Bharring wrote:
Compare them to other similarly costed models?

DAs are in the same price range at 1W. Half the durability to small arms. Twice the firepower (compared to naked tacs) on hard targets. They aren't amazing, but are good at what they do.

Necron Warriors are in the same price range at 1W. Super durable, but super inflexible. Do they really have no place to be?

Scioons are 1W infantry that wouldn't be terrible at 13ppm.

Zerkers are 1W infantry.

The points:wounds is certainly fixable.

I largely disagree in a game with kabalites and guardsmen.

The only 1 W infantry meq-priced I can think of that I fear are dark reapers, who have insane weapons, and a rule that negates the single most effective shooting protection.

I don't consider scions meq-priced. In fact, scions take all the best parts, keep them, and then throw away all the useless rules.

Necron warriors have been dropped from my meta completely in favor of immortals and destroyer spam.

Zerkers are the closest thing on your list to reasonable, and then only by virtue of a VERY powerful special rule that the loyalists don't have access to. Again, you are having to hand out a very potent upgrade to make them remotely competitive.

" there HAS to be a trade off for the durability"

Does there? When that "durability" is easily negating by many cheap Xeno options?

Also, being tied to cover is incredibly dumb for a "shock troop" or a model that wants to get into CQC with most of the troops in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, why did you change the price on the kabalite and guardsmen? That's not what we should be looking at, because we should aim to change as few units as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, try 11 pt marines with 4 pt guardsmen and 6 pt kabalites. I voted for 11 in the poll.

Martel732 wrote:


" there HAS to be a trade off for the durability"

Does there? When that "durability" is easily negating by many cheap Xeno options?

If you go dropping points you can't keep dropping them until their ranged effectiveness is equivalent otherwise you make them absurdly durable.

Case in point. A 10 point marine with a bolter STILL is not as effective a shooter as a 6 point Kabalite. It's just more durable. You can't make marines both more durable and more shooty without wrecking the scale.

Also, being tied to cover is incredibly dumb for a "shock troop" or a model that wants to get into CQC with most of the troops in the game.

Yes, I very much agree, but it is an advantage that cannot be ignored.

Also, why did you change the price on the kabalite and guardsmen? That's not what we should be looking at, because we should aim to change as few units as possible.

Why is that sacred? Wouldn't change more things in smaller increments make for a more durable balance than a wide swing on a single unit?

Based on that math - a 1 point change for two units is about the same result as a 3 point change for one.

It's only "sacred" because it avoids nerfs (psychologically useful) and it doesn't look like GW is going to increase guardsmen ever.

" You can't make marines both more durable and more shooty without wrecking the scale. "

Fair enough, but I don't think the idea of taking Xeno alphas to the face and then shooting spitwads back is going to work out.

Lemondish wrote:

Bremon wrote:
Basically every army I play against has better basic troops than me (per point and for weapon options) and doubling the amount of specials or heavies I can take in a troop squad doesn’t swing the tides massively the other way.

I disagree that the tac marine should be considered 'the' space marine basic troop squad. It is certainly 'a' troop choice - but not the only one. Scouts are simply way better. Is there a reason why we consider tactical marines the only troop choice here?

We’ve had 7 editions of the tactical marine being the base unit the game is built and promoted around by Games Workshop, and one edition where it shares that distinction with a unit that GW was too scared to outright replace it with. Scouts being way better is a symptom of the garbage game balance GW is building with 13 ppm tacs. If we had 7 editions of ugly little monkey Scout models being replicated at 7 feet tall in GW stores is be more inclined to use them as a starting point in this thread. If the fluff was built around Chapters having 440ish scouts as the backbone of the chapter and most Companies I’d be more inclined to use them as a starting point in this thread.

Scouts are not that exciting when other factions are getting 4+ save units MUCH cheaper. Like.. firewarriors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bremon wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Bremon wrote:
Basically every army I play against has better basic troops than me (per point and for weapon options) and doubling the amount of specials or heavies I can take in a troop squad doesn’t swing the tides massively the other way.

I disagree that the tac marine should be considered 'the' space marine basic troop squad. It is certainly 'a' troop choice - but not the only one. Scouts are simply way better. Is there a reason why we consider tactical marines the only troop choice here?

We’ve had 7 editions of the tactical marine being the base unit the game is built and promoted around by Games Workshop, and one edition where it shares that distinction with a unit that GW was too scared to outright replace it with. Scouts being way better is a symptom of the garbage game balance GW is building with 13 ppm tacs. If we had 7 editions of ugly little monkey Scout models being replicated at 7 feet tall in GW stores is be more inclined to use them as a starting point in this thread. If the fluff was built around Chapters having 440ish scouts as the backbone of the chapter and most Companies I’d be more inclined to use them as a starting point in this thread.

Ironically, we complained about this a lot in 2nd ed, and it was largely fixed in 3rd. But then, the creep started again and we are back to 2nd ed status for tac marines, even though they are 17 pts cheaper than in 2nd!

Martel732 wrote:
Scouts are not that exciting when other factions are getting 4+ save units MUCH cheaper. Like.. firewarriors.

Today I learned that -1 str, -2 ws, -1 T, and -1BS were worth less than two points.

That does of course mean that Strength 4, WS2+ guardsmen with T4 and BS3+ should be less than 6 points. After all, those stat increases aren't worth 2 points.

Isn't saying Scouts are bad because Fire Warriors get a 4+ cheaper a lot like saying Dire Avengers are bad because Marines get a transport cheaper?

No. Not at all. I didn't say they were bad. I said they weren't exciting. Cheaper is usually better in 8th ed, and scouts are NOT cheap. Especially for 4+ armor. Sorry your aspect warriors got hosed too, but "elite infantry" doesn't work well in 8th. I'm frankly disappointed every time I bring scouts.

Even though guardsmen and kabalites are underpriced, there need to be as few changed rules as possible, and nudging points around for those two or three units is picayune.

The worst thing about changing points for marines, guard, and DE together is reconfiguring lists. If you were going to make DIY rules, the best way to do it is to assume it’s a tournament pack for a super local RTT, one time only. To say nothing of it being harder to change three factions than just one, it’s better to change no factions’ points, since the point is to get buy in from players with as little effort as possible, just bringing their normal TAC or tournament lists.

But then do you bring Marines up to their level and hose Scouts, Sisters, etc? Or do you keep Marines on par with Scouts/Sisters/DAs/etc?

Sisters wouldn't be hosed. They are fantastic at 9 ppm.

Sm should be elite. Very few of them should be awesome and they are not this. They cost too much I think. Should have one wound more and one point more T.

The worst thing about changing points for marines, guard, and DE together is reconfiguring lists. If you were going to make DIY rules, the best way to do it is to assume it’s a tournament pack for a super local RTT, one time only. To say nothing of it being harder to change three factions than just one, it’s better to change no factions’ points, since the point is to get buy-in from players with as little effort as possible, just bringing their normal TAC or tournament lists.

Elite infantry doesn’t work as a concept. Pricing for guard infantry and kabalites is only a small part of that problem.

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters wouldn't be hosed. They are fantastic at 9 ppm.

I'm calling it now. Sisters are gonna drop to 8 ppm

A) to sell more of them

B) to race to the bottom

Quit bumming me out! It's bad enough already!

Alex_85 wrote:
Sm should be elite. Very few of them should be awesome and they are not this. They cost too much I think. Should have one wound more and one point more T.

Anyone can tell that this doesn’t make them elite.

pelicaniforce wrote:
The worst thing about changing points for marines, guard, and DE together is reconfiguring lists. If you were going to make DIY rules, the best way to do it is to assume it’s a tournament pack for a super local RTT, one time only. To say nothing of it being harder to change three factions than just one, it’s better to change no factions’ points, since the point is to get buy-in from players with as little effort as possible, just bringing their normal TAC or tournament lists.

Elite infantry doesn’t work as a concept. Pricing for guard infantry and kabalites is only a small part of that problem.

I will say that Elite infantry does have a place in objective heavy games. And that is worth something. Force Concentration is actually a good thing to have from a tactical standpoint, although it is difficult to put a value on it. The general idea is that you can focus 500 points of Marines on the battlefield in a far lower total area than 500 points of say, Guardsmen or Orcs. Because of the logistics and size of their squads the Marines in theory are able to launch devastating assaults where they are able to pit a higher percentage of their army against their opponent, say 1000 points v 700 points or so. Even though they are outnumbered in a perfect situation they should be able to do that. Durability is also important when it comes to objectives. It can be difficult to sift 100 points of Marines in cover on an objective, This plays into force concentration because you normally will only be able to fit so many of your guardsmen on an objective, and it is relatively easier to blow the offending squad off of it.

don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Marines are in a good place right now, and I'm not saying they are fairly priced for what they are capable of, but to say that there is no real benefits to durability and everything should just be measured in wounds + firepower isn't quite accurate. In a game where armies are fighting over objectives being able to leverage greater durability can be a huge advantage. Marine's biggest problem is that they pay too many points for their durability and the current meta where most anti elite infantry tech is also the best anti vehicle tech, nearly every army they face is loaded to the gills with hard counters to Marines.

If they were T5 2 wounds for 13 points they would be very elite. Probably too good at that point level BUT they still wouldn't be shyte to the likes of shining spears which would still 1 shot them and wound them on 3's - with 6's taking away most their save on their 4 shot shurikens - taking dix for damage from their bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 akaean wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
The worst thing about changing points for marines, guard, and DE together is reconfiguring lists. If you were going to make DIY rules, the best way to do it is to assume it’s a tournament pack for a super local RTT, one time only. To say nothing of it being harder to change three factions than just one, it’s better to change no factions’ points, since the point is to get buy-in from players with as little effort as possible, just bringing their normal TAC or tournament lists.

Elite infantry doesn’t work as a concept. Pricing for guard infantry and kabalites is only a small part of that problem.

I will say that Elite infantry does have a place in objective heavy games. And that is worth something. Force Concentration is actually a good thing to have from a tactical standpoint, although it is difficult to put a value on it. The general idea is that you can focus 500 points of Marines on the battlefield in a far lower total area than 500 points of say, Guardsmen or Orcs. Because of the logistics and size of their squads the Marines in theory are able to launch devastating assaults where they are able to pit a higher percentage of their army against their opponent, say 1000 points v 700 points or so. Even though they are outnumbered in a perfect situation they should be able to do that. Durability is also important when it comes to objectives. It can be difficult to sift 100 points of Marines in cover on an objective, This plays into force concentration because you normally will only be able to fit so many of your guardsmen on an objective, and it is relatively easier to blow the offending squad off of it.

don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Marines are in a good place right now, and I'm not saying they are fairly priced for what they are capable of, but to say that there is no real benefits to durability and everything should just be measured in wounds + firepower isn't quite accurate. In a game where armies are fighting over objectives being able to leverage greater durability can be a huge advantage. Marine's biggest problem is that they pay too many points for their durability and the current meta where most anti elite infantry tech is also the best anti vehicle tech, nearly every army they face is loaded to the gills with hard counters to Marines.

It's all about durability for cost - too many weapons remove their armor and wound them on 3's for it really to be considered difficult to remove. It is much harder to remove hordes with lots of wounds - ESP if they have invo saves or FNP or a 5+ base save in cover.

8 Tac marines in cover on an objective... you can easily have 2 squads of 13 cultists for that. One gets obliterated, the other moves into the objective. Or one giant unit where you take casualties from the outside and never get close to the 3” objective radius as the attacking unit. Not apply that to all the fearless type horde troops out there and the problem is worse. 8 Tac marines aren’t holding on to anything the enemy doesn’t feel comfortable letting you hold onto.

Leveraging your superior stats point for point only works if you have multiple attacks, which Tac marines don’t, and how are you getting into CC with that many points in the first place? Best case scenario you kill a chaff unit, consolidate into another, next turn they fall back (or are content to have your crappy MEQ locked up) and shoot a ton of other stuff.

Hordes attack a list's ability to generate X number of effective shots. Elite infantry can be handled with both number of shots and quality of shots. That's a problem.

Yes, gotta get around that somehow.

This is a problem for all expensive infantry, scouts and dire avengers on up. Seems like custodes get around it only slightly, even with lots of wounds and shields.

Custodes, while initially successful, have had difficultly in full length games lately it seems.

Martel732 wrote:
Hordes attack a list's ability to generate X number of effective shots. Elite infantry can be handled with both number of shots and quality of shots. That's a problem.

Yep - vunerability to every weapon type in the game is precisely marines issue - how do you fix this? You lower their points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Custodes, while initially successful, have had difficultly in full length games lately it seems.

I have no trouble against custodes with casual nids lists I play against them. Oh you have melle beasts? Me too! The game is kinda fun like this actually.

Martel732 wrote:
Hordes attack a list's ability to generate X number of effective shots. Elite infantry can be handled with both number of shots and quality of shots. That's a problem.

It comes a lot from the focus on averages by people in these discussions as well. The above discussion about it taking 20 Guardsman to on average remove 1 marine in cover, and 2 Marines to remove 1 guardsman in cover. Both are true. However the marines can at most kill 4 models, those 20 guardsman can kill 40 models. Due to how math functions hordes are much more likely to be statistically average in their results because you roll more. If we look at equal points of marines and guardsman (3 Marines vs 10 Guardsman). ON average out of cover those 3 marines kill 1.78 Guardsman(7.12 points). Those guardsman kill 1.11 marines (14.4 points). Not only are the guardsman more resilient to marine fire than the opposite they are more damaging. Someone above said their needs to be a trade off and I agree, no unit should be both better offensively and defensively for its points. Throw in that with dice falling the guard way that 1.11 can turn to 7, something which can never happen on the marine side.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Yes, gotta get around that somehow.

This is a problem for all expensive infantry, scouts and dire avengers on up. Seems like custodes get around it only slightly, even with lots of wounds and shields.

custodes get around by being vunerable to practically nothing - they cost a lot per model though - so individual save rolls become very important and often swing things north or south. They also have a very OP banner which gives them -1 to hit bubble. I mean...if eldar had that it would be GFG.

hence why I argued for increase in wounds, and attacks. Doing that makes marines much less susceptible to small arms fire. Primaris already show this, they are just a bit high in cost to be truely great.

I don't play SM but what I gather from this thread is that the problem lies mainly with the Tactical marine having no role in the game. What if the tactical marine gained an additional special rule?

For example, inspired by DoW 2:
When your opponent is declaring one of your non-tactical Marine squads as a target of one of their units in the shooting phase, you can choose one of your Tactical Marine squads in 6" to the target unit. Your opponent has to shoot at the tactical Marines instead. The tactical Marine squad also gains +1 to cover against this attack.

Bremon wrote:
8 Tac marines in cover on an objective... you can easily have 2 squads of 13 cultists for that. One gets obliterated, the other moves into the objective. Or one giant unit where you take casualties from the outside and never get close to the 3” objective radius as the attacking unit. Not apply that to all the fearless type horde troops out there and the problem is worse. 8 Tac marines aren’t holding on to anything the enemy doesn’t feel comfortable letting you hold onto.

Leveraging your superior stats point for point only works if you have multiple attacks, which Tac marines don’t, and how are you getting into CC with that many points in the first place? Best case scenario you kill a chaff unit, consolidate into another, next turn they fall back (or are content to have your crappy MEQ locked up) and shoot a ton of other stuff.

Hypothetical

44 bolter shots, 22 on each cultist unit means both will be likely gone after morale.
On the other hand that means 5 marines die (not in cover) and you'll very likely still be around.

Those cultists will be harder to get all perched in cover and those marines are almost guaranteed to be on objective.

That's a fair point, but once you start taking fire from -AP weapons, the cultists become far, far more valuable. And -AP stuff is EVERYWHERE.

Martel732 wrote:
That's a fair point, but once you start taking fire from -AP weapons, the cultists become far, far more valuable. And -AP stuff is EVERYWHERE.

Sure. Cultists laugh at disintegrators. But that's more a criticism of cheap weapons rather than cheap bodies.

I think it's fine for armies to have stand-out specialized weapons like the HBC. Not everything needs to be "the same". But the disintegrators cross the line a little too far. Especially when it's not limited to one per model like the HBC.

If AP is already too abundant, than why would you entertain giving AP to more units (Boltguns/boltpistols) as a potential balancing factor?

Seems like a bad idea to me.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't play SM but what I gather from this thread is that the problem lies mainly with the Tactical marine having no role in the game. What if the tactical marine gained an additional special rule?

For example, inspired by DoW 2:
When your opponent is declaring one of your non-tactical Marine squads as a target of one of their units in the shooting phase, you can choose one of your Tactical Marine squads in 6" to the target unit. Your opponent has to shoot at the tactical Marines instead. The tactical Marine squad also gains +1 to cover against this attack.

That would be a cool stratagem. You could replace it with the absolutely worthless stratagem to split a 10 man marine unit into 2 5 mans when the unit literally starts with an equally worthless ability to combat squad at the start of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
If AP is already too abundant, than why would you entertain giving AP to more units (Boltguns/boltpistols) as a potential balancing factor?

Seems like a bad idea to me.

I'd go a step further - remove invo saves entirely and nerf ap by 1 on every weapon or go even further and have ap only affect certain types of models...like say - mechanical/biological/psionic....wait...I think I've seen this somewhere before. The problem with this game is there are too many perfect weapons. Like disintigrators and battle cannons - they are so good at killing everything you don't need to take anything else.

In the current system, the more rules you can ignore defensively, the more effective you are.

Having 1 wound is better than paying for 2 wounds, since you get to ignore the extra damage of weapons with 2+ damage.

Having no armor save or an invul save is better than paying for a good armor save, since you aren't effected as much by enemy AP.

Having FNP is good, because nothing the enemy weapon does can negate it. Reanimation protocols is similar as well.

T3 is better than paying for T4, because a lot of weapons test it the same as T4 (S5, S8+, poison, mortal wounds, etc) and being easier to wound in the first place reduces the effectiveness of enemies having to wound modifiers.

The scale for how much GW thinks defensive stats are worth is fundamentally flawed.

Bharring wrote:
If AP is already too abundant, than why would you entertain giving AP to more units (Boltguns/boltpistols) as a potential balancing factor?

Seems like a bad idea to me.

I didn't suggest that.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I would think Astartes of all stripes should have a rule giving -1AP to their bolt weapons to account for training, heavier caliber, etc.

Yes please. I would love my -3 AP bolters back (rubrics).

jcd386 wrote:
In the current system, the more rules you can ignore defensively, the more effective you are.

Having 1 wound is better than paying for 2 wounds, since you get to ignore the extra damage of weapons with 2+ damage.

Having no armor save or an invul save is better than paying for a good armor save, since you aren't effected as much by enemy AP.

Having FNP is good, because nothing the enemy weapon does can negate it. Reanimation protocols is similar as well.

T3 is better than paying for T4, because a lot of weapons test it the same as T4 (S5, S8+, poison, mortal wounds, etc) and being easier to wound in the first place reduces the effectiveness of enemies having to wound modifiers.

The scale for how much GW thinks defensive stats are worth is fundamentally flawed.

This is only true if you pay a premium for those things. 2 wounds is objectively better than 1, it is when 1 wounds costs way fewer points. 2 wound marines at 15 points would be better than 1 wound at 13. What makes what you describe as best best is that it comes super cheap. What you describe is GW over valuing those stats/ the difference in stats. The spot GW needs to find is where models that are meant to be tough against small arms fire to be significantly better per point than chaff models, but less efficient against weapons designed to deal with them. Right now this isn’t the case.

Breng77 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
In the current system, the more rules you can ignore defensively, the more effective you are.

Having 1 wound is better than paying for 2 wounds, since you get to ignore the extra damage of weapons with 2+ damage.

Having no armor save or an invul save is better than paying for a good armor save, since you aren't effected as much by enemy AP.

Having FNP is good, because nothing the enemy weapon does can negate it. Reanimation protocols is similar as well.

T3 is better than paying for T4, because a lot of weapons test it the same as T4 (S5, S8+, poison, mortal wounds, etc) and being easier to wound in the first place reduces the effectiveness of enemies having to wound modifiers.

The scale for how much GW thinks defensive stats are worth is fundamentally flawed.

This is only true if you pay a premium for those things. 2 wounds is objectively better than 1, it is when 1 wounds costs way fewer points. 2 wound marines at 15 points would be better than 1 wound at 13. What makes what you describe as best best is that it comes super cheap. What you describe is GW over valuing those stats/ the difference in stats. The spot GW needs to find is where models that are meant to be tough against small arms fire to be significantly better per point than chaff models, but less efficient against weapons designed to deal with them. Right now this isn’t the case.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I am saying. In the current system and points values, the things I said are generally true. 2 wounds is only better than one if the price you pay for it is worth the durability it gives you. Same for toughness, armor save, etc. And right now I'd say they aren't worth the price.

Part of the problem may also be that there are so many high volume, AP1 or better, D2+ weapons out there, or some combination thereof, that it just isn't typically worth it to invest points in durable units unless they have a 4++ or better invul save, FNP, or both, or if you have one or two ways to get -1 to hit, since that straight up reduces the ability of all enemy weapons no matter what stats they have. Otherwise your units are just going to die. You can say S5+ are heavy weapons, but when it's all I see any unit in most good armies running, I'm not sure that matters.

 akaean wrote:
I will say that Elite infantry does have a place in objective heavy games. And that is worth something. Force Concentration is actually a good thing to have from a tactical standpoint, although it is difficult to put a value on it.

This is a good point. I think here the crowding of a 40k table compared to say 2nd edition makes it worth a lot less though. Somewhere where Marines get to show this off well is the old Epic game.

Space Marine armies do extremely well as there is a lot of space on the table, armies can deploy in a variety of ways and Marines can concentrate forces in a way say the Imperial Guard can't. Here is a couple of successful lists written as their 40k equivalents (quite easy given how Epic formations are picked).

Steel Legion
Regimental commander
2 company commanders
3 Command squads
18 infantry squads with autocannon
Sniper special weapons squad
6 rough rider squads
8 Storm trooper squads
4 valkries
7 Chimera transports
5 Hydra
3 Basilisks
2 deathstrikes
1 Shadowsword
1 Warhound
4 Thunderbolt fighters

~200 guys and a bunch of horses
40 Stormtroopers
21 vehicles
1 super heavy
1 scout titan
4 aircraft (valkries aren't fast enough in Epic and are essentially super skimmers)

These guys would be sweating buckets going up against

Codex Marines
Strike Cruiser (it is only in the game for 1 turn, bombards pre picked cordinates and can drop pod in troops that you decide to load whilst setting up, costs the same as 4 squads of scouts)
2 Thunderhawks
4 five man squads of Terminators
Terminator Chaplain
4 five man squads of scouts
2 10 man squads of assualt marines with jump packs
5 attack bikes (bikes with sidecars armed with heavy bolters)
1 Dreadnought (missile launcher and twin lascannon)
2 10 man Devestator sqads with missile launchers
3 10 man Tactical squads with missile launchers
Chapter master
1 Hunter AA tank
2 Razorbacks (twin lascannon)
7 Rhino (can be replaced with drop pods while setting up if you want to drop in)
2 Warhounds
2 Thunderbolts

20 Terminators
20 Scouts
70 Marines
10 Vehicles, 5 attack bikes
2 Scout titans
2 Super heavies
2 Aircraft
1 Space support

Some people prefer 4 predators to the warhound.

I did mention how much more valuable force concentration becomes on tables with good terrain and a large size (giving the example of 12x8).

I do acknowledge that people don't play that way though.

4 X 6 tables with good terrain will still have a good number of firing lanes. That's just way it has to be. There is no terrain-based solution to marines getting shot to pieces, because they need LoS just like the enemy.

Martel732 wrote:
4 X 6 tables with good terrain will still have a good number of firing lanes. That's just way it has to be. There is no terrain-based solution to marines getting shot to pieces, because they need LoS just like the enemy.

The idea is that when you have certain firing lanes, the horde army can't cram as many guns into them as the elite army, because the elite army takes up less space. So while it may be 20 marines vs 60 guardsmen in cost, if they're fighting in an alleyway or some hypothetical firing lane, 40 of the guardsmen won't be able to participate because they can't physically fit, reducing the parameters of the engagement to 20 vs 20, which the space marines handily win. The guard, can, of course, replenish their losses by moving models into the gaps made by the Marine's shooting, but they will never be able (in theory) to reach the critical mass where they absolutely and unquestionably outclass the space marines, instead slowly feeding models into a losing battle.

That's theoretically possible until you factor in all the ignore LoS stuff the IG has. While guardsmen theoretically have higher damage output per point than marines, their real job is to be physical barriers to the big guns. The lasguns are just icing on the cake. I've never lost a match because the guardsmen actually outshot marines. It was decided by mortars, wyverns, basilisks, manticores, and battlecannons.

This is why I hate only comparing marines to other troops. Marines true failings are only clear when armies are viewed holistically. The inefficiencies of the tac marine get pumped down to every unit based around the tac marine. This is why ASM are universally reviled; they are just tac marine with jump packs. A tac marine equivalent has to fill every role in a marine list: heavy support, elite, fast attack etc.

So while marines might be okay against enemy troops under certain circumstances, they cannot match the specialization power that other lists bring to bear.

Martel732 wrote:
That's theoretically possible until you factor in all the ignore LoS stuff the IG has. While guardsmen theoretically have higher damage output per point than marines, their real job is to be physical barriers to the big guns. The lasguns are just icing on the cake. I've never lost a match because the guardsmen actually outshot marines. It was decided by mortars, wyverns, basilisks, manticores, and battlecannons.

This is why I hate only comparing marines to other troops. Marines true failings are only clear when armies are viewed holistically. The inefficiencies of the tac marine get pumped down to every unit based around the tac marine. This is why ASM are universally reviled; they are just tac marine with jump packs. A tac marine equivalent has to fill every role in a marine list: heavy support, elite, fast attack etc.

So while marines might be okay against enemy troops under certain circumstances, they cannot match the specialization power that other lists bring to bear.

So the problem isn't "tac marines are worse than Guardsmen" its that "Devastators are worse than Heavy Weapon Squads?" Because I'd argue that heavy weapon squads are so bad you don't see them anymore, hardly.

Devastators are worse than heavy weapon platforms available in other codices in general. Part of this is that marines pay too much to be marines, and the other part is that marines pay too much for their heavy weapons. Heavy weapon squads have nothing to do with it. I didn't even mention them. I guess mortars can come on heavy weapon squads, but they can come in every infantry squad, too.

Martel732 wrote:
Devastators are worse than heavy weapon platforms available in other codices in general. Heavy weapon squads have nothing to do with it. I didn't even mention them. I guess mortars can come on heavy weapon squads, but they can come in every infantry squad, too.

Well, I am trying to clarify what you mean by "heavy weapon platforms" because I'm afraid you're trying to compare Devastators to Basilisks, or Ravagers, or Mek Gunz, or something, which they're clearly not. Of course the tactical marine with a single heavy weapon won't measure up to a main battle tank.

I'd argue that most man-portable heavy weapons teams are actually worse than devastators, barring the obvious Dark Reaper.

I mean on a per point basis, not model for model basis. I'm always talking point for point, not model for model.

I'm not limiting my comparison to man portable weapons. There's no reason to do that. My opponent is not limited by my selections. But marine vehicles suck too, so it's choose your way to suck with heavy weapons for marines.

I'm just illustrating how the inefficiency of the tac marine gets propagated through the whole codex.

Martel732 wrote:
I mean on a per point basis, not model for model basis. I'm always talking point for point, not model for model.

I'm not limiting my comparison to man portable weapons. There's no reason to do that. My opponent is not limited by my selections. But marine vehicles suck too, so it's choose your way to suck with heavy weapons for marines.

I'm just illustrating how the inefficiency of the tac marine gets propagated through the whole codex.

The problem with doing a per-point basis rather than a per-model basis is that, in theory, the terrain should allow a per-model conflict to evolve (and the Marine player should be doing everything they can to force this situation).

And you should absolutely compare like-for-like. Devastators aren't Predators, and a Lascannon Predator kills tanks better than any Leman Russ, slightly edging out the Leman Russ Annihilator. This topic has been done to death.

The "inefficiency" of the tac marine comes from an inability for marine players to do either or both of the following:
1) Ensure the table is set up in such a way that space taken up by horde armies is a detriment. The space that a warm body (as it were) takes up can and should be a detriment, because force concentration should be what horde armies struggle with.

2) Ensure that every conflict becomes a 1v1 or 1v2 fight. 20 Marines can hit 20 Guardsman easy, and spar with 40 fairly reliably. They can't deal with 60, but 60 models takes up almost 60 square inches of board space, so if you're letting that happen, either you goofed tactically or the table is wrong.

I disagree. Point for point ends up being far more relevant in most situations.

There's no reason to compare like to like. We can agree to disagree on that.

I've already described how marines can never actually get a local advantage on IG.

As was mentioned the idea of force concentration fails when non-Los shooting exists with no penalty. Marines cannot force a situation where they have the mathematical advantage when terrain does not matter. Personally I wish all shooting required LOS. Barring that weapons that ignore LOS should either be -1 to hit when they lack LOS, or have a minimum range giving them blindspots, and those blind spots should be significant. Barring something like that the idea of model to model comparison fall apart because there is no way to force that interaction.

Or make all ignore LoS weaponry whirlwind effectiveness.

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Point for point ends up being far more relevant in most situations.

There's no reason to compare like to like. We can agree to disagree on that.

I've already described how marines can never actually get a local advantage on IG.

Point for point is only relevant for situations where neither side is using tactics. The whole point of a wargame is that it's not a computer simulation - you can't just load up the lists, feed them into a computer that lines them up across the table from each other, does some die-roll adjudication, and prints out the results. 2000 points of marines fits in a different space than 2000 points of Guard, and should, in theory and with proper terrain, be able to cut off portions of the Imperial Guard army from participating in the fight, making it difficult for the IG to bring their firepower to bear meaningfully.

I will concede that in certain army builds that include indirect fire (which is probably a lot of competitive builds), this is much harder to do (damn near impossible in the case of indirect fire exclusively). But those army builds have weaknesses to other builds in competitive settings if they bring more than 2 or 3 artillery pieces, and only 2 or 3 pieces is tolerable. So the meta rolls on.

Nah that never really works because like everything else a tank with worse armor, worse BS etc ends up cheaper despite those stats not making as much of a difference when you can hide.

It's almost like IG players know that this COULD be an issue and take steps to minimize it. Again, no one cares if some lasguns are out of LoS. They aren't doing the heavy lifting.

I'm glad you conceded that artillery lines exist, as that's almost every IG list I play against Because IG artillery is stupid effective.

Point for point is always relevant, because both sides can use tactics, and are mathematically limited by their point for point capabilities.

I get what your getting at but with 4k of models plus objectives on a 6x4 table. The terrain rules suck so hard and the normal level of terrain doesn't have enough impact on the game to allow the sort of match ups your describing to actually happen, even when they do it's usually countered by either NLOS firepower with full table range or flying units swooping in.

Just to clarify the play still your describing is how I play tau, but they have better mobility and firepower concentration than marines have and even then it takes skill to pull off properly with 8th edition's sucky terrain rules.

Also, scion drops don't care about your marine tactics. A bunch of expensive stuff is getting melted by plasma.

Point for point tacticals & CSM should shoot twice with bolt guns.

That would make them competitive with newer codexes.

Breng77 wrote:As was mentioned the idea of force concentration fails when non-Los shooting exists with no penalty. Marines cannot force a situation where they have the mathematical advantage when terrain does not matter. Personally I wish all shooting required LOS. Barring that weapons that ignore LOS should either be -1 to hit when they lack LOS, or have a minimum range giving them blindspots, and those blind spots should be significant. Barring something like that the idea of model to model comparison fall apart because there is no way to force that interaction.

Ignore LOS weapons have some pretty glaring weaknesses to certain army builds which will ensure that people probably won't take more than 3, possibly 4 pieces.

Martel732 wrote:Or make all ignore LoS weaponry whirlwind effectiveness.

I know you disagree, but I actually think Whirlwinds are pretty awesome artillery, in general. It's 100-115 points of goodness.

The only type of adjustment I'd do is charge 110 and give it both types of ammunition, allowing it to choose what it fires. It's not that far away from being bad.

EDIT:
Wow this thread moved on.
Suffice to say I've routinely creamed IG artillery lists in my local meta (one guy used to run a ton of Manticores), to the point where they're slowing down and I'm more commonly seeing a single basilisk and a single manticore with a couple of Russes and whatnot.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Point for point ends up being far more relevant in most situations.

There's no reason to compare like to like. We can agree to disagree on that.

I've already described how marines can never actually get a local advantage on IG.

Point for point is only relevant for situations where neither side is using tactics. The whole point of a wargame is that it's not a computer simulation - you can't just load up the lists, feed them into a computer that lines them up across the table from each other, does some die-roll adjudication, and prints out the results. 2000 points of marines fits in a different space than 2000 points of Guard, and should, in theory and with proper terrain, be able to cut off portions of the Imperial Guard army from participating in the fight, making it difficult for the IG to bring their firepower to bear meaningfully.

I will concede that in certain army builds that include indirect fire (which is probably a lot of competitive builds), this is much harder to do (damn near impossible in the case of indirect fire exclusively). But those army builds have weaknesses to other builds in competitive settings if they bring more than 2 or 3 artillery pieces, and only 2 or 3 pieces is tolerable. So the meta rolls on.

Most competitive guard builds (or imperium builds) have 9+ mortars, and then many have 3-4 artillery tanks on top of that. So they are pretty common but not unbeatable by any stretch they just make the idea of forcing 1-1 confrontation impossible. The answer to them oddly enough is -1 to hit armies, that can hit their lines quickly. I personally don’t like ignores LOS shooting because it has very limited counter play and no real trade off for its benefit.

Martel732 wrote:
Also, scion drops don't care about your marine tactics. A bunch of expensive stuff is getting melted by plasma.

Screen better

"gnore LOS weapons have some pretty glaring weaknesses to certain army builds which will ensure that people probably won't take more than 3, possibly 4 pieces."

Like what? Because I've never seen any.

Whirlwinds are white hot gak. Please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Also, scion drops don't care about your marine tactics. A bunch of expensive stuff is getting melted by plasma.

Screen better

They're dead. My lord. Do you ever play vs IG?Also, all marine screens are expensive. So again: what are you talking about?

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Point for point ends up being far more relevant in most situations.

There's no reason to compare like to like. We can agree to disagree on that.

I've already described how marines can never actually get a local advantage on IG.

Point for point is only relevant for situations where neither side is using tactics. The whole point of a wargame is that it's not a computer simulation - you can't just load up the lists, feed them into a computer that lines them up across the table from each other, does some die-roll adjudication, and prints out the results. 2000 points of marines fits in a different space than 2000 points of Guard, and should, in theory and with proper terrain, be able to cut off portions of the Imperial Guard army from participating in the fight, making it difficult for the IG to bring their firepower to bear meaningfully.

I will concede that in certain army builds that include indirect fire (which is probably a lot of competitive builds), this is much harder to do (damn near impossible in the case of indirect fire exclusively). But those army builds have weaknesses to other builds in competitive settings if they bring more than 2 or 3 artillery pieces, and only 2 or 3 pieces is tolerable. So the meta rolls on.

Most competitive guard builds (or imperium builds) have 9+ mortars, and then many have 3-4 artillery tanks on top of that. So they are pretty common but not unbeatable by any stretch they just make the idea of forcing 1-1 confrontation impossible. The answer to them oddly enough is -1 to hit armies, that can hit their lines quickly. I personally don’t like ignores LOS shooting because it has very limited counter play and no real trade off for its benefit.

Generally in the case of Imperial Guard the trade-off is supposed to be reduced durability, but apparently they're so good at hiding that there is nowhere on the board where anyone can get a shot at one. Mortars are a problem.... kinda. It takes an average of just over 3 entire mortars to kill a single Tactical Marine, so... one heavy weapon squad per tactical marine isn't that OP.

EDIT:
Martel, the way I typically beat my opponent's guard artillery gunline is fast-moving units like Sororitas Dominion-squad Immolators, or superheavies that move 10" and shoot without penalty to get the fairly fragile vehicles damaged easily right out of the gate. I've also done it with a split-firing Land Raider Proteus with the Blasphemous Machines stratagem, Prescience, and a nearby Chaos Lord. The Land Raider was warptimed forwards to find a spot with LOS to 3 of the artillery tanks, and then put a single twin lascannon into each - they were either crippled to a 6+ or destroyed outright. My Slaanesh daemons generally have to use shenanigans in the assault phase to avoid being shot altogether, eventually reaching the artillery by plowing through the enemy - on my terms, since I control their fallback options with the placement and piling in of my units (surrounding enemy models, etc), especially leveraging Slaanesh Fiends and then using Zarakynel as a "SHOOT ME" because if the enemy kills the fiends instead, Zarakynel will wholesale wreck their army. I make heavy use of the Slaanesh power that gives you another pile in, fight, and consolidate in my psychic phase, allowing me to compensate for fights that I didn't expect the enemy to live through into my turn, for example.

Like DE boats, IG artillery isn't THAT squishy. They still have 10-11 wounds, and heavy weapons wound them on a 3+, and they have a 3+ base save. Point for point, they are much more durable than any predator build.

If IG artillery took double damage from damage 2+ weapons, then yeah, they'd have a real downside. But they are too cheap for their large number of wounds to have a downside currently.

Martel732 wrote:
Like DE boats, IG artillery isn't THAT squishy. They still have 10-11 wounds, and heavy weapons wound them on a 3+, and they have a 3+ base save. Point for point, they are much more durable than any predator build.

If IG artillery took double damage from damage 2+ weapons, then yeah, they'd have a real downside. But they are too cheap for their large number of wounds to have a downside currently.

T6 is a pretty big downside, in my experience, relative to T7, given the proliferation of winged daemon princes, helldrakes - really anything with fast moving strength 7 weapons.

Averages are just that though, sometimes they kill 4 marines if they roll hot. I will say that I have not lost to guard this edition, but most of the guard players I face are not as good at the game as I am, and I have gone first more often than not. This has been with marines. As I said -1 to hit is huge, as has been abusing characters to touch tanks so they don’t get to shoot. It is why adding custodes or BA characters to guard is better than straight guard. Hard to push into a line if they can beat my face in close combat when I get there. They are not unbeatable by any stretch, I just think as long as LOS ignore shooting exists, the idea of forcing model equivalent fights is something that cannot happen.

No, it really isn't. Just stop. T6 is fine. Actually, T5 is fine, too when you rock a 5++ like raiders. You should be killing melee threats before they get to your artillery. Endless guardsmen tarpit GO!!! T7 is actually one of the most useless T scores in the game. Still vulnerable to T4, weak vs S8, and the stuff seems to pay a lot of points for it.

Breng77 wrote:
Averages are just that though, sometimes they kill 4 marines if they roll hot. I will say that I have not lost to guard this edition, but most of the guard players I face are not as good at the game as I am, and I have gone first more often than not. This has been with marines. As I said -1 to hit is huge, as has been abusing characters to touch tanks so they don’t get to shoot. It is why adding custodes or BA characters to guard is better than straight guard. Hard to push into a line if they can beat my face in close combat when I get there. They are not unbeatable by any stretch, I just think as long as LOS ignore shooting exists, the idea of forcing model equivalent fights is something that cannot happen.

I think it becomes harder, but not impossible. The presence of 3 Basilisks is + or - 300 points to an engagement, for example. Let's just do some quick maffs that are probably too abstract to be meaningful but are useful to illustrate my point:

A marine is roughly 3 times the price of a IG. Extrapolating, we will say IG stuff is 1/3rd the price, and Space Marines take up 1/3rd less space on the table.

This means that if an IG gunline fills its deployment zone, the Space Marine player should be able to bring 2000 points to bear on 666 points and win, assuming that LOS-blocking terrain divides the table into 3 neato little firing lanes - exactly in 3rds. The presence of 3 Basilisks will make it 2000 points to fight ~1000 points, instead, which is still a winnable fight for the Marines, and all the Marines have to do is make sure the basilisks are in the original 666 points they were engaging, and the equation swings decisively into their favor again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
No, it really isn't. Just stop. T6 is fine. Actually, T5 is fine, too when you rock a 5++ like raiders. You should be killing melee threats before they get to your artillery. Endless guardsmen tarpit GO!!! T7 is actually one of the most useless T scores in the game. Still vulnerable to T4, weak vs S8, and the stuff seems to pay a lot of points for it.

Did you read what I wrote about playing my own melee army (Slaanesh daemons) against opponent's artillery gunline, or did you just ignore it?

I think that's basically a fantasy scenario. We can't agree on basal assumptions, so I'm not sure we'll agree on anything else.

Martel732 wrote:
I think that's basically a fantasy scenario. We can't agree on basal assumptions, so I'm not sure we'll agree on anything else.

That's because I try to validate my assumptions with data, and the data isn't backing up your assumptions. My data may be acquired anecdotally, but it's all I've got to go on, and is all that is required to debunk pure speculation with 0 evidence at all.

My games against IG aren't assumptions. It's anecdote vs anecdote.

Thats basically exactly right though, you have to concentrate force (tactics 101), and marines can roll guard. Yes, equal points of marines vs guard standing in the open is no good for marines. But if you can manage to only be fighting half of those points at a time, you're in good shape.

Martel732 wrote:
My games against IG aren't assumptions. It's anecdote vs anecdote.

Then I challenge you to write a battle report next time you play against guard, and PM it it to me. Film it, whatever. I'll do the same when I fight Imperial Guard next, and we can compare notes. That way, we can begin the real process of data collection and analysis, and see whether it is bad tactics that is losing you games, or bad terrain, or if it's really the armies, or if it's something outlandish like cheating...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's because I try to validate my assumptions with data

To be fair - your data is unrealistic.
Tables are not and never will be divided into three firing lanes where an entire 2000pt marine army gets to fight three 600 pt guard armies one after another.

Though it does indirectly raise one problem central to all of this - which is that some of the things that hurt cheap hordes more than elite units were removed. Almost nothing scales up with unit size now that scatter and templates are gone whereas in past editions one big benefit of elites were than you only suffered a couple of hits from a passing template, not a dozen or more.

A.T. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's because I try to validate my assumptions with data

To be fair - your data is unrealistic.
Tables are not and never will be divided into three firing lanes where an entire 2000pt marine army gets to fight three 600 pt guard armies one after another.

Though it does indirectly raise one problem central to all of this - which is that some of the things that hurt cheap hordes more than elite units were removed. Almost nothing scales up with unit size now that scatter and templates are gone whereas in past editions one big benefit of elites were than you only suffered a couple of hits from a passing template, not a dozen or more.

I explicitly mentioned in my post that that setup was a hypothetical example to illustrate my point, not an actual datapoint on which I was basing my conclusions.

So, you haven't actually played any games on this kind of table. And since we just agreed they don't exist, why even mention it at all?

Martel732 wrote:
So, you haven't actually played any games on this kind of table. And since we just agreed they don't exist, why even mention it at all?

Because it is a useful example of what I am talking about without having to physically build a table and take pictures. It's easily visualized and explained in a textual medium, rather than having to videotape said tactics on an actual table where their application takes considerably more energy and thought to both explain and understand.

I am saying "here is an easily-visualized situation in which Marines can get an optimal 1 vs 1 advantage, putting 2000 points against 700. This situation doesn't actually exist, but it is a useful example of what force concentration means. Now that we have had a simplistic example, I will let you clever folks do the extrapolating into a real game. I would note that your opponent will also try to avoid this happening to them, and that's part of why it is a game."

It's a hypothetical example for the purposes of illustration, much like how Shroedinger's Cat is a hypothetical thought-experiment for the purpose of illustrating quantum superposition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So, you haven't actually played any games on this kind of table. And since we just agreed they don't exist, why even mention it at all?

Because it is a useful example of what I am talking about without having to physically build a table and take pictures. It's easily visualized and explained in a textual medium, rather than having to videotape said tactics on an actual table where their application takes considerably more energy and thought to both explain and understand.

I am saying "here is an easily-visualized situation in which Marines can get an optimal 1 vs 1 advantage, putting 2000 points against 700. This situation doesn't actually exist, but it is a useful example of what force concentration means. Now that we have had a simplistic example, I will let you clever folks do the extrapolating into a real game. I would note that your opponent will also try to avoid this happening to them, and that's part of why it is a game."

It's a hypothetical example for the purposes of illustration, much like how Shroedinger's Cat is a hypothetical thought-experiment for the purpose of illustrating quantum superposition.

While you have a point until terrain rules make terrain actually matter in this edition, it doesn't work.
Almost nothing blocks LOS in 8th edition, and getting cover is a PITA. I really think a lot of marines issues could be solved with some real terrain rules that stop it feeling like planet bowling ball.

(ITC's no LOS through 1st floor of ruins is a start but woods etc all need the same rules to really allow force concentration to matter)

I play exclusively ITC scenarios for the most part. The 1st floor thing has actually helped the IG more than it has ever helped me. I think more LoS-blocking is better, but it just doesn't matter vs IG.

Also, by this logic, Drukhari are even more super awesome, because they have dudes shooting out of vehicles and they have the speed to bring their entire army to one side of the table. But I don't see them paying for these benefits.

Martel732 wrote:
I play exclusively ITC scenarios for the most part. The 1st floor thing has actually helped the IG more than it has ever helped me. I think more LoS-blocking is better, but it just doesn't matter vs IG.

If they actually took a penalty for non line of sight shooting it might.
I'm starting to get rose tinted glasses for some 7th edition rules hopefully 9th edition will re introduce terrain rules.

They ignored LoS in 7th, too. It just took it all on an artificer biker captain tank IC with FNP rolls. Now that actual marines have to take the damage, it's the same old problems.

Cost effective snipers would actually help against many IG lists I face. But marines don't have those, either.

The force concentration isn't hypothetical. I've done it with Marines a number of times.

I've done it with CWE more, but Marines can definitely make it happen.

It's not as easy as it was last edition, but still possible. The biggest change may have been the upscale to 2k points, while also downscaling points. The boards of modern games makes it to hard to actually use tactics. And that hurts Marines more than Guard.

Yeah, I do it too. An SG bomb with an ancient and a jump libby, for example. That's a lot of points concentrated in one place. But what does that actually get you? I still have to be able to physically get to the things I want to chop.

It really doesn't help Marines that they aren't specialized. Look at Eldar, Fire Dragons are 5ppm but have to take a 17pt melta gun (frankly I don't think it's anywhere near worth 17 points but still).

So forcing a unit to take an expensive gun regardless of it's effectiveness pushed the cost of the model down to an aguable unbalanced cost. But then again the unit costs 120 points for five guys that reroll 1s against their preferred targets. Marines on the other hand to get 2 shots from one squad it costs 101 pts with no special rule. Or you could go the route of getting a squad of sternguard for the same amount of shots for 175.

And this is why I love hellblasters, a specialist unit. But I'm also aware that no body is whining about Fire dragons, I'm not really either but it helps with my question.

What's more important the end cost of the unit or everything costing appropriately?

Ice, I agree with you about the terrain. You really have to work with your opponent to make the terrain work.

Martel, perhaps the ITC rules are the problem, then? My local group almost exclusively plays Chapter Approved Eternal War or Maelstrom missions, so that could explain our different experiences.
EDIT: Also, any response to formulating a battle report next time you play against Imperial Guard? Preferably with pictures?

ITC mission are far more fair than GW stuff. I'm get tabled, not losing on some esoteric meta consideration. IG put more wounds on the table than I could kill even if he didn't fight back. Cheap cost >>>>>>>> anything else atm. They're shooting me hundreds of times in melee range, dozens of which ignore LoS. It truly is simple math.

Martel732 wrote:
ITC mission are far more fair than GW stuff. I'm get tabled, not losing on some esoteric meta consideration. IG put more wounds on the table than I could kill even if he didn't fight back. Cheap cost >>>>>>>> anything else atm. They're shooting me hundreds of times in melee range, dozens of which ignore LoS. It truly is simple math.

I look forwards to our swapping of battle reports then, so we can figure out why the Imperial Guard codex you're playing against so dramatically outperforms the one I am playing against...

...provided you're actually up for it. Your conspicuous and uncharacteristic silence on the matter has me worried.

Fraser - that Fire Dragon unit dies a *lot* faster to small arms. It also It also loses a fusion gun for every death in the squad, whereas the SM Tac squad just loses a chump on the first 3 wounds. It also is substantially worse in CC, although that doesn't matter often.

It should be a tradeoff. Fire Dragons are a little better pointed than Melta Tacs, certainly. But ignoring their downsides won't help balance things.

I think that ablaitive wounds vs fully specialized units should be a tradeoff. Reapers vs Devs come up a lot. Reapers can add half again their firepower for about the same number of points that Devs would spend to more than double their durability. It's general consensus that being able to get half again the firepower is better than being able to double the durability. That can't be a healthy sign for the game.

If it were balanced such that a pair of melta or flamers or PGs were actually a real threat if in position, Tacs would look better and FDs would look worse. Unfortunately, the game moved even further away from that in 8th.

I've dropped out of the current league because special characters were not allowed, even after the FAQ dropped. No special characters just gives vanilla marines and IG extra advantages over BA they didn't need.

Drukhari have straight ran me out of the game for the moment. I don't even know how to begin to fight them. Grotesques alone make me want to quit the game.

Can RG gunlines do work vs IG? Sure, but I'm not dropping 500 bucks on FW dreads to do it. I shouldn't have to go to FW to get a decent dreadnought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Fraser - that Fire Dragon unit dies a *lot* faster to small arms. It also It also loses a fusion gun for every death in the squad, whereas the SM Tac squad just loses a chump on the first 3 wounds. It also is substantially worse in CC, although that doesn't matter often.

It should be a tradeoff. Fire Dragons are a little better pointed than Melta Tacs, certainly. But ignoring their downsides won't help balance things.

I think that ablaitive wounds vs fully specialized units should be a tradeoff. Reapers vs Devs come up a lot. Reapers can add half again their firepower for about the same number of points that Devs would spend to more than double their durability. It's general consensus that being able to get half again the firepower is better than being able to double the durability. That can't be a healthy sign for the game.

If it were balanced such that a pair of melta or flamers or PGs were actually a real threat if in position, Tacs would look better and FDs would look worse. Unfortunately, the game moved even further away from that in 8th.

Aspect warriors other than reapers aren't a problem in the meta. Splinter boats ignoring cover rerolling 1s generating extra hits on 6s with two blaster shots, a dark lance, and a disintegrator for less than 200 are. IG lined up hub to hub with 90-140 pt artillery tanks are.

So I guess the "trade battle reports thing and critique" isn't happening then.

A pity, it would've probably proved useful in our reasoned, evidence-based discussion.

It might, just not anytime until I've recovered from burnout and writing my thesis.

@Unit- part of the problem with your mythical scenario is even in that case chances are guard has more drops so will inevitably drop the basilisks in the position where they are not in your 1/3rd. Or out of LOS in that 3rd. But even in the best case that advantage only lasts 1 turn before things move into that area. Beyond that perhaps the move toward progressive objectives is part of the issue, hard to commit to a single 3rd and win unless you table your opponent, otherwise you are not gaining your 2 or 3 to 1 points advantage, as you need your models elsewhere scoring points. In a game where board control is relavant marines cannot (and really should not) compete with guard.

Good luck on your thesis, man. I suppose I can accept that that may be more important than 40k. Maybe.

It's more grinding than luck at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The complete and utter freedom of target selection is also very potent. IG players can always rely on taking out hard targets in the exact order of their choosing, regardless of terrain features. Choice is a very potent advantage. Their tanks also have identical BS to a moving marine vehicle. Given that they never move, and marine vehicles frequently move, it's hard to justify the point gaps.

Martel732 wrote:
I've dropped out of the current league because special characters were not allowed, even after the FAQ dropped. No special characters just gives vanilla marines and IG extra advantages over BA they didn't need.

Who makes a rule like that? This isn't 2nd edition...

People who don't like special characters. But they basically squatted DC with that move, even though I wasn't their target. Sounds familiar...

I play classic marines and got so frustrated against Cadians that I just don't want to face them anymore.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I've dropped out of the current league because special characters were not allowed, even after the FAQ dropped. No special characters just gives vanilla marines and IG extra advantages over BA they didn't need.

Who makes a rule like that? This isn't 2nd edition...

People who get tired of seeing every list for (army (x)) copy-pasted wholesale from the next guy's list for (army (x)) because building around the special characters is just better.

Ignoring, of course, the armies for whom the special character is a crutch that keeps them in the game (most Space Marines, for instance) and the armies for whom the special characters are so utterly pointless that you end up scratching your head and saying "...okay?" (Custodes or Deathwatch, for instance).