular guardsmen squad be a platoon at most... etc.
Space marines also as I've said previously have terrible rules and a points problem. Combat Squad is useless and will remain useless because no one wants a full space marine squad as it is far too expensive. But this is because of this editions stretch towards forcing players to have more detachments to have more CP generated. Because of that bigger squads are bad because they don't generate as much CP as they should. CP should be tied to points per a detachment or group. HQ, TROOPS, etc. It would punish certain horde armies but reward others. If your running 3 detachments and it only costs in total 690pts then that is an obvious oversight on the designers part.
An alternative would be to not have CPs generated from detachments at all.
Maybe each army starts with 3 (maybe losing 1 for each allied detachment), and then gets 2 per turn, +1 if their warlord is alive. Something like that. The idea is that you have a few CPs each turn - not a big pool that further encourages alpha-strikes.
I'd also alter the cost of stratagems so that, insofar as it's possible, they reflect the cost of the unit they're intended to buff. e.g. if a Stratagem that gives +1 to hit to a ~100pt unit costs 1CP, then a Stratagem that gives the same benefit to a ~500pt Knight should cost 5CPs.
This is just a rough outline, but hopefully you get the idea.
Incidentally, I'd also cut down on the number of Stratagems - especially in cases where they're basically substituted for wargear. I'd just have artefacts and similar wargear cost points, rather than CPs.
Asherian Command wrote: Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)
With guardsmen not being the major issue but they are easily fixed with a point increase and switching around their organization and troop choices. (moving veterans back to troop choices, storm troopers to elite choices) requiring a regular guardsmen squad be a platoon at most... etc.
Space marines also as I've said previously have terrible rules and a points problem. Combat Squad is useless and will remain useless because no one wants a full space marine squad as it is far too expensive. But this is because of this editions stretch towards forcing players to have more detachments to have more CP generated. Because of that bigger squads are bad because they don't generate as much CP as they should. CP should be tied to points per a detachment or group. HQ, TROOPS, etc. It would punish certain horde armies but reward others. If your running 3 detachments and it only costs in total 690pts then that is an obvious oversight on the designers part.
An alternative would be to not have CPs generated from detachments at all.
Maybe each army starts with 3 (maybe losing 1 for each allied detachment), and then gets 2 per turn, +1 if their warlord is alive. Something like that. The idea is that you have a few CPs each turn - not a big pool that further encourages alpha-strikes.
I'd also alter the cost of stratagems so that, insofar as it's possible, they reflect the cost of the unit they're intended to buff. e.g. if a Stratagem that gives +1 to hit to a ~100pt unit costs 1CP, then a Stratagem that gives the same benefit to a ~500pt Knight should cost 5CPs.
This is just a rough outline, but hopefully you get the idea.
Incidentally, I'd also cut down on the number of Stratagems - especially in cases where they're basically substituted for wargear. I'd just have artefacts and similar wargear cost points, rather than CPs.
I like the concept of spamming troops in order to get more CPs, I've always hated those lists with no troops at all. I also like the idea of "tax" units to get more CPs. Armies like orks desperately want 6-10 CPs per turn as many of their units are clearly costed with stratagems buffs in mind so I wouldn't even consider just 2 CPs allowed per turn. Some stratagems also cost 3 or even 4 CPs alone...
I'd just go with factions locking for CPs. A detachment generates CPs that can only be invested on units of the same factions. So no loyal 32 to have +5CPs as those CPs would be limited to AM units. I mean no allies just for disposing of more CPs, if you want the loyal 32 it's because the fact they can be a decent screen, not because they're 5 CPs for dirt cheap. To me soups are a plague and I'd ban them completely, but I can settle with faction locked CPs as it would solve some issues at least.
Maybe each army starts with 3 (maybe losing 1 for each allied detachment), and then gets 2 per turn, +1 if their warlord is alive. Something like that. The idea is that you have a few CPs each turn - not a big pool that further encourages alpha-strikes.
I'd also alter the cost of stratagems so that, insofar as it's possible, they reflect the cost of the unit they're intended to buff. e.g. if a Stratagem that gives +1 to hit to a ~100pt unit costs 1CP, then a Stratagem that gives the same benefit to a ~500pt Knight should cost 5CPs.
This is something that could be very intersting but in my opinion alot of stratagems would then need a rework.
Additionally certain stratagems should've never been stratagems in the first place, looking at AAmissiles , Grenadiers upgrade, Ard Boyz, f.e.
These should've been options for Units as seperate upgrade or should've been included in the wepaon itself or buyable.
A missile launcher still is 20 ppm for Marines, there is nothing speaking against the AA missile as a regular ammo type.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the concept of spamming troops in order to get more CPs, I've always hated those lists with no troops at all. I also like the idea of "tax" units to get more CPs. Armies like orks desperately want 6-10 CPs per turn as many of their units are clearly costed with stratagems buffs in mind so I wouldn't even consider just 2 CPs allowed per turn. Some stratagems also cost 3 or even 4 CPs alone...
I'd just go with factions locking for CPs. A detachment generates CPs that can only be invested on units of the same factions. So no loyal 32 to have +5CPs as those CPs would be limited to AM units. I mean no allies just for disposing of more CPs, if you want the loyal 32 it's because the fact they can be a decent screen, not because they're 5 CPs for dirt cheap. To me soups are a plague and I'd ban them completely, but I can settle with faction locked CPs as it would solve some issues at least.
So long soup is making GW money and gives you a reason to buy that giant knight centerpiece that you can imunise via CP, so long GW will do nothing about CP.
CP locking would in my opinion indeed serve purpose but GW won't do it and dosen't want to do it.
My idea on sharing CP between detachments from different codices, is doubling the CP required to use codex-specific stratagems.
For example, using Rotate Ion Shield in mixed list with IG and IK would cost 6 CP when used by a knight-castellan in the said list.
Universal stratagems such as command re-roll are not affected.
While the penalty is harsh, it does not entirely forbid "borrowing" CP from cheaper Battalion/Brigade in the mixed list.
Hopefully it will make players use the important stratagem in critical moment, instead of spamming it every turn.
But these are just my two cents, so feel free to criticise.
What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.
Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results.
Let me bite. Vanguard Veteran costs 14 points. Since we cherrypick everything toward melee, let's make them Blood Angels with chainswords. For 260 points, the real cost of IG above, you can field 19 of them, 3 units with 3 sarges. Together, they output, oh, only 79 attacks, with +1 to wound pretty much negating the difference, on faster and more durable unit. And they don't even need to be BA, unlike IG that can do it only with Catachans, SW, DW, or even several other chapters with similar bonuses work just as well.
So, yeah, SM have no way of matching dreaded Catachan boogeyman for the same points, none at all
Catachans are Troops, more durable, take up more space and get to actually shoot while matching a Blood Angels CC specialist in melee. How is this in your favour again?
Since that was never spcified and only the points were to be regarded.
Secondly there were allready other builds that showed clearly that the challange is easy to break, even with troops that recently got nerfed cough cultists cough.
As for durability that is an very debatable statement and depedns wholly on what it is opposing.
I would have assumed that everyone would realise that looking at just one part of a unit's performance was an exercise in futility. Even accounting for that lack in Marmatag's argument Guardsmen are absurd.
Catachan are still better than the Cultist example because they don't have to give up their shooting. Catachans can come near dedicated melee units like BA double Chainsword Vets and still retain their shooting (not to mention mobility from M^3).
Against what are the Catachan Guardsmen less durable than Veterans for their points?
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: My idea on sharing CP between detachments from different codices, is doubling the CP required to use codex-specific stratagems.
For example, using Rotate Ion Shield in mixed list with IG and IK would cost 6 CP when used by a knight-castellan in the said list.
Universal stratagems such as command re-roll are not affected.
While the penalty is harsh, it does not entirely forbid "borrowing" CP from cheaper Battalion/Brigade in the mixed list.
Hopefully it will make players use the important stratagem in critical moment, instead of spamming it every turn.
But these are just my two cents, so feel free to criticise.
I like it, it also doesn't punish the weird micro factions for the most part, while really giving min-max intra codex an actual cost.
I would probably make gelerpox,starstiders etc exemptions from that as they are more narative focused anyways, so if they get a smallish incidental nerf in matched play rules it's not like they are meta anyway.
I would have assumed that everyone would realise that looking at just one part of a unit's performance was an exercise in futility. Even accounting for that lack in Marmatag's argument Guardsmen are absurd.
Catachan are still better than the Cultist example because they don't have to give up their shooting. Catachans can come near dedicated melee units like BA double Chainsword Vets and still retain their shooting (not to mention mobility from M^3).
Against what are the Catachan Guardsmen less durable than Veterans for their points?
I made a specific melee argument with the cultists, ofcourse i could've also added a VotLW Slaaneshy combo with a Chaos lord behind it. Infact this case would be even more onesided. Also the sentence went more like
"HURR DURR 3 S4 ATTACKS FOR 200 pts"
Which simply put was shown that the statement is and was wrong. And is easily outdoable. Infact cultists are also troops so you could go and basically also easily form a Battalion, which you will since CSM sorcerers, DP's and lords are some of the only things left that makes it into competitive.
As for marines, against s3 weaponry. 3 Guardsmen (catachan brand or any non still sitting Cadians) one of the more common Weapon types.
MOVE^3 also does not allow you to shoot or declare a charge....
Seriously Read the Codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: My idea on sharing CP between detachments from different codices, is doubling the CP required to use codex-specific stratagems. For example, using Rotate Ion Shield in mixed list with IG and IK would cost 6 CP when used by a knight-castellan in the said list. Universal stratagems such as command re-roll are not affected.
While the penalty is harsh, it does not entirely forbid "borrowing" CP from cheaper Battalion/Brigade in the mixed list. Hopefully it will make players use the important stratagem in critical moment, instead of spamming it every turn.
But these are just my two cents, so feel free to criticise.
Well it certainly would lead to the preference of Brigades above battalions for CP shenanigans, but that would be more investment. So actually it would limit the CP eaters /heavy lifters.
M^3 still gives you much better mobility than Cultists walking across the board at the speed of foot. Not once did I even imply charging after using it. And yes, you can Warptime Cultists, but it's not automatic, you're not using it on something better, and the price difference between a Company Commander and a Sorcerer almost buys you another Infantry Squad. Further, the fact that you can make Slaanesh Cultists have good shooting output is irrelevant, because the entire point I was making was that the Catachan guardsmen can do both at once. The Slaanesh Cultists are nowhere near the melee output of Catachan Guardsmen, just like World Eater Cultists can't match their shooting.
I'll concede the point on durability. The Guardsmen still suffer a lot less from AP weaponry though, and are still nearly as tough as the Marines against S3 fire (8 hits per 12 points of guardsman as opposed to 9 hits per 13 points of Marine).
I'm entirely in agreement that just looking at the melee attacks is futile (although I'll note that I can't even get that many using Vanguard Veterans), which is why I'm expanding on the flawed argument to point out that even when you take a wider context into account Catachan Guardsmen backed by Straken are ridiculous.
S3 is also one of the most common weapon types because Guardsmen are everywhere. They and Cultists are the two primary sources of S3 attacks in the game.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: M^3 still gives you much better mobility than Cultists walking across the board at the speed of foot. Not once did I even imply charging after using it. And yes, you can Warptime Cultists, but it's not automatic, you're not using it on something better, and the price difference between a Company Commander and a Sorcerer almost buys you another Infantry Squad. Further, the fact that you can make Slaanesh Cultists have good shooting output is irrelevant, because the entire point I was making was that the Catachan guardsmen can do both at once. The Slaanesh Cultists are nowhere near the melee output of Catachan Guardsmen, just like World Eater Cultists can't match their shooting.
I'll concede the point on durability. The Guardsmen still suffer a lot less from AP weaponry though, and are still nearly as tough as the Marines against S3 fire (8 hits per 12 points of guardsman as opposed to 9 hits per 13 points of Marine).
I'm entirely in agreement that just looking at the melee attacks is futile (although I'll note that I can't even get that many using Vanguard Veterans), which is why I'm expanding on the flawed argument to point out that even when you take a wider context into account Catachan Guardsmen backed by Straken are ridiculous.
S3 is also one of the most common weapon types because Guardsmen are everywhere. They and Cultists are the two primary sources of S3 attacks in the game.
I allready answered the Chare range mobility problem, READ, TIDE OF TRAITORS EXISTS.--> and in any match you will since it gives you a point advantage, a mobility advantage and puts you into range for either Charging or shooting something to gak.
Secondly: Nobody on here is saying Straken especially isn't underpriced, because he is atleast worth 100 pts. Not 75, but that is not the issue, the issue is the insistence that is completely moronical that M^3 also does allow shooting, which it dosen't, because this makes the IG squads severly lacking in flexibility, yes you double your movement of 6" to 12 " plus a d6 but that's it, that squad ain't doing anything anymore. Tide of traitors on the otherhand, recycles and teleports.
S3 is indeed everywhere because CSM soup aswell as Imperial Soup require CP to function. The cheapest possible way to do so is to add in the respective battalion, in case of Chaos you can even use the good charachters you wanted to field anyways.
And belive me i am also fully in there to say that Guardsmen again should be 5 ppm, mainly because it makes zero sense in the scale that they are 4 whilest the objectively worse unit thanks to the SV is 5.
Edit: this is also the reason because i think a 3ppm pricedrop on any oldmarine model would be helpfull.
For chaos now you would have a serious choice: 10 HP and the capability to throw a blob, or 5 HP but better overall durability.--> both choices would equally well fill Detachments and now we are capable of actually considering base marines.
Secondly it would also be inline with the lowering of all the guardsmen, Cabalites and Firewarriors, which each dropped by 25%.
The real kicker is that CP still would be generated by these and are still generated by these options and they won't go away so long Knights /CSM / BA get their insane stratagem and free of debuff CP batteries.
Issues like Gulliman and Abbadon forcing the price up on any special weapon are in the face of these just drops on hot stones.
Stop looking for a fight. Orks are one of the top factions in the game right now, and Boyz are the backbone of any Ork list.
Nope, cp is the backbone of Orks thanks to "da jump".
Cp is generated by gretchin atm.
Ork boyz are merely one of the better targets to throw in your opponents face.
Also stating facts or calling you out for incorrect /non -factual
Statements is not lying.
uhhh....it is a fact that ork boys are backbone in ork lists if you are talking about competitive orks. It's kind of like saying that the Castellan is the backbone of an imperial soup list. Because it is.
Stop looking for a fight. Orks are one of the top factions in the game right now, and Boyz are the backbone of any Ork list.
Nope, cp is the backbone of Orks thanks to "da jump".
Cp is generated by gretchin atm.
Ork boyz are merely one of the better targets to throw in your opponents face.
Also stating facts or calling you out for incorrect /non -factual
Statements is not lying.
uhhh....it is a fact that ork boys are backbone in ork lists if you are talking about competitive orks. It's kind of like saying that the Castellan is the backbone of an imperial soup list. Because it is.
Not entirely true. Competitive orks lists have 1-3 mobs of boyz tipycally and countless gretchins. That's 210-650ish points of boyz. Many lists only have a single blob of 30 since boyz are excellent as a distraction to throw in the opponent's face by deep strike, as they are 31W divided into 30 bodies that cost 210-223 points, otherwise they're not worthy in a top tier list. Truth is gretchins do absolutely nothing in terms of damage and ork players don't have many options, so boyz are taken even if they're not that great. It's also a fact that not everyone owns 100+ gretchins.
Usually there are more units of gretchins on the table than boyz ones, tipycally at least 2x the units of boyz, probably even more. 6x10 gretchins is the minimum required to play a green tide.
Not entirely true. Competitive orks lists have 1-3 mobs of boyz tipycally and countless gretchins. That's 210-650ish points of boyz. Many lists only have a single blob of 30 since boyz are excellent as a distraction to throw in the opponent's face by deep strike, as they are 31W divided into 30 bodies that cost 210-223 points, otherwise they're not worthy in a top tier list. Truth is gretchins do absolutely nothing in terms of damage and ork players don't have many options, so boyz are taken even if they're not that great. It's also a fact that not everyone owns 100+ gretchins.
Usually there are more units of gretchins on the table than boyz ones, tipycally at least 2x the units of boyz, probably even more. 6x10 gretchins is the minimum required to play a green tide.
Tide of Traitors is once per game and much less flexible than M^3. Further, the assumption that you're always going to use it is flawed; there are instances when more Cultists would achieve nothing (or at least not be worth the 2 CP). More points is not worth it if the opportunity cost of using the Stratagem is too high.
Back on topic somewhat, let all Marines with Chainswords or equivalent weapons (Reivers etc) fight twice (not stacking, so no double Chainswords for 3 fights per phase) and add one base A to non-Scout models. Fixes the anemic melee output without making people gnash and wail about Ironclad Dreadnoughts or Hammernators being playable. Would still require a rebalancing of Chapter Tactics and wouldn't fix shooting, but would somewhat compensate for the loss of Sweeping Advance and the loss of a bunch of attacks on non-Chainsword models.
Stop looking for a fight. Orks are one of the top factions in the game right now, and Boyz are the backbone of any Ork list.
Nope, cp is the backbone of Orks thanks to "da jump".
Cp is generated by gretchin atm.
Ork boyz are merely one of the better targets to throw in your opponents face.
Also stating facts or calling you out for incorrect /non -factual
Statements is not lying.
uhhh....it is a fact that ork boys are backbone in ork lists if you are talking about competitive orks. It's kind of like saying that the Castellan is the backbone of an imperial soup list. Because it is.
Not entirely true. Competitive orks lists have 1-3 mobs of boyz tipycally and countless gretchins. That's 210-650ish points of boyz. Many lists only have a single blob of 30 since boyz are excellent as a distraction to throw in the opponent's face by deep strike, as they are 31W divided into 30 bodies that cost 210-223 points, otherwise they're not worthy in a top tier list. Truth is gretchins do absolutely nothing in terms of damage and ork players don't have many options, so boyz are taken even if they're not that great. It's also a fact that not everyone owns 100+ gretchins.
Usually there are more units of gretchins on the table than boyz ones, tipycally at least 2x the units of boyz, probably even more. 6x10 gretchins is the minimum required to play a green tide.
If you aren't taking 90 boys you seriously aren't trying to win. 1 ork boy unit is fething useless.
If you aren't taking 90 boys you seriously aren't trying to win. 1 ork boy unit is fething useless.
Mind that boyz are mostly there only to soak firepower as they aren't that killy. Still a purely melee unit that requires deep strike to actually kill something and can be easly countered by scouts equivalents and screeners. If you really want to win just bring 18 Smasha gunz, 25 lootas and 180 gretchins. You'd still have hundreds of points to complete the list spamming weirdboyz and other HQs.
They aren;t that killing compering to the best killer units in the game. And even that is because catachans buffed up are kind of a crazy. To marines for the points they cost, and the units marine players do run. The prospect of 90+ boys, and 2-3 units of lootaz, and other stuff is downright scary. For elite melee armies they are death incarante. they can shot better then your, they can score better then your, they can out melee you if they want or they can tar pit you. Sure they maybe won't melee an army of DE or eldar, becaus half their stuff flies sometimes. But the foot print of an orc army alone is huge. Plus outside of casual games they can play the clock.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Guardsmen still suffer a lot less from AP weaponry though, and are still nearly as tough as the Marines against S3 fire (8 hits per 12 points of guardsman as opposed to 9 hits per 13 points of Marine).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: which is why I'm expanding on the flawed argument to point out that even when you take a wider context into account Catachan Guardsmen backed by Straken are ridiculous.
9 hits per 12 points of Guardsman, actually. But the thing is, as soon as we're throwing characters like Straken into the equation, it's no longer 9 hits per 12 points of Guardsmen. You can have Guardsmen who are point-for-point more powerful and more durable than their peers, or you can have Guardsmen who are super-powered melee monsters, but you can't have both.
In the example for Marmatag (CC, Straken, Priest, 3 squads), there's a 140pt 'tail' to that 120pts of roided-up supermen. For that 260pt sum, you can get 20 Tactical Marines. Compared to 30 Guardsmen, 20 Marines are twice as hard to kill with S3 fire in the open, and three times harder to kill in cover, while having three-quarters the anti-Marine firepower and two-thirds the anti-Guard firepower compared to FRFSRF. In a shootout, the Marines will win even with nobody in cover and the Guardsmen FRFSRFing and Straken overcharging his plasma pistol to help. And these are Tactical Marines with bolters we're talking about, the basic infantry that are recognized as being underpowered for their points, and the primary subject of the thread.
The price of dumping a bunch of points into characters to supercharge T3/5+ flashlight-armed units is that they're still T3/5+ flashlight-armed units, and now you have half as many of them. This is what I think is unfair about many of the comparisons in this thread and others- 'naked Guardsmen with no support' and 'Guardsmen with more than their points in support characters' might as well be two different units, and you can't fairly assess the abilities of the latter according to the cost of the former (eg Marmatag's hysterical '6 S4 attacks for 4ppm!!!'). Since it keeps getting ignored, I'll stress again that I still think Guardsmen should be 5ppm and Straken should be 100pts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Marines, others made a good case for the fundamental problem with power armor being the preponderance of units that make the difference between power armor and t-shirts irrelevant. But I don't think it's just the prevalence of high-S, high-AP attacks from titanic units. Artillery, tank guns, flamers, and titanic army-killers all should be better at killing densely-packed hordes than small units of specialists, but the loss of a blast mechanic has killed that ability. As well, the fact that the new AP system means you actually get to use a 5+ or 6+ save makes those units tougher than they used to be. It's just not Marines that have lost out, but elite infantry in general.
I think a small cost drop to Marines (12pts) combined with an implementation of some sort of change to blast weapons would go a long ways towards making Marines, and elite infantry in general, more useful. As for changing blast weapons, I can see it going one of two ways, or both:
-Making horde infantry more vulnerable, and/or
-Making elite infantry less vulnerable
Given that hordes are a little too effective, and elites a little too ineffective, I'd think both would be the best approach. Something like giving blast weapons bonus hits depending upon the size of the target unit, but limiting the number of hits based on the number of models, might do it.
The problem there is that Marines are supposed to operate in 10-man squads, the same as Guard, they just have a lot fewer of them. I don't like templates as a mechanic, but as far as gameplay effects they did a good job of making board density more important than unit size. I don't have a good resolution for that.
The Marines have to pay for HQs as well though. I'd certainly love the ability to take Helbrecht and have him turn everything into Khorne Berzerkers, but I can't. You're taking HQs regardless because you have to; is Straken's extra cost over a Commander not worth it?
Will elaborate more later, getting off my train now so can't post for a bit.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're taking HQs regardless because you have to; is Straken's extra cost over a Commander not worth it?
Straken is more expensive than a CC by more than the cost of a squad. You sacrifice a squad for the sake of his melee buff, with a corresponding reduction in both firepower and durability.
A Priest isn't an HQ. It's an Elite. It costs almost as much as a squad. Taking Straken and a Priest over just a CC is sacrificing exactly two squads. In the example of the Straken battalion- Straken, CC, Priest, three squads- you can replace Straken and the Priest with another CC and then afford another two squads. That's a 60% increase in durability, and a 50% increase in firepower (not quite enough orders for all of them), at the cost of having 63% the melee ability. There's a trade-off.
In any case: HQs aren't free, even if they're mandatory. You still have to pay points for them, and everything is supposed to pull its weight for the points. If Marine HQs are a straight tax, then that's something that needs to be addressed as well.
