That's true, but the guardsmen still kill guardsmen in cover better than they kill marines in cover. So the talk of guardsmen being more durable winds up being quite conditional.

Once things are conditional, you just try to make the condition right for you.

Plus, did you account for morale?

Also, that's a model where 60 odd Guardsmen are in rapid fire range, which is something I've never encountered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%

260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead

In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.

Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced

Actually I have a second and probably more important response to that mathematical model and that is: It' a stupid model. The model that I gave is a straight representation of points per hit killed, extremely confined, no positioning or gameplay required. The model you gave is actually incredibly arbitrary, posing a scenario that in all liklihood will never exist, and then drawing the conclusion that it's somehow proof of imbalance. When really, it's more like the story:

Patient: "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that."

So my second response is: "So don't do that."

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The main point is, aside from IG, and at least one of the tyranid codexii, when an army is in the center of the story, or in their codex, they kick ass. And xenos, particularly eldar, and orcs, because they've been around for eight editions have plenty of fluff, that taken at face value make them broken. Nothing I posed isn't in fluff somewhere. The scorpion one is one of the more mild examples. But if a space marine can rip a turret off of a tank in a space marine novel, why can't an eldar with centuries of experience do similar feats of skill. BTW, if a scorpion can't do what was described, why would a space marine be able to move faster then the eye can follow? We're talking about a species that's militia makes marines seem as if they were moving in slow motion. Seriously.

When I said "faster then the human eye can see" I didn't mean running, that would be stupid. I mean coarse reflexes like swinging a sword. Considering that even normal humans can move faster than the human eye can see UNAUGMENTED I don't think this is much of a stretch. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5WjkI5FuP0 <----- Skip the intro and go to 0:55

As for ripping the turret off of a light tank, that isn't much of a stretch either. ~5,000 pounds of force could probably do it. Again, we have actual strongmen TODAY that can deadlift 1,000 pounds. Why is it such a stretch that a genetically modified human wearing a suit of power armor that greatly enhances his strength could do the same at 5,000 pounds?

It's COMPLETELY different than slaughtering 10 space marines with a sword within a fraction of a second, which would be impossible from a physics standpoint because the directional changes at that speed would rip an organic body apart.

I highly doubt that ANYWHERE in the lore there is a howling banshee slaughtering 10 marines in between heartbeats, or a firewarrior headshotting marines like it is nothing.

So what you're saying is that the fluff for your faction that says you're super special and awesome should be reflected in the stats of the game, while the fluff for other groups that has them be super special and awesome shouldn't, on the grounds that you're willing to ignore physics for marines, but not for anyone else?

You doubt it exists anywhere in lore, but it exists. It's been existing from third edition through the present.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

That's true, but the guardsmen still kill guardsmen in cover better than they kill marines in cover. So the talk of guardsmen being more durable winds up being quite conditional.

Once things are conditional, you just try to make the condition right for you.

Plus, did you account for morale?

Also, that's a model where 60 odd Guardsmen are in rapid fire range, which is something I've never encountered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%

260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead

In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.

Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced

Actually I have a second and probably more important response to that mathematical model and that is: It' a stupid model. The model that I gave is a straight representation of points per hit killed, extremely confined, no positioning or gameplay required. The model you gave is actually incredibly arbitrary, posing a scenario that in all liklihood will never exist, and then drawing the conclusion that it's somehow proof of imbalance. When really, it's more like the story:

Patient: "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that."

So my second response is: "So don't do that."

I would say that assuming that their is 20 marines with boltguns within 12 inches of anything in cover is a flawed starting point too, I just don't ever see people investing points into marines these days.

I was purely use the equivalent points worth of shooting to show the disparity in damage output as fairly as possible when compaired to the exsisting example.

Moral is a sketchy mechanic to be relying on to even the field, it relies on you being able to do the perfect amount of damage to a unit to make that moral test fail a guarantee but without just outright wiping the squad. Also with multiple ways to mitigate moral it's rarely a thing in games units are either just staight dead or lose like 1 dude.

Run the maths with 5 bolter marines which are 65 points against that 40 point infantry squad.

Marines shoot first at range
5x.666x.666x.666=1.47 2*x4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm =4 points 6%
7x.5x.333x.333=0.388 1*x13ppm =13 32% or 0 0%

9x.5x.333x.333=.499 1*x13ppm=13 32% or 0 0%
4x.666x.666x.666= 1.18 2*4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm 6%

Marines shoot first in rapid fire range
10x.666x.666x.666=2.95 3*x4ppm=12 points of Guard 18%
13x.5x.333x.333=0.72 1*x13pp.=13 points of marines 32%

Guard shoot first in rapid fire range
19x.5x.333x.333=1.05 1*x13ppm =13 32%
8x.666x.666x.666=2.36 3*×4ppm =12 18%or 2*×4ppm =8 12%

You could add a special and heavy weapon to the IS and still end up cheaper than the marine squad while having more damage output.
Marines can't out shoot or out fight most things in 8th while costing more than those models.

*As you can't kill a % of a model

Is this accounting for FRFSRF? That doubles the firepower of the guard.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Is this accounting for FRFSRF? That doubles the firepower of the guard.

Nope it's just squad vrs squad as otherwise you get into arguments about the cost of the officer etc etc. It also doesn't include Chaptor Tactics or regiment doctirins. Though most of those just push the blance more in favour of Guard.

Guard don't need FRFSRF to be amazing. They don't even really need weapons. Just stand there and get in the way.

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

That's true, but the guardsmen still kill guardsmen in cover better than they kill marines in cover. So the talk of guardsmen being more durable winds up being quite conditional.

Once things are conditional, you just try to make the condition right for you.

Plus, did you account for morale?

Also, that's a model where 60 odd Guardsmen are in rapid fire range, which is something I've never encountered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%

260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead

In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.

Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced

Actually I have a second and probably more important response to that mathematical model and that is: It' a stupid model. The model that I gave is a straight representation of points per hit killed, extremely confined, no positioning or gameplay required. The model you gave is actually incredibly arbitrary, posing a scenario that in all liklihood will never exist, and then drawing the conclusion that it's somehow proof of imbalance. When really, it's more like the story:

Patient: "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that."

So my second response is: "So don't do that."

I would say that assuming that their is 20 marines with boltguns within 12 inches of anything in cover is a flawed starting point too, I just don't ever see people investing points into marines these days.

I was purely use the equivalent points worth of shooting to show the disparity in damage output as fairly as possible when compaired to the exsisting example.

Moral is a sketchy mechanic to be relying on to even the field, it relies on you being able to do the perfect amount of damage to a unit to make that moral test fail a guarantee but without just outright wiping the squad. Also with multiple ways to mitigate moral it's rarely a thing in games units are either just staight dead or lose like 1 dude.

Run the maths with 5 bolter marines which are 65 points against that 40 point infantry squad.

Marines shoot first at range
5x.666x.666x.666=1.47 2*x4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm =4 points 6%
7x.5x.333x.333=0.388 1*x13ppm =13 32% or 0 0%

9x.5x.333x.333=.499 1*x13ppm=13 32% or 0 0%
4x.666x.666x.666= 1.18 2*4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm 6%

Marines shoot first in rapid fire range
10x.666x.666x.666=2.95 3*x4ppm=12 points of Guard 18%
13x.5x.333x.333=0.72 1*x13pp.=13 points of marines 32%

Guard shoot first in rapid fire range
19x.5x.333x.333=1.05 1*x13ppm =13 32%
8x.666x.666x.666=2.36 3*×4ppm =12 18%or 2*×4ppm =8 12%

You could add a special and heavy weapon to the IS and still end up cheaper than the marine squad while having more damage output.
Marines can't out shoot or out fight most things in 8th while costing more than those models.

*As you can't kill a % of a model

No, you're missing the point. All you're doing is doubling down on a poor mathematical model and drawing a poor conclusion from it. There are waaay too many variables in the game which make the usefulness of that model crude at best. The best way to say this really is if we abstract it slightly to this:

"Equal points of unit A beats unit B in this constrained scenario, therefore unit B sucks and needs to be fixed."

It should be self evident why that's a faulty model. Units in the game don't have to have the same performance in a constrained scenario to achieve balance. As long as there is any other possible factor which can affect the outcome, the premise and conclusion are flawed. And the other possible factors are many, including:

Concentration of force
Special weapons
Supporting units
Potential for assault
Alternate unit choices (aka, there may be a unit that puts up great numbers vs. Guardsmen)
Chapter Tactics
Morale
Stratagems
Aura Buffs

To illustrate in a really crude way:
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead

Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead

What we can conclude from this model is that Reapers suck and need to be buffed, or that Tactical marines are OP and need to be nerfed.

^That should illustrate how flawed the model is from a design perspective.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

That's true, but the guardsmen still kill guardsmen in cover better than they kill marines in cover. So the talk of guardsmen being more durable winds up being quite conditional.

Once things are conditional, you just try to make the condition right for you.

Plus, did you account for morale?

Also, that's a model where 60 odd Guardsmen are in rapid fire range, which is something I've never encountered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%

260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead

In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.

Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced

Actually I have a second and probably more important response to that mathematical model and that is: It' a stupid model. The model that I gave is a straight representation of points per hit killed, extremely confined, no positioning or gameplay required. The model you gave is actually incredibly arbitrary, posing a scenario that in all liklihood will never exist, and then drawing the conclusion that it's somehow proof of imbalance. When really, it's more like the story:

Patient: "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that."

So my second response is: "So don't do that."

I would say that assuming that their is 20 marines with boltguns within 12 inches of anything in cover is a flawed starting point too, I just don't ever see people investing points into marines these days.

I was purely use the equivalent points worth of shooting to show the disparity in damage output as fairly as possible when compaired to the exsisting example.

Moral is a sketchy mechanic to be relying on to even the field, it relies on you being able to do the perfect amount of damage to a unit to make that moral test fail a guarantee but without just outright wiping the squad. Also with multiple ways to mitigate moral it's rarely a thing in games units are either just staight dead or lose like 1 dude.

Run the maths with 5 bolter marines which are 65 points against that 40 point infantry squad.

Marines shoot first at range
5x.666x.666x.666=1.47 2*x4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm =4 points 6%
7x.5x.333x.333=0.388 1*x13ppm =13 32% or 0 0%

9x.5x.333x.333=.499 1*x13ppm=13 32% or 0 0%
4x.666x.666x.666= 1.18 2*4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm 6%

Marines shoot first in rapid fire range
10x.666x.666x.666=2.95 3*x4ppm=12 points of Guard 18%
13x.5x.333x.333=0.72 1*x13pp.=13 points of marines 32%

Guard shoot first in rapid fire range
19x.5x.333x.333=1.05 1*x13ppm =13 32%
8x.666x.666x.666=2.36 3*×4ppm =12 18%or 2*×4ppm =8 12%

You could add a special and heavy weapon to the IS and still end up cheaper than the marine squad while having more damage output.
Marines can't out shoot or out fight most things in 8th while costing more than those models.

*As you can't kill a % of a model

No, you're missing the point. All you're doing is doubling down on a poor mathematical model and drawing a poor conclusion from it. There are waaay too many variables in the game which make the usefulness of that model crude at best. The best way to say this really is if we abstract it slightly to this:

"Equal points of unit A beats unit B in this constrained scenario, therefore unit B sucks and needs to be fixed."

It should be self evident why that's a faulty model. Units in the game don't have to have the same performance in a constrained scenario to achieve balance. As long as there is any other possible factor which can affect the outcome, the premise and conclusion are flawed. And the other possible factors are many, including:

Concentration of force
Special weapons
Supporting units
Potential for assault
Alternate unit choices (aka, there may be a unit that puts up great numbers vs. Guardsmen)
Chapter Tactics
Morale
Stratagems
Aura Buffs

To illustrate in a really crude way:
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead

Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead

What we can conclude from this model is that Reapers suck and need to be buffed, or that Tactical marines are OP and need to be nerfed.

^That should illustrate how flawed the model is from a design perspective.

Just because a specific example doesn't include every variable doesn't mean that it doesn't have some value, or that it isn't a piece of the equation.

Coming up with a terrible cherry picked comparison doesn't really prove anything.

Go ahead and include as many variables as you want. Your list of them is a pretty good start. Marines fall short pretty much every time.

"Coming up with a terrible cherry picked comparison doesn't really prove anything."

Correct. That's exactly the point.

It has some value, like tactical value. It says don't put your tac marines in that situation, for example. But to claim it as proof of a bad unit is poor.

"Go ahead and include as many variables as you want. . . Marines fall short pretty much every time."

So far, we have shown that t4 3+ 13ppm is in fact more durable than t3 5+ 4ppm in cover vs. Small arms. That's without any additional variables, so that's a start. And like I've already pointed out, morale pushes things further in favor of marines.

The question ought to be "What math explains what we see actually playing out in the game." Once you figure that out, then you can think about what changes to that math would work.

For example, if you have a situation where 1 type of unit is being spammed to shoot down lots of other units (like dark reapers), then we don't need a model to consider every possibility. We just need to know their shooting is too strong. It may be difficult to determine how much to nerf them by to achieve balance, but it's not hard to determine that they need to be nerfed, and why.

The same situation applies to marines and guard. The math isn't here to prove that marines are getting mowed down by guard infantry. That can be readily seen on the tabletop if you play this matchup. The math is illustrating why this issue that we know exists, exists. It does not need to be modeling every variable.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Coming up with a terrible cherry picked comparison doesn't really prove anything."

Correct. That's exactly the point.

It has some value, like tactical value. It says don't put your tac marines in that situation, for example. But to claim it as proof of a bad unit is poor.

"Go ahead and include as many variables as you want. . . Marines fall short pretty much every time."

So far, we have shown that t4 3+ 13ppm is in fact more durable than t3 5+ 4ppm in cover vs. Small arms. That's without any additional variables, so that's a start. And like I've already pointed out, morale pushes things further in favor of marines.

So your point is that because marines in cover are slightly more durable per point than guardsmen vs two of the weakest guns in the game (lasguns and bolters), it means they aren't weak, and people are just playing them wrong?

I think you are ignoring a lot of the other variables. Such as:

Most marines do not die to bolters and lasguns.
Cover is something that you can't really count on always being in, especially if the unit is expected to be doing some heavy lifting as many marine squads are.
As soon as a gun gets even slightly better than a bolter (such as the necron or tau basic weapons) marines in cover are worse again.
Against anything that is significantly better than a bolter, such as an assault cannon or heavy bolter, marines simply evaporate compared to guardsmen.
Morale is largely irrelevant to marines since if the quad is wiped out it doesn't matter how good at morale you are.
Guardsmen also have and use numerous ways to avoid morale losses.

Do you just think these data points aren't relevant? I guess I find it hard to understand how you'd be able to think so.

I will be the first to agree that any one point doesn't validate the argument, but the evidence is simply overwhelming, both from simple math-hammer, reports from anyone who actually plays marines, and tournament results.

He was throwing an example, not basing a freaking diploma on it.

Marines are not nearly as "bad" as people in the interwebz like to make them appear to be.
They really are not.

Especially when your go-to comparison is freaking GUARDS who are notorious as the hands-down best infantry in the game right now, without any contest.

The "problem" of marines just not measuring up to guards is more rational to solve by making the guards less attractive than overhauling the marines (and that requires you to overhaul SM, BA, DA, SW, GK, DW, CSM, DG and TS. because they all build on the mairne), especially given the know facts guards remain a problem even if marines gets overhauled.

And you know how you solve guard attractiveness?

Two simple, and often noted paths.
1-Make guards cost a tiny bit more. (1 more point for a dude, 5-10 more points for a character-problem mostly solved.)
2-bring back the platoon system to make guard have to actually field a ton of troopers for their CPs (who they rather rely on.)

Sure, guard are just the most glaring example, and you could probably nerf them down to the level of marines, but then you'd have to do the same to all of the other non-marine factions like Eldar and Tau too.

Also it seems pretty apparent that marines actually are pretty bad if you look at tournament army composition and results. Any source of competitive 40k information will tell you that marines aren't very good right now. It's not just an opinion, it's the general consensus.

There is a grand canyon of difference between "aren't very good" and "need a massive overhaul"

Had guards been fixed (easy), marines would be alright by that alone.
Not amazing, but alright.
Give them (and variants) a tiny point reduction (1 point for regular PA, 2 point for "advance PA" (like deathwatch, rubrics, etc) and about 3-5 points for termie variants-and they are actually pretty darn good.

 BoomWolf wrote:
There is a grand canyon of difference between "aren't very good" and "need a massive overhaul"

Had guards been fixed (easy), marines would be alright by that alone.
Not amazing, but alright.
Give them (and variants) a tiny point reduction (1 point for regular PA, 2 point for "advance PA" (like deathwatch, rubrics, etc) and about 3-5 points for termie variants-and they are actually pretty darn good.

Sure, sounds okay to me as a starting point. That's much different than pretending there isn't a problem.

I really hope they don't release a second SM codex in one edition as that would take the mick a bit. People have had to buy one codex already along with the other extras only to find they release a new one that people would have to buy all over again. It would also add to major confusion to a newcomer in terms of points costs, which codex to get etc.

Not only that but you end down a slippery road where it's not just SM that would need to be redone but also BA, DA, SW, Chaos, GK etc. I could see Chapter Approved adding some revised datasheets or amendments which I think would be the best way as you can cover all the factions at once with one book.

 Mmmpi wrote:

So what you're saying is that the fluff for your faction that says you're super special and awesome should be reflected in the stats of the game, while the fluff for other groups that has them be super special and awesome shouldn't, on the grounds that you're willing to ignore physics for marines, but not for anyone else?

You doubt it exists anywhere in lore, but it exists. It's been existing from third edition through the present.

I am a guard player, not a marine player. I'm not sure where you get this idea I'm trying to massively buff marines up to ridiculous levels from. I merely stated that 2W and 2A on basic marines would be a nice buff and be consistent with the lore.

I'm not ignoring physics for marines. Marine fluff is a little over the top sure, but still somewhat believable as it is still within the realms of physical possibility. I can definitely see a 8 foot tall genetically modified super-soldier wearing mechanically assisted power armor being able to deadlift 5,000 pounds.

A howling banshee slaughtering 10 space marines in a fraction of a second is literally physically impossible, as in it breaks physics. The accelerations involved in moving that fast and changing directions at that speed would be roughly equivalent to hitting pavement going 1,000 KM/H. Unless howling banshees have some sort of weird eldar magic that lets them ignore the laws of motion?

Marines have ven dreads, leviathans, and ba captains. They're fine.

Are you guys seriously trying to take real world physics into 40k?

 BoomWolf wrote:
He was throwing an example, not basing a freaking diploma on it.

Marines are not nearly as "bad" as people in the interwebz like to make them appear to be.
They really are not.

Especially when your go-to comparison is freaking GUARDS who are notorious as the hands-down best infantry in the game right now, without any contest.

The "problem" of marines just not measuring up to guards is more rational to solve by making the guards less attractive than overhauling the marines (and that requires you to overhaul SM, BA, DA, SW, GK, DW, CSM, DG and TS. because they all build on the mairne), especially given the know facts guards remain a problem even if marines gets overhauled.

And you know how you solve guard attractiveness?

Two simple, and often noted paths.
1-Make guards cost a tiny bit more. (1 more point for a dude, 5-10 more points for a character-problem mostly solved.)
2-bring back the platoon system to make guard have to actually field a ton of troopers for their CPs (who they rather rely on.)

I would just like to point out that plenty of actual IG players (such as myself) do run lots of support characters and Command Squads to basically flesh out most of the traditional Infantry Platoon structure. Also keep in mind that traditionally, the minimum requirement was a single Command Squad and two Infantry Squads. These days that's 134pts before upgrades. This whole outrage about how good Guardsmen are is because every single Imperial player hamfists a CP farm into their list. It's not for fluff or any other reason, because if so, they'd have been doing that in previous editions.

It sure as feth ain't for fluff when the lowly Guard Commander is the "Warlord" while the Custodes Shield Captain on jetbike or Blood Angels Capt Smashf-er is around.

Thank god for the ignore button. First time I've even bothered to use it. Sick of reading the same incredibly badly reasoned logic repeated ad nausea in every single thread.

 Billagio wrote:
Are you guys seriously trying to take real world physics into 40k?

I'm not. I'm just trying to point out that the fluff from the novels really can't be used as a guide for the tabletop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

So what you're saying is that the fluff for your faction that says you're super special and awesome should be reflected in the stats of the game, while the fluff for other groups that has them be super special and awesome shouldn't, on the grounds that you're willing to ignore physics for marines, but not for anyone else?

You doubt it exists anywhere in lore, but it exists. It's been existing from third edition through the present.

I am a guard player, not a marine player. I'm not sure where you get this idea I'm trying to massively buff marines up to ridiculous levels from. I merely stated that 2W and 2A on basic marines would be a nice buff and be consistent with the lore.

I'm not ignoring physics for marines. Marine fluff is a little over the top sure, but still somewhat believable as it is still within the realms of physical possibility. I can definitely see a 8 foot tall genetically modified super-soldier wearing mechanically assisted power armor being able to deadlift 5,000 pounds.

A howling banshee slaughtering 10 space marines in a fraction of a second is literally physically impossible, as in it breaks physics. The accelerations involved in moving that fast and changing directions at that speed would be roughly equivalent to hitting pavement going 1,000 KM/H. Unless howling banshees have some sort of weird eldar magic that lets them ignore the laws of motion?

I'm trying to say that you can't use fluff in 40K as a guide for unit stats. As for physics, I don't care what physics says. We're not talking about the real world. In the 40K universe, it says a banshee can kill 10 space marines before they blink, so in universe that's an actual possibility. Same with the WS/decapitation thing. The writers say eldar can do it, so eldar can do it.

But the crunch says they can't. What the author writes is meaningless.

Martel732 wrote:
But the crunch says they can't. What the author writes is meaningless.

That was his point.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But the crunch says they can't. What the author writes is meaningless.

That was his point.

Yes, I just took a more (unnecessarily) round about way for my example.

 Mmmpi wrote:
In the 40K universe, it says a banshee can kill 10 space marines before they blink...

Please show me where it says this in any serious lore book and I will eat my shoe.

Anyways, my original argument was against someone saying that 2W marines was inconsistent with the lore because "marines aren't that tough". My response was basically "yes they are" and listed a bunch of lore examples that I thought were actually pretty plausible.

3rd ed eldar codex, chapter approved 2000 and 2002, any novel where the main character is an Eldar.

Done.

 Mmmpi wrote:
3rd ed eldar codex, chapter approved 2000 and 2002, any novel where the main character is an Eldar.

Done.

I mean an actual quote please. I've read a lot of lore where the eldar clown on guardsmen pretty hard, but space marines are a different beast entirely. As I said before, killing 10 in a fraction of a second literally defies the laws of physics. This is 40k, not an anime, we try to keep to suspension of disbelief here.

All this talk of fluff is largely irrelevant. All of the factions just need to work in the game while loosely reflecting the fluff if possible. The exact details aren't particularly important as long as the game is balanced and playable.

jcd386 wrote:
All this talk of fluff is largely irrelevant. All of the factions just need to work in the game while loosely reflecting the fluff if possible. The exact details aren't particularly important as long as the game is balanced and playable.

"Anyways, my original argument was against someone saying that 2W marines was inconsistent with the lore because "marines aren't that tough". My response was basically "yes they are" and listed a bunch of lore examples that I thought were actually pretty plausible."

w1zard wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
All this talk of fluff is largely irrelevant. All of the factions just need to work in the game while loosely reflecting the fluff if possible. The exact details aren't particularly important as long as the game is balanced and playable.

"Anyways, my original argument was against someone saying that 2W marines was inconsistent with the lore because "marines aren't that tough". My response was basically "yes they are" and listed a bunch of lore examples that I thought were actually pretty plausible."

Sure, and then the argument continued on for a few pages and I commented on it's pointlessness.

Marine units are at best boring and unflavorful, and at worst not competitive. Some of the issues could be fixed with pure points changes in CA. Others would probably require a rewrite to give the many bland units special rules and whatnot.

 Mmmpi wrote:
3rd ed eldar codex, chapter approved 2000 and 2002, any novel where the main character is an Eldar.

Done.

Looking through my 3rd Ed Eldar Codex, I’m not finding anything of the sort. Do you have a page reference?

Unfortunately not. My books are in a storage container on another continent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
3rd ed eldar codex, chapter approved 2000 and 2002, any novel where the main character is an Eldar.

Done.

I mean an actual quote please. I've read a lot of lore where the eldar clown on guardsmen pretty hard, but space marines are a different beast entirely. As I said before, killing 10 in a fraction of a second literally defies the laws of physics. This is 40k, not an anime, we try to keep to suspension of disbelief here.

You need to keep your suspension of disbelief in a setting where intersteller travel goes through actual hell, psychic powers exist, a swarm of intersteller locust can eat all life on a planet in a few days/weeks, but it's really good sword skills that do it in for you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
All this talk of fluff is largely irrelevant. All of the factions just need to work in the game while loosely reflecting the fluff if possible. The exact details aren't particularly important as long as the game is balanced and playable.

"Anyways, my original argument was against someone saying that 2W marines was inconsistent with the lore because "marines aren't that tough". My response was basically "yes they are" and listed a bunch of lore examples that I thought were actually pretty plausible."

This really has gone on far enough. The lore is far to OP for just about every faction to be taking it as anything more then just a guideline for unit organization.

 Mmmpi wrote:

You need to keep your suspension of disbelief in a setting where intersteller travel goes through actual hell, psychic powers exist, a swarm of intersteller locust can eat all life on a planet in a few days/weeks, but it's really good sword skills that do it in for you?

Yes. Because speculation on technology that doesn't exist yet is different then breaking very observable laws of physics in a really stupid anime-esque manner. I'm still waiting on that quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:

Marine units are at best boring and unflavorful, and at worst not competitive. Some of the issues could be fixed with pure points changes in CA. Others would probably require a rewrite to give the many bland units special rules and whatnot.

In order for marines to be pointed down to what they are really worth with their awful tac marine statline they would be comparable to sisters. It makes better sense to buff marine statlines instead of reducing their points.

I agree. I just don't know what kind of update that would require, if not new codexes.

jcd386 wrote:
All this talk of fluff is largely irrelevant. All of the factions just need to work in the game while loosely reflecting the fluff if possible. The exact details aren't particularly important as long as the game is balanced and playable.

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

I mean, are you trying to argue that space marines (outside of a couple of viable builds) aren't underpowered right now? Because they kind of are. Space marine whining is just heard the most because they are the largest portion of the playerbase.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

You need to keep your suspension of disbelief in a setting where intersteller travel goes through actual hell, psychic powers exist, a swarm of intersteller locust can eat all life on a planet in a few days/weeks, but it's really good sword skills that do it in for you?

Yes. Because speculation on technology that doesn't exist yet is different then breaking very observable laws of physics in a really stupid anime-esque manner. I'm still waiting on that quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:

Marine units are at best boring and unflavorful, and at worst not competitive. Some of the issues could be fixed with pure points changes in CA. Others would probably require a rewrite to give the many bland units special rules and whatnot.

In order for marines to be pointed down to what they are really worth with their awful tac marine statline they would be comparable to sisters. It makes better sense to buff marine statlines instead of reducing their points.

You're not going to get a quote because my books are all in a storage container on a different contenent. I've already said where you can look, and that's the best I can do. Having said that, 40K is nothing but anime sillyness, just without moe characters, or big eyes, or the humor that's usually found in it. If you're going to insist on using real physics as your bludgeon, how about applying the square cube law to tyrannids or titans? Whoops!

Next, marines certainly shouldn't cost as much as sisters do now. I play sisters. Only having T3 really hurts us. T4 is actually a huge benefit. Just not as much when people are desperate enough to fire massed S8-9 weapons with decent AP, or massed plasma. Marines do fine against other weapons, like Hvy bolters, grenades, bolters, or lasguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you were to buff marines, I'd buff weapons like bolters, and bolt pistols. Not just for them, but for all armies that use those weapons. (they tend to suffer the same weaknesses). The stat line itself is perfectly fine. In my experience, marines only have trouble against massed special weapons, but do fine against most standard ones.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

I mean, are you trying to argue that space marines (outside of a couple of viable builds) aren't underpowered right now? Because they kind of are. Space marine whining is just heard the most because they are the largest portion of the playerbase.

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

I mean, are you trying to argue that space marines (outside of a couple of viable builds) aren't underpowered right now? Because they kind of are. Space marine whining is just heard the most because they are the largest portion of the playerbase.

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

other then Marines are there any other armies whose table top performance just doesn't feel like it matches the fluff?most space marine players who want revisions to marines I think WANT an army thats out numbered most of the time but manages toi by dint of "being awesome" make up for it. giving every army a buff defeats the point

If marines get 2 wounds so should Orks.

If a bolter blows off a Guardsmans arm, that is 2 guardsmen dead - the one that was hit and the first one that thought of running.
If a bolter blows off a Marines arm, that marine is out of the battle but will be back tomorrow with a shiny bionic.
If a bolter blows off an Orks arm, he will tear you head off with his other arm and after the battle - assuming something else doesn't kill him - get a bionik.

If you say Orks durability is represented by T4 well so is a Space Marines.

My preference is raise Guard to 5pts each and do something about CP sharing.

Tygre wrote:
If marines get 2 wounds so should Orks.

If a bolter blows off a Guardsmans arm, that is 2 guardsmen dead - the one that was hit and the first one that thought of running.
If a bolter blows off a Marines arm, that marine is out of the battle but will be back tomorrow with a shiny bionic.
If a bolter blows off an Orks arm, he will tear you head off with his other arm and after the battle - assuming something else doesn't kill him - get a bionik.

If you say Orks durability is represented by T4 well so is a Space Marines.

My preference is raise Guard to 5pts each and do something about CP sharing.

Yes but marines need buffs and ork boyz don't. If ork boyz needed buffs perhaps the 2W might be something to look at. But, again, they don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Having said that, 40K is nothing but anime sillyness, just without moe characters, or big eyes, or the humor that's usually found in it.

No.

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you're going to insist on using real physics as your bludgeon, how about applying the square cube law to tyrannids or titans? Whoops!

Tyranid chitin is bio-genetically engineered to support their massive frames. Tyranid hive ships can be so large because they exist in an environment without gravity and move at sublight speeds, and thus the square-cube law is meaningless.

Titans are constructed of adamantium, a substance stated in the lore to be many times more durable then steel.

Those two examples you gave have in-lore justifications for why they work when they normally wouldn't. Your mythical banshee that can somehow move sizable fractions of the speed of light does not. It's all about suspension of disbelief.

I would just like to point out that I would be totally cool with 2W ork boyz*, 2W necron warriors and any other similarly tough units. Maybe even 2W sisters. Tau stealth suits went from T3 1W to T4 2W and it suddenly made them very useful even at 28 pts. If a stealth suit warrants 2W I think power armor deserves 2W as well.

The transition to 8th added damage stats and AP modifiers, both of which reduced the value of multi-wounds and good saves. So it seems fair enough to me.

Changing points is obviously the easiest fix, but I just like the feel of 2W marines.

*It also helps differentiate them from nids, as far as basic fodder goes.

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

I mean, are you trying to argue that space marines (outside of a couple of viable builds) aren't underpowered right now? Because they kind of are. Space marine whining is just heard the most because they are the largest portion of the playerbase.

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

I don't believe you.

I wanna see a quote from someone here who said no other faction should be looked at after space marines get an "update". To even say that after space marines get changed slightly that the presses are gonna stop is Ludacris. But on top of that I always see you complaining about space marine players in threads like this. Frankly you must get off to complaining about them, cause if I hated space marine players like you I'd steer clear of these threads or just not even play 40k.

w1zard wrote:

Tygre wrote:
If marines get 2 wounds so should Orks.

If a bolter blows off a Guardsmans arm, that is 2 guardsmen dead - the one that was hit and the first one that thought of running.
If a bolter blows off a Marines arm, that marine is out of the battle but will be back tomorrow with a shiny bionic.
If a bolter blows off an Orks arm, he will tear you head off with his other arm and after the battle - assuming something else doesn't kill him - get a bionik.

If you say Orks durability is represented by T4 well so is a Space Marines.

My preference is raise Guard to 5pts each and do something about CP sharing.

Yes but marines need buffs and ork boyz don't. If ork boyz needed buffs perhaps the 2W might be something to look at. But, again, they don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Having said that, 40K is nothing but anime sillyness, just without moe characters, or big eyes, or the humor that's usually found in it.

No.

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you're going to insist on using real physics as your bludgeon, how about applying the square cube law to tyrannids or titans? Whoops!

Tyranid chitin is bio-genetically engineered to support their massive frames. Tyranid hive ships can be so large because they exist in an environment without gravity and move at sublight speeds, and thus the square-cube law is meaningless.

Titans are constructed of adamantium, a substance stated in the lore to be many times more durable then steel.

Those two examples you gave have in-lore justifications for why they work when they normally wouldn't. Your mythical banshee that can somehow move sizable fractions of the speed of light does not. It's all about suspension of disbelief.

The examples I gave have in game lore about why they work. Eldar are just that fast. I don't care if you disbelieve. The writers say your wrong on the fluff aspect. But that doesn't matter, since that fluff for all armies (except IG, and frequently tyranids) would be overpowered on the table anyway.

But as I've said, amp up marines's hitting power. They're already tough against anything that wasn't made to kill heavy infantry, or tanks.

BrianDavion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

I mean, are you trying to argue that space marines (outside of a couple of viable builds) aren't underpowered right now? Because they kind of are. Space marine whining is just heard the most because they are the largest portion of the playerbase.

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

other then Marines are there any other armies whose table top performance just doesn't feel like it matches the fluff?most space marine players who want revisions to marines I think WANT an army thats out numbered most of the time but manages toi by dint of "being awesome" make up for it. giving every army a buff defeats the point

This post just shows zero understanding of how the game works, and is exactly what I'm talking about.

Buffing the weak units in other armies will not change that book's playstyle. Making Tervigon's playable, or Drop Spores viable, or fixing our CC MC's for example, will not suddenly turn Tyranid into Bug Marines. Improving Crisis Suits in the Tau codex, making the Kroot units less of a pointless addition, and improving the unseen units and redundant suits for example, will not allow the army to do anything it hasn't been able to do iconically in the past.



If your goal is to make Marines fit the fluff by locking every other army into the select few models that support the narrative you depict, then sorry - its time to understand you are playing the game and not reading the fluff.

If you want balance in the SM book fine, fighting against other armies having a balanced book too is exactly why SM players are known as whiners.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

I mean, are you trying to argue that space marines (outside of a couple of viable builds) aren't underpowered right now? Because they kind of are. Space marine whining is just heard the most because they are the largest portion of the playerbase.

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

I don't believe you.

I wanna see a quote from someone here who said no other faction should be looked at after space marines get an "update". To even say that after space marines get changed slightly that the presses are gonna stop is Ludacris. But on top of that I always see you complaining about space marine players in threads like this. Frankly you must get off to complaining about them, cause if I hated space marine players like you I'd steer clear of these threads or just not even play 40k.

I've seen it said. I don't think it's as common as implied, but it does happen. Also, I don't have a quote handy.

 fraser1191 wrote:


I don't believe you.

I wanna see a quote from someone here who said no other faction should be looked at after space marines get an "update". To even say that after space marines get changed slightly that the presses are gonna stop is Ludacris.

Sure. Here's a link to me saying I think SM should be first in-line to recieve fixes and buffs in the second wave of codexes, once all armies have a book:

 SHUPPET wrote:
In order of priority for the second wave of dexes I think SM first to set a new baseline for Marines though and then follow it up with GK who need that fix the most

But that wasn't enough for everyone. Here's a quote of the response my post got from OP of this thread, saying nope, only SM should get a balance update, and their should not be a second wave of dexes for other armies:

Process wrote:
Im talking about when all books are out, taking a look at how the game and factions play and recognizing the already apparent fact that the marine book/books are on a completely different level right now and that as the first few codexes of the new edition its not the end of the world to release a revised edition of these codexes to bring them on par.

Not a second wave, most armies don't need it.

Heres a link to my response calling this outlandish, and his response doubling down on it, just in case this first quote was too ambiguous enough for you:

Process wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
This is exactly the problem. Thinking Space Marines are the only army that has internal balance issues is just the most blinkered view possible. You mention Nids and Tau like half their dexes aren't just pointless inclusion competitively and that's just the two I'm thoroughly versed in. It's this stupid only child syndrome that gives SM players the negative rep they have.

Well thats not really true is it. The Tau and nid books are relatively internally balanced compared to marines and still offer the capability to run very diverse forces. There are a lot of effective list variations for both of those codexes floating around without having to rely on other books as a crutch.

Here's a link to Xenomancer's post also arguing against me saying that is outlandish:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Marine issues are much more drastic by like another scale shift. Practically everything on that list has a marine counterpart that is much worse.

And here's the guy who said it literally 3 posts up from your own:

BrianDavion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

other then Marines are there any other armies whose table top performance just doesn't feel like it matches the fluff?most space marine players who want revisions to marines I think WANT an army thats out numbered most of the time but manages toi by dint of "being awesome" make up for it. giving every army a buff defeats the point

So yeah. You're right, it is ludicrous. Yet his is absolutely what some people are saying, and I haven't made an unfair statement in here yet.

 fraser1191 wrote:
But on top of that I always see you complaining about space marine players in threads like this. Frankly you must get off to complaining about them, cause if I hated space marine players like you I'd steer clear of these threads or just not even play 40k.

I play a marine army. I'm a MASSIVE Marine fan, they are one of my favorite things in sci-fi. I main Terran in Starcraft simply on the strength of how much I love Marines. Why would I avoid threads about my own miniatures just because a large portion of the community who play the same models are incapable of stopping whining about them? I shut down the same gak when I see it said about Nids too. Weirdly enough, you only see me having to say it often of SM players. Wonder why that is? Hmmmm, with threads like these, and the quotes I just showed I can't possibly imagine why. You don't have to like the reality, but the facts still don't change that this is what's being said.


Plus, half the times this gak comes up, it's not in SM threads anyway. It's in a thread about a completely unrelated topic that got shifted into an SM balance whine. I just recently had to mute Karol's posting in the rule of 3 debate where everything somehow becomes a debate about how GW hates GK.

BrianDavion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

I mean, are you trying to argue that space marines (outside of a couple of viable builds) aren't underpowered right now? Because they kind of are. Space marine whining is just heard the most because they are the largest portion of the playerbase.

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

other then Marines are there any other armies whose table top performance just doesn't feel like it matches the fluff?most space marine players who want revisions to marines I think WANT an army thats out numbered most of the time but manages toi by dint of "being awesome" make up for it. giving every army a buff defeats the point

Pretty much all of the fluff, especially in the codices, makes a point of making their faction look awesome. Hell, in the Harlequin codex it talks about some random Solitaire who murders his way through an entire Imperial Guard regiment (and then some) without any issue. Tyranids adapt their biology like the Borg to render your resistance futile. Grey Knights actually *win* fights. Part of understanding that it’s a representative game is some willingness to accept that practicalities of the game dictate deviations from the fluff.

It does seem like SM players are definitely the loudest about this, and not necessarily because they’re the most numerous players. I think it’s a function of so much of the lore being written from the SM perspective, so people tend to want to identify with that, and it doesn’t feel good if the super awesome genetically-enhanced warrior badasses you’re identifying with are only average. And I think those of us who focus more on other factions accept how silly that is becuse it’s literally more alien to us. I mean, imagine how silly I’d sound if I were here complaining that my poor Craftworlders didn’t get an bunch of pregame buffs and knowledge because we’re so good at seeing the future.

They're still above average. But there are weapons that are really good at killing them, and those are all super spammy. Aka plasma guns.

Honestly I think I'm just upset all this bickering goes nowhere, it's a constant circle of threads like this hitting 40 or so pages then die off for a month then another "X marines" thread pops up and so on.

Regardless of how marines get fixed it's probably not going have anything to do with rules and they're just gonna get a points cut and become a pseudo horde army. Which I'd say most marine players are against.

Marines lost the race to the bottom and if they aren't fixed in CA they're gonna be drowned out by soon to be 8pt sisters

 fraser1191 wrote:

Spoiler:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:


I don't believe you.

I wanna see a quote from someone here who said no other faction should be looked at after space marines get an "update". To even say that after space marines get changed slightly that the presses are gonna stop is Ludacris.

Sure. Here's a link to me saying I think SM should be first in-line to recieve fixes and buffs in the second wave of codexes, once all armies have a book:

 SHUPPET wrote:
In order of priority for the second wave of dexes I think SM first to set a new baseline for Marines though and then follow it up with GK who need that fix the most

But that wasn't enough for everyone. Here's a quote of the response my post got from OP of this thread, saying nope, only SM should get a balance update, and their should not be a second wave of dexes for other armies:

Process wrote:
Im talking about when all books are out, taking a look at how the game and factions play and recognizing the already apparent fact that the marine book/books are on a completely different level right now and that as the first few codexes of the new edition its not the end of the world to release a revised edition of these codexes to bring them on par.

Not a second wave, most armies don't need it.

Heres a link to my response calling this outlandish, and his response doubling down on it, just in case this first quote was too ambiguous enough for you:

Process wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
This is exactly the problem. Thinking Space Marines are the only army that has internal balance issues is just the most blinkered view possible. You mention Nids and Tau like half their dexes aren't just pointless inclusion competitively and that's just the two I'm thoroughly versed in. It's this stupid only child syndrome that gives SM players the negative rep they have.

Well thats not really true is it. The Tau and nid books are relatively internally balanced compared to marines and still offer the capability to run very diverse forces. There are a lot of effective list variations for both of those codexes floating around without having to rely on other books as a crutch.

Here's a link to Xenomancer's post also arguing against me saying that is outlandish:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Marine issues are much more drastic by like another scale shift. Practically everything on that list has a marine counterpart that is much worse.

And here's the guy who said it literally 3 posts up from your own:

BrianDavion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

other then Marines are there any other armies whose table top performance just doesn't feel like it matches the fluff?most space marine players who want revisions to marines I think WANT an army thats out numbered most of the time but manages toi by dint of "being awesome" make up for it. giving every army a buff defeats the point

So yeah. You're right, it is ludicrous. Yet his is absolutely what some people are saying, and I haven't made an unfair statement in here yet.

 fraser1191 wrote:
But on top of that I always see you complaining about space marine players in threads like this. Frankly you must get off to complaining about them, cause if I hated space marine players like you I'd steer clear of these threads or just not even play 40k.

I play a marine army. I'm a MASSIVE Marine fan, they are one of my favorite things in sci-fi. I main Terran in Starcraft simply on the strength of how much I love Marines. Why would I avoid threads about my own miniatures just because a large portion of the community who play the same models are incapable of stopping whining about them? I shut down the same gak when I see it said about Nids too. Weirdly enough, you only see me having to say it often of SM players. Wonder why that is? Hmmmm, with threads like these, and the quotes I just showed I can't possibly imagine why. You don't have to like the reality, but the facts still don't change that this is what's being said.


Plus, half the times this gak comes up, it's not in SM threads anyway. It's in a thread about a completely unrelated topic that got shifted into an SM balance whine. I just recently had to mute Karol's posting in the rule of 3 debate where everything somehow becomes a debate about how GW hates GK.

Honestly I think I'm just upset all this bickering goes nowhere, it's a constant circle of threads like this hitting 40 or so pages then die off for a month then another "X marines" thread pops up and so on.

Regardless of how marines get fixed it's probably not going have anything to do with rules and they're just gonna get a points cut and become a pseudo horde army. Which I'd say most marine players are against.

Marines lost the race to the bottom and if they aren't fixed in CA they're gonna be drowned out by soon to be 8pt sisters

I can dig it. I'm past the point of frustration, I'm more just exhausted by it all now. Rest assured for every post I do make there's like nine more I thought better of. It just bothers me than gw CANNOT look to our communities for feedback if they ever wanted to, discussion is so unbelievably close minded from some people. Sometimes it feels like for everything you give these people, it just gets thrown back. Like, I literally said SM should be first in line to get fixed in the next wave of codexes, and hopefully they fix all the problems and the statlines so that it can transfer upwards throughout the year to other dexes like GK. And it just gets thrown back with "No, we'll take our buffs but NOBODY ELSE can get fixes" and a bunch of people either agreeing with it, and for all the arguing SM players are doing, not a single one speaking out against that. Like wth? I think it's something to do with guys in power suits, because this attitude is most prevalent with SM and then followed up by Tau, who are probably only less vocal because of the smaller community.

 Mmmpi wrote:

You're not going to get a quote because my books are all in a storage container on a different contenent. I've already said where you can look, and that's the best I can do.

You know what? I’m calling your bluff. I am straight up calling you a liar, or at best misinformed. I am saying your claim that a Howling Banshee can kill a squad of Marines in a fraction of a second is a blatant falsehood that has zero textual basis.

Prove me wrong! I’ll gladly admit I’m wrong and a fool and a terrible person if you can just find a single official source - even an outdated and non-canonical one - of a Howling Banshee pulling off that or something similar. Making vague references to an ill-defined source and saying ‘it’s out there, trust me, I just can’t prove it right now because xyz’ isn’t good enough.

There’s a pretty low bar for evidence on this forum, but your claims fall short of even that poor standard.

My personal gripe about marines is (CSM /tac Marines) that they should be decent allrounders, yet they aren't equipped for it.
You chose either Bolters or a melee weapon, some editions back marines and CSM had both standard equipped, that made them actual flexibel in their approach, CSM doubly so because marks were doing stuff back then.
I also do belive that pts. wise they only need a slight reduction -1 to 2 pts less. Most CSM players would still rely on cultists but marines then would have a niche called flexibility.

 SHUPPET wrote:
"No, we'll take our buffs but NOBODY ELSE can get fixes" and a bunch of people either agreeing with it, and for all the arguing SM players are doing, not a single one speaking out against that.

Loath as I am to butt heads with you over this particular issue once again, do you really see a predominance of people saying ‘Marines should get a second pass BUT NOBODY ELSE’? Take out that one poster whose reputation precedes them, and it’s really just the OP. I agree with you that the OP saying that is wrong, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that most - or even many - Marine players have a similar opinion.

Another way of considering it is to look at the same complaint from different perspectives. For instance, the complaint

“Marines are underpowered and don’t play how one would expect. GW should take a second look at their Codex.’

elicits “If Marines get a second look, other Codexes should get another look too. It’s only fair.” Which is perfectly reasonable. None of the books are perfect, a second pass would help them all to varying degrees, and the Marine book is the oldest, most popular and one of the very worst, so it being first in line makes sense. But if you phrase the question as

“Marines are underpowered and don’t play how one would expect. GW should give them a 20% buff across the board so they can compete with the newer books.”

then the response “If Marines get a 20% buff, the other Codexes should too. It’s only fair.” is just...

I literally can't right now. My books are in a storage container in Massachusetts.

But sure, go right ahead. Call me a liar. I did the best I can with the resources at hand.

I'll see if a quick search on the web turns anything up while you qq in the corner.

Then don’t make wild claims until you’re in a position to back them up. Walk the walk before you talk the talk.

Not a wild claim. I've read it in the fluff. Not my problem you didn't. I don't see anyone supporting their marine fantasies with anything either though. So, I guess it takes one to know one?

Can't find the passages Mmmpi is referencing, but I did find this in the Eldar Codex from 2E. It is from the point of view of a Guardian:

Codex: Eldar, 1994 - pp66-67 wrote:

...In a movement too fast for a human eye to follow, he whirled, bringing his weapon to bear on the source of the noise. For a moment he tensed, then realised that it was another Eldar squad - Warp Spiders.

[...]The air shimmered and a weird four-armed figure materialised from the empty air beside the Chaos Marine. Before the enemy could respond he was entangled in a spinning web of monfilament wire. All features were temporarily obscured in the glistening silver haze, then the Warp Spider made a tugging gesture with the hand that held the monofilaments, and the Chaos Marine simply fell apart, cut into tiny pieces by the incredibly sharp edges of the mono-filament weapon.

Not the best, but from the sounds of the prose above, the Chaos marine didn't even have time to turn and regard his foe before the Warp Spider diced him, so at least the Aspect Warriors have very quick reactions - to appear, fire and with a slight tug eliminate a Marine before he can react.

Likewise, there's this:




Make of that what you will, as you are want to do

 Mmmpi wrote:
Not a wild claim. I've read it in the fluff. Not my problem you didn't. I don't see anyone supporting their marine fantasies with anything either though. So, I guess it takes one to know one?

A being with a human++ physique killing a squad of Marines in a fraction of a second isn’t wild?

Also, 3 pages earlier in this same thread...

kombatwombat wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Edit: Also, there is a lore justification - cutting a Marine in half won’t stop him attacking you. Cut off his arm an he keeps hitting you with the other one without missing a beat. Shoot him in the heart or lungs and his backup ones take over. Give him a wound that would make him bleed out, he clots and forms scar tissue instantly. Of all basic-troop-shaped things in the game, they are kind of the leading contender for having two wounds.

Marines are not still attacking you after being cut in half.

Fallen Angels, p325-326 wrote:
“The Librarian hurled himself to the side just as the creature lunged into the squad’s midst with the force of a runaway train.
With a shout, Zahariel spun to face the beast as the queen gathered herself together like a coiling spring and lashed out again, this time catching Gideon and two of the corpses in its wide mandibles. The curved pincers snapped shut like a giant scissors. The two corpses were bisected at once; Gideon’s armour resisted a half-second longer before giving way as well.

A bolt pistol barked; Gideon, lying in a pool of his own blood, had reloaded his weapon and was snapping careful shots at the worm’s eyes.

*shrug*

I made a claim about ‘marine fantasies’, somebody refuted it, I responded with a direct quote from an official GW book, including the page reference. Regardless of whether you want to argue that’s an outlier case in the lore or whatever, I made a claim, I was challenged, I backed it up.

This stuff isn’t rocket science, mate.

The video isn't a good example. The space marines are the main characters.

As I've been saying, and as many of you know, each army always does well in their own fluff (except IG and sometimes Tyranids).

Thanks for posting though Stormonu.

kombatwombat wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
"No, we'll take our buffs but NOBODY ELSE can get fixes" and a bunch of people either agreeing with it, and for all the arguing SM players are doing, not a single one speaking out against that.

Loath as I am to butt heads with you over this particular issue once again, do you really see a predominance of people saying ‘Marines should get a second pass BUT NOBODY ELSE’? Take out that one poster whose reputation precedes them, and it’s really just the OP. I agree with you that the OP saying that is wrong, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that most - or even many - Marine players have a similar opinion.

Your fatal misunderstanding here seems to be that you think I'm saying every Marine player does this. This is not the case, and it would make no sense, even less considering I play Marines myself. I'm simply saying that when these outlandish statements do happen, 90% of the time it's from Marine or Tau players, leaning heavily towards Marines. It's not a coincidence, and there's a lot of people agreeing with this, and I can be objective about this even as someone who shares miniatures with these people, as crazy as that sounds.


Acting like its just one guy on this specific point is disengenous. There's 3 posters in this thread alone outright co-signing it, and various other posters agreeing with them to different degrees, and not a single other SM player actually disagreeing with it other than myself. Yes, one of those 3 is Xenomancers, that doesn't make it not count - where's the Xenomancers for Tyranids? Or for Necrons, or Orks or anything? It's part of what I'm saying about more whining coming from SM players than anywhere else, and it keeps getting proven, over and over.

Another way of considering it is to look at the same complaint from different perspectives. For instance, the complaint

“Marines are underpowered and don’t play how one would expect. GW should take a second look at their Codex.’

elicits “If Marines get a second look, other Codexes should get another look too. It’s only fair.” Which is perfectly reasonable. None of the books are perfect, a second pass would help them all to varying degrees, and the Marine book is the oldest, most popular and one of the very worst, so it being first in line makes sense. But if you phrase the question as

“Marines are underpowered and don’t play how one would expect. GW should give them a 20% buff across the board so they can compete with the newer books.”

then the response “If Marines get a 20% buff, the other Codexes should too. It’s only fair.” is just...

That's not what's happening here. Are we asking for a 20% buff to Guilliman and Scouts? I thought we all agree that Marines have some competitive builds, just that we want more, by normalising the underpowered units. Why should it be a problem for other armies to also be able to use most the currently trash units in their dexes? The SM book has more entries than most so this is not going to hold them back in any way. Trying to lock down unit diversity for the sake of Marines being better than everyone for fluff accuracy or whatever stupid reason, just seems like terrible design to me, but maybe I'm not drinking the right kool-aid yet.

At what point do you start to admit that yes, there is a lot of ridiculous gak that gets propagated about the Marine books - because I feel like we're well and truly there.

 Mmmpi wrote:

The examples I gave have in game lore about why they work. Eldar are just that fast. I don't care if you disbelieve.

Lol, you don't get it do you? Let explain it to you slowly then. Anything organic moving at a speed fast enough to kill an entire tactical squad in less than a second, would TEAR ITSELF APART due to the G forces associated with accelerations and direction changing at that speed. Hell, anything mechanical moving at that speed would tear itself apart too. Even if the Eldar did have the ability to move that fast, if they tried to do it they would rip the flesh straight off their own bones due to inertia.

Now there's nothing I've read in the lore that leads me to believe the laws of physics don't apply to howling banshees. Maybe if they had a localized time field or something that made time pass normal for them, but much slower for everything else around them it might be doable but I have never heard of anything like that in the lore.

 Stormonu wrote:

Not the best, but from the sounds of the prose above, the Chaos marine didn't even have time to turn and regard his foe before the Warp Spider diced him, so at least the Aspect Warriors have very quick reactions - to appear, fire and with a slight tug eliminate a Marine before he can react.

Surprising a lone chaos marine is a LOT different then slicing up an entire tactical squad in less than a single second.

On topic. The other factions could use a pass too to buff up under-performing units, but the entire point of buffing space marines is because they are under-performing relative to most other factions. Buffing the other factions as well would defeat the purpose.

I think the overall point is, if marines need buffing to work in the game - fine, do it. Primaris got two wounds, if classic marines were switched over to use their statline, I wouldn't cry about it - though I would not prefer it (I'd rather the firepower creep be reigned in). Just get the points right.

But don't base it on the fluff. The various author's prose over 8 editions of 40K are too unreliable to make it the basis of any army's statistics.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The examples I gave have in game lore about why they work. Eldar are just that fast. I don't care if you disbelieve.

Lol, you don't get it do you? Let explain it to you slowly then. Anything organic moving at a speed fast enough to kill an entire tactical squad in less than a second, would TEAR ITSELF APART due to the G forces associated with accelerations and direction changing at that speed. Hell, anything mechanical moving at that speed would tear itself apart too. Even if the Eldar did have the ability to move that fast, if they tried to do it they would rip the flesh straight off their own bones due to inertia.

Now there's nothing I've read in the lore that leads me to believe the laws of physics don't apply to howling banshees. Maybe if they had a localized time field or something that made time pass normal for them, but much slower for everything else around them it might be doable but I have never heard of anything like that in the lore.

Lol, you don't get it do you? Let me explain it to you slowly then. I know how physics work. I've said as much. I don't fething care however, what my real world physics book says when talking about a fantasy world (sci-fi, with a very few rare exceptions, is fantasy with pretend science.). The people who created the world this fluff exsits in says that eldar are that fast. So they're that fast. I say titans violate the square cube law. In the real world they do. In fiction, the writer can do or say what they want. GW says they don't. They gave a mumbo-jumbo reason for it. They didn't for their space elves. If GW writes want eldar to be fast enough to jump out of a WS moving at a 'leisurely' 200km per hour, kill two guys, and step back in, then GW is right. It's not the real world. GW decides where and when to apply physics.
Also, I remember what I read. It was a Warp Spider Exarch, who killed a combat squad of marines. One of the two chapter approved. Either 2000, or 2002. The SS/WS example is in that one as well. I can't give you a page number, because As I said before my books are on another Continent. I know for a fact that I've read other examples like in since, but I still don't remember the exact book.

Now, can we get back to talking about how to un-nerf a unit that never got nerfed?

How can people say that warhammer doesnt follow anime tropes when it is based in overpowered fluff.
Laws of physics dont apply if the rule of cool is more important. Not defending those Eldar examples because I havent read them. But I woulndt be surprised if they exist.

On topic wise, I still think we’ll see a 2nd wave of codices in the near future – however, I just hope it is done logically, and waits until after the Big FAQ2 has been tested a bit to ensure things are on the right track.

Once that is done and things settle down even more, I can fully expect Chapter Approved to start the initial changes, followed by the Codex wave. The big FAQs would then start to die down in terms of their overwhelming changes and would go back to being more general faq updates.

Releasing more Codices without taking FAQ2 into account will only piss off a lot of people.

As for the state of Marines – I agree with the argument that they need to be more “killy”. Bolt rounds are meant to rip through power armour, let alone lesser armour, yet currently they don’t even come close. Likewise, marines are meant to be able to be able to rip through squads of standard humans within seconds, yet they can’t do that either.

The fix for me initially is that the standard marine gets +1 attack, -2 ap (something would have to be adjusted for the Thousand Sons – and, let’s face it, nowhere ever is it recorded that a Guardsman has survived a direct hit from a bolter… I don’t think… could also change to -1 ap but I don’t think that would change much or “feel” any different.) and they would also be equipped with a free chainsword/combat blade that gives them an additional attack.

Like it or not, I think marines are in the right place “durability” wise in terms of t4, 3+ save, as they are meant to shrug off lasgun fire and 90% of shuriken fire, but, they still get wrecked by bolter, plasma and melta etc weaponry. The only issue currently, is that they are costed a little high for essentially being 1 attack, 1 shot models. Up their attack, their ap and basic weaponry and maybe, maybe a point down in cost, and go from there.

Of course, all standard bolt weaponry would change to match across all armies and some other weapons would also have to change – i.e Heavy bolters, but I think it’d go a fair way towards giving marines a chance would making them “unbeatable”.

I also agree that BobbyG’s re-roll wounds aura should drop to a re-roll 1’s, along with him getting a points reduction.

Y'know, a lot of these complaints about the Marine 'dex apply to more than just the Marine dex. For example:

Dex doesn't match Fluff.
The Marine fluff has them winning most of their engagements. They lose more often than they win.

The CWE fluff has them losing most of their engagements. They win more often than they lose.

Experience.
Terminators have hundreds of years of experience, and so should be WS/BS2.

Aspect Warriors have thousands of years of experience, and are still WS/BS2.

You could say, shorter lifespan makes it more impactful. But Crissis Suits are similarly veterans, but are BS*4*.

Form of their OP gak.
The claim keeps coming up that when SM have had good options - Bobby G/Razorbacks, Gladius, Skyhammer, Grav Bikers, DevCents, Obsec Spam, etc - that they're always stuff the SM player doesn't want to play.

That's a lot of variety, and most of them actually did spam PA Marines. Pure Guard does seem closer to what many Guard want to play. But other factions are normally much more cookie-cutter when they're top dog.

So, SM are actually in the bottom half again. It doesn't happen often, and I do hope it gets corrected. But these threads don't end when they are top dog. How many "Tacs are worst troops" or "SM is worst book" or "SM needs fix" threads do we see when Marines are top dog? How many do we see when Marines fielding Tacs are top dog? Just as many.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit:
I really like that DoWII intro video. It was before I got into 40k, but it was great to see.

Reflecting on it, though, makes it even greater. It shows the comparative strengths of Eldar and SM. Aspect Warriors are clearly able to go toe-to-toe with Space Marines.

You get to see so many units doing their "thing", and the only one who feels shortchanged is the Ranger (so I snipe the guy... in the chest? Why there?). The rest all feel iconic (not in order, from memory):
-SM Tacs do their Troop thing
-SM with a Heavy Bolter destroys a Ranger
-ASM drop in and hurt
-Dread, if it gets to CC, is a beast
-Banshees howl and charge
-Warp Spider is really fast and agile
-Captain overcomes Farseer up close
-Farseer was more concerned with greater events - and knows what's coming

A great look at comparative OPness.

Bharring wrote:
Y'know, a lot of these complaints about the Marine 'dex apply to more than just the Marine dex. For example:

Dex doesn't match Fluff.
The Marine fluff has them winning most of their engagements. They lose more often than they win.

The CWE fluff has them losing most of their engagements. They win more often than they lose.

Experience.
Terminators have hundreds of years of experience, and so should be WS/BS2.

Aspect Warriors have thousands of years of experience, and are still WS/BS2.

You could say, shorter lifespan makes it more impactful. But Crissis Suits are similarly veterans, but are BS*4*.

Form of their OP gak.
The claim keeps coming up that when SM have had good options - Bobby G/Razorbacks, Gladius, Skyhammer, Grav Bikers, DevCents, Obsec Spam, etc - that they're always stuff the SM player doesn't want to play.

That's a lot of variety, and most of them actually did spam PA Marines. Pure Guard does seem closer to what many Guard want to play. But other factions are normally much more cookie-cutter when they're top dog.

So, SM are actually in the bottom half again. It doesn't happen often, and I do hope it gets corrected. But these threads don't end when they are top dog. How many "Tacs are worst troops" or "SM is worst book" or "SM needs fix" threads do we see when Marines are top dog? How many do we see when Marines fielding Tacs are top dog? Just as many.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit:
I really like that DoWII intro video. It was before I got into 40k, but it was great to see.

Reflecting on it, though, makes it even greater. It shows the comparative strengths of Eldar and SM. Aspect Warriors are clearly able to go toe-to-toe with Space Marines.

You get to see so many units doing their "thing", and the only one who feels shortchanged is the Ranger (so I snipe the guy... in the chest? Why there?). The rest all feel iconic (not in order, from memory):
-SM Tacs do their Troop thing
-SM with a Heavy Bolter destroys a Ranger
-ASM drop in and hurt
-Dread, if it gets to CC, is a beast
-Banshees howl and charge
-Warp Spider is really fast and agile
-Captain overcomes Farseer up close
-Farseer was more concerned with greater events - and knows what's coming

A great look at comparative OPness.

You snipe in the chest because :
Bigger target
Triangle of death
Because statistically humans survive 10% of all headshots that are not Center mass and the head is comparativly a small and particulary durable body part.

Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

Not Online,
I didn't know that. I believed that bows, and later guns, typically aimed for the chest as being off by a little still hits. But I'm not expert on the subject.

However, this was Space Elf snipers targetting someone obviously in Power Armor. I assumed they'd shoot for a "weakpoint", and would assume center mass is the strongest part of the Marine, especially in his armor.

It's quite possible that all other areas are reinforced for this reason, so it's still the wisest target. But it's not like the Ranger doesn't know what a Marine or Power Armor is.

Bharring wrote:
Not Online,
I didn't know that. I believed that bows, and later guns, typically aimed for the chest as being off by a little still hits. But I'm not expert on the subject.

However, this was Space Elf snipers targetting someone obviously in Power Armor. I assumed they'd shoot for a "weakpoint", and would assume center mass is the strongest part of the Marine, especially in his armor.

It's quite possible that all other areas are reinforced for this reason, so it's still the wisest target. But it's not like the Ranger doesn't know what a Marine or Power Armor is.

The main body is the best armored part, but also the marines weakspot. Consider this: a marine has two hearts, ergo he will need two aortas connected toghether somewhere in his upper body. Now a splinter does most damage through speed so mainly whilest the splinters exits the targets body, where it rips appart vital parts. Additionally, the lower part of the abdomen of space marines armor torwards his armored legs is especcialy vulnerable since there the breast plate stops to provide movement abbility.
Secondly a marine has still just one spine, ergo if you destroy it via a hit you can seriously cripple his abilities to move.

BrianDavion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Space Marine whine threads always inevitably devolve into fluff debates, as when you pull away the veil, it's the core reason driving the demand for buffs. That's why some people in here are literally against other armies getting a fix to their crappy units after Space Marine's get theirs - only Space Marine's deserve this.

I mean, are you trying to argue that space marines (outside of a couple of viable builds) aren't underpowered right now? Because they kind of are. Space marine whining is just heard the most because they are the largest portion of the playerbase.

No, I'm saying that some people in this thread literally said that AFTER Space Marines are buffed and units are fixed, no OTHER ARMY should get the same treatment. Cause Space Marines.

other then Marines are there any other armies whose table top performance just doesn't feel like it matches the fluff?most space marine players who want revisions to marines I think WANT an army thats out numbered most of the time but manages toi by dint of "being awesome" make up for it. giving every army a buff defeats the point

I have to be mis-interpreting what you said. Are you saying that marines should be buffed because they should be able to overcome overwhelming odds, but other armies shouldnt get buffed if theyre too weak as well?

Martel732 wrote:
Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

That is my issue. If they performed to their points, I wouldn't care about their statline. Perhaps drop Primaris down to 13 ppm and regular Marines to like 9 ppm and call it good. Oh, and double the points of any multishot weapon that does set 2+ damage per shot.

So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

That is my issue. If they performed to their points, I wouldn't care about their statline. Perhaps drop Primaris down to 13 ppm and regular Marines to like 9 ppm and call it good. Oh, and double the points of any multishot weapon that does set 2+ damage per shot.

so a lascannon should be 25pts and a twin lascannon should be 100pts?

I count my blessings every day that nobody on dakka is on GWs design team.

THIS BLANKET NERF WILL FIX EVERYTHING ITS SO SIMPLE WHY IS GW SO DUMB???

I just can't get behind the fluff = crunch.

To a point the theme/feel of the army should be represented but if everyone was "movie marines" Magnus would just psychic explode entire armies as soon as he showed up on the battle field. Cool in a book, not so much fun in a wargame...

As for why marine players don't speak up when other marine players are going off the deep end? That's a really good question. When I read those quoted post it does strike me as crazy that anyone would be against other armies achieving more reasonable interior balance.

But I think my idea of achieving internal balance is probably different than people that play those armies (hammer down the OP units instead of buffing the underperforming units) but this opinion will probably change if marines had units that were performing like those OP ones (imagine if we could spam guillimans...).

It's just hard for me to get behind making armies more internally balanced when they are already more externally powerful. It's like people asking for buffs to dark eldar. There's definitely units in that book that are underpowered but bringing those units up to the level of brokenness of the rest of that book just feels wrong (but rationally makes sense and could probably be proven mathematically.) There's something to be said for the idea that x units are above the power curve but are countered balanced by y units being underpowered. Problem is, with the currently FOC there's no reason to take those y units and you just end up fighting x's...

In a great world there would be tactical advantages to all units and their utility/power would be determined by the role they are playing in your army and how your strategy leverages their strengths and weaknesses. 40k just doesn't have that level of tactical granularity to support that across the hundreds of units combined with the relative shallow level of model interaction.

In the long run, I just don't have faith in GW to get it right. If marines end up getting buffed it will probably be too much and then we'll end up in some sort of arms race where other dexes will get left behind and then buffed and next thing we know those 20 wound str 40 tacticals are a real thing.

I'd rather GW nerf stuff all the way back down to the marine level but that won't happen because it doesn't help sell models and people don't react well to their models getting nerfed...

the_scotsman wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

That is my issue. If they performed to their points, I wouldn't care about their statline. Perhaps drop Primaris down to 13 ppm and regular Marines to like 9 ppm and call it good. Oh, and double the points of any multishot weapon that does set 2+ damage per shot.

so a lascannon should be 25pts and a twin lascannon should be 100pts?

I count my blessings every day that nobody on dakka is on GWs design team.

THIS BLANKET NERF WILL FIX EVERYTHING ITS SO SIMPLE WHY IS GW SO DUMB???

I mean it would help cause a DE player could probably only bring 1 ravage with disintegrator cannons

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

That is my issue. If they performed to their points, I wouldn't care about their statline. Perhaps drop Primaris down to 13 ppm and regular Marines to like 9 ppm and call it good. Oh, and double the points of any multishot weapon that does set 2+ damage per shot.

Oh, good. That suncannon loadout on my wraithknight will be 276 extra points now, instead of just the 138.

the_scotsman wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

That is my issue. If they performed to their points, I wouldn't care about their statline. Perhaps drop Primaris down to 13 ppm and regular Marines to like 9 ppm and call it good. Oh, and double the points of any multishot weapon that does set 2+ damage per shot.

so a lascannon should be 25pts and a twin lascannon should be 100pts?

I count my blessings every day that nobody on dakka is on GWs design team.

THIS BLANKET NERF WILL FIX EVERYTHING ITS SO SIMPLE WHY IS GW SO DUMB???

No...Lascannons don't do 2+ damage base. They have variable damage, which is...somewhat factored into it. Primarily, the weapons that need to be targeted are weapons like Disintigrator Cannons. Probably not double points like I said, but a lot of multi-damage weapons need to be redone. But mostly if Marines are priced appropriately, the weapon changes aren't as necessary. A 5 pt reduction on basically all Marine infantry would probably suffice. And really, GW gets more money for it, so it isn't outside the realm of possibility.

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Why don't these stats matter in the majority of games?

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Wait, you think going from T3 to T4 only matters in a "minority" of games? You must not face many S3-4 or S6-7 weapons...you know, like bolters, lasguns, shuriken catapults/cannons, admech infantry guns, plasma guns...

And that's not to say anything about the rest of those stats.

 fraser1191 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

That is my issue. If they performed to their points, I wouldn't care about their statline. Perhaps drop Primaris down to 13 ppm and regular Marines to like 9 ppm and call it good. Oh, and double the points of any multishot weapon that does set 2+ damage per shot.

so a lascannon should be 25pts and a twin lascannon should be 100pts?

I count my blessings every day that nobody on dakka is on GWs design team.

THIS BLANKET NERF WILL FIX EVERYTHING ITS SO SIMPLE WHY IS GW SO DUMB???

I mean it would help cause a DE player could probably only bring 1 ravage with disintegrator cannons

And marines would be in a much better spot if a space marine with grav cannon costed 67 points instead of the currently stupidly weak 41.

This is usually the time in the suggestion of the dumb, overly heavyhanded blanket nerf suggestion where OP comes back to clarify that everything in HIS army is perfectly balanced and he intended his suggestion to only be applied to everyone ELSES army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nurgle5 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Why don't these stats matter in the majority of games?

because Honor Does Not Permit marine players to admit that marines could be fairly easily fixed by relatively minor balance changes like a shift from 13ppm to 11ppm and a few QOL adjustments to stratagem costs and traits applying to all models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

That is my issue. If they performed to their points, I wouldn't care about their statline. Perhaps drop Primaris down to 13 ppm and regular Marines to like 9 ppm and call it good. Oh, and double the points of any multishot weapon that does set 2+ damage per shot.

so a lascannon should be 25pts and a twin lascannon should be 100pts?

I count my blessings every day that nobody on dakka is on GWs design team.

THIS BLANKET NERF WILL FIX EVERYTHING ITS SO SIMPLE WHY IS GW SO DUMB???

No...Lascannons don't do 2+ damage base. They have variable damage, which is...somewhat factored into it. Primarily, the weapons that need to be targeted are weapons like Disintigrator Cannons. Probably not double points like I said, but a lot of multi-damage weapons need to be redone. But mostly if Marines are priced appropriately, the weapon changes aren't as necessary. A 5 pt reduction on basically all Marine infantry would probably suffice. And really, GW gets more money for it, so it isn't outside the realm of possibility.

8pt marines, 9pt sisters of battle.

Sounds good to me!

 nurgle5 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Why don't these stats matter in the majority of games?

Because my squads are getting shot to death at range before they can use most of them.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Aspect warriors are also crap in 8th. Your point?

Marines do not perform like a 13 pp model. In fact, im having more and more games where they are nor significantly better than guardsmen. Seeing as how the firepower in the game is only going one direction, and that's up, that presents a quandry.

That is my issue. If they performed to their points, I wouldn't care about their statline. Perhaps drop Primaris down to 13 ppm and regular Marines to like 9 ppm and call it good. Oh, and double the points of any multishot weapon that does set 2+ damage per shot.

9 points for a tac marine huh? I guess I'll go buy a few more boxes then, cuz I'm gonna bring like 120 to a 2000 point game. . .

Ridiculous.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Wait, you think going from T3 to T4 only matters in a "minority" of games? You must not face many S3-4 or S6-7 weapons...you know, like bolters, lasguns, shuriken catapults/cannons, admech infantry guns, plasma guns...

And that's not to say anything about the rest of those stats.

Yes, I do. The single pip wound shift for a subset of available weapons is not worth the increase from 9 to 13 ppm. A sister has a 77.8% chance to survive a boltgun hit. A marine has a 83.4% chance. That's not worth an extra 4 ppm. It just isn't. Also, acts of faith are more useful than most chapter tactics. The rest of the stats don't matter before the models are too fragile and don't live to use them.

BA even get +1 to wound when charging, but this tactic is almost useless as nothing lives long enough to assault. DoA is absolutely hamstrung by the FAQ and Agents of Vect.

Martel732 wrote:
Because my squads are getting shot to death at range before they can use most of them.

If we're basing this on personal experience the players at my FLGS seem to be getting plenty use out of those stats, hell the extra Toughness comes in handy even when they are being shot to death at range

Maybe you should use some LoS blocking terrain.

Martel732 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Wait, you think going from T3 to T4 only matters in a "minority" of games? You must not face many S3-4 or S6-7 weapons...you know, like bolters, lasguns, shuriken catapults/cannons, admech infantry guns, plasma guns...

And that's not to say anything about the rest of those stats.

Yes, I do. The single pip wound shift for a subset of available weapons is not worth the increase from 9 to 13 ppm. A sister has a 77.8% chance to survive a boltgun hit. A marine has a 83.4% chance. That's not worth an extra 4 ppm. It just isn't. Also, acts of faith are more useful than most chapter tactics. The rest of the stats don't matter before the models are too fragile and don't live to use them.

BA even get +1 to wound when charging, but this tactic is almost useless as nothing lives long enough to assault. DoA is absolutely hamstrung by the FAQ and Agents of Vect.

So should Khorne Bezerkers also cost 10ppm, because the only stat they get over a sister of battle that matters is one point of toughness? Since acts of faith are so much better than legion tactics, and they won't ever get to use any of those melee stats..

Not enough. See the above math.

We use LoS blocking terrain. They only need one shot. And IG ignores LoS blockers. Drukhari move around them. LoS blockers are very overrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Wait, you think going from T3 to T4 only matters in a "minority" of games? You must not face many S3-4 or S6-7 weapons...you know, like bolters, lasguns, shuriken catapults/cannons, admech infantry guns, plasma guns...

And that's not to say anything about the rest of those stats.

Yes, I do. The single pip wound shift for a subset of available weapons is not worth the increase from 9 to 13 ppm. A sister has a 77.8% chance to survive a boltgun hit. A marine has a 83.4% chance. That's not worth an extra 4 ppm. It just isn't. Also, acts of faith are more useful than most chapter tactics. The rest of the stats don't matter before the models are too fragile and don't live to use them.

BA even get +1 to wound when charging, but this tactic is almost useless as nothing lives long enough to assault. DoA is absolutely hamstrung by the FAQ and Agents of Vect.

So should Khorne Bezerkers also cost 10ppm, because the only stat they get over a sister of battle that matters is one point of toughness? Since acts of faith are so much better than legion tactics, and they won't ever get to use any of those melee stats..

Maybe. It would have to be playtested. Once people figured out how to game against AL shenanigans, berserkers disappeared for me.

No no no Martel I want you to commit, no weaseling out of this one.

If the only thing marines do is get shot to death and additional melee stats don't count for anything, and acts of faith are better than any chapter tactic, then Khorne Bezerkers are functionally identical to Tactical Marines when it comes to the comparison between them and a sister of battle.

Is this justified by your own reasoning here?

Sure it is. Is that want you want to hear?

Of course you did cherry pick khorne berserkers. But I'd rather them be undercosted than every other power armor unit overcosted. So, yes, it's justified the way the game currently plays.

Especially we wave a magic wand and get rid of RG and AL. Berserkers only function in the context of AL anyway.

There is a large difference is payoff if berserkers make it to CC, but they are only power armor unit I'm aware that is cost effective in CC.

Martel732 wrote:
Sure it is. Is that want you want to hear?

Of course you did cherry pick khorne berserkers. But I'd rather them be undercosted than every other power armor unit overcosted. So, yes.

Yes, I'm satisfied by that. And of course I picked Khorne Bezerkers. You've reached the point in your "melee sux' mental gymnastics where you actually made the claim that all melee stats are worth 0 points, so I'm going to go to the most extreme example available in the game for a model that's defensively identical to a tactical marine but offensively far superior...but only in melee.

It's a useful example for anyone who might be reading as to how deep you're willing to go to justify your own dogma in spite of any and all evidence available in the form of the actual competitive meta.

Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

I just drove accross the table and punched a bunch of Tau last night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Because the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

I think Martel is doing one of those "moving the goalpost" bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Uhhh...they haven't been. Have you so quickly forgotten things like the Fire Raptor or ass-can razorbacks and their subsequent points changes? You're coming across as if to say, "I need my faction to always and forever be OP now, and I will selectively ignore any time they were in the past so I can be angry now."

Sure. That's it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just drove accross the table and punched a bunch of Tau last night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Because the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Nope, can't do it, impossible, can't exist, LALALALALALALALALALALA

Evidence from competitive play is inadmissible for the Church of Marines Need Buffed because every competitive event either falls under the category of A) designs somewhat their own missions or applies other "house rules" or B) isn't big enough or enough rounds or with enough games to satisfy.

Evidence from local playgroups or batreps is inadmissible because Thats Just Anecdotal.

The only admissible evidence is from the games that the CMNB themselves play in THEIR local playgroups, in which all marines always lose all the time and everything is a gunline the end end of story I have all the evidence its the best evidence and no other evidence exists.

Wow, Martel just got absolutely dismantled in here lol that was painful to witness

So what's your evidence that tac marines are worth 13 ppm compared to guardsmen, kabalites, and sisters? The math supporting the opposite has been posted on here many times.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just drove accross the table and punched a bunch of Tau last night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Because the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Nope, can't do it, impossible, can't exist, LALALALALALALALALALALA

Evidence from competitive play is inadmissible for the Church of Marines Need Buffed because every competitive event either falls under the category of A) designs somewhat their own missions or applies other "house rules" or B) isn't big enough or enough rounds or with enough games to satisfy.

Evidence from local playgroups or batreps is inadmissible because Thats Just Anecdotal.

The only admissible evidence is from the games that the CMNB themselves play in THEIR local playgroups, in which all marines always lose all the time and everything is a gunline the end end of story I have all the evidence its the best evidence and no other evidence exists.

To be fair, I have also seen evidence from hastily-constructed mathematical models that either outright get data wrong or are so shoddily constructed that any reasonable analysis of the model itself proves it's lie.

For evidence, I cite the arguments about conscripts, where they were all simultaneously in rapid-fire range of the enemy, surrounding a commissar from all directions while also having a string of only a few dudes back to the commissar while also spreading out enough to screen the entire army and remaining at full strength the entire time.

Martel732 wrote:
So what's your evidence that tac marines are worth 13 ppm compared to guardsmen, kabalites, and sisters?

damn, I could have sworn the goalposts were over there a minute ago.

What was that claim that scotsman made about marines? Was it "marines are perfectly fine at 13ppm"? I'm sure we could find it somewhere in the thread...

"marines could be fairly easily fixed by relatively minor balance changes like a shift from 13ppm to 11ppm and a few QOL adjustments to stratagem costs and traits applying to all models."

Oh THERE it is!

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

I think Martel is doing one of those "moving the goalpost" bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Uhhh...they haven't been. Have you so quickly forgotten things like the Fire Raptor or ass-can razorbacks and their subsequent points changes? You're coming across as if to say, "I need my faction to always and forever be OP now, and I will selectively ignore any time they were in the past so I can be angry now."

Yeah, that seems a long time ago after the trio of killer Xeno codices.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

Martel732 wrote:
So what's your evidence that tac marines are worth 13 ppm compared to guardsmen, kabalites, and sisters? The math supporting the opposite has been posted on here many times.

He literally said they needed a points reduction. Stop trying to use misdirection to backpedal on your statements and own them for a second. This strawman is not going to work.

jcd386 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

I didn't even bother, but thank you. Only GW's view on the matter really matters anyhow.

Martel732 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

I didn't even bother, but thank you. Only GW's view on the matter really matters anyhow.

...except that his claim *was* that extreme. Not that he'll admit it, but that's where we're at.

Why is it extreme to not want to pay for melee stats that don't get used 80% of the time?

jcd386 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

That's true, but don't design your game around general statements as though they ARE absolute. Understand and aknowledge where the limits of the generalized statements are, because that can help you better place your arguments in context, and find an appropriate solution.

Well this thread has certainly gone down the rabbit hole.

Let me try this a little differently. Say we did go yup, everybody is now Primaris, +1 Wound and Attack for all Astartes of any kind, -1 AP on all their standard chainswords/combat knives/Bolt pistols/bolters/Stormbolters, no more restrictions on Primaris getting in transports, your basic 2W/2A AP-1 Bolter Tactical Marine costs 16 or 17 points. I’ve now got every buff I’ve been campaigning for. And it looks... kinda like 1-2pt cheaper Primaris Marines.

So I ask you this: does the prospect of having to face an all-Primaris, slightly cheaper army frighten you? Is that an army you wouldn’t want to face because it’s too powerful? I’d be shocked if that were the case.

By comparison, let’s say we gave Ork Boyz an extra wound each and bumped them up a point or two. Does the prospect of facing a 2W Ork army frighten you? Because it scares the crap outta me.

I haven't been here that long but it seems pretty well established that Martel is a bit prone to hyperbole. I'm not sure if that's what we should be going on about here.

I'm not sure if Martel went as far as saying "literally everything that wears power armor is terrible in CC." But if we look at it, giving him the benefit of the doubt instead of like 12 year old girls trying to make someone feel/look bad, most marine units are pretty bad in CC outside of those with really good special rules and even those aren't meta defining (but that takes a long time to type/read).

It seems like most, if not all, posters agree that marines are a bit under powered. People vary as to what the solution is. Be it reducing their points (easy fix), redefining their place in the meta (codex 2) or adjusting everything else in 8th to be on par with marine power levels (the worst approach).

I'm not a fan of just reducing their points as thematically it doesn't to seem like their shtick. I doubt there will be a point level where marines can out-guard guard and if we do get there mechanically, thematically it doesn't work (which is where the fluff tangent came from I guess.)

But I take Scotsman's point that it would be the easiest way to clean up the mess (along with his concession that the stratagems need a fix) and am having a hard time coming up with an argument besides "muh feels" about turning tacs into hordes. I still think a lot of other things need to be addressed in the marine book besides the costs of tacs, but that change will filter through the rest of the book and we'll likely need to mess around with the new points of the models before we get into an entire re-design of the codex.

8th is just seeming more like beta 9th at this point. At least GW is trying. What I fear is that GW will revert to their true nature and take the opportunity to release a bunch of mini-dexes at $40 (campaign books or what have you) to address the balance issues and maybe we're better off with just marines sucking for a couple of years rather than buying into a classic GW cash grab....

Either that or a new wave of primarchs are coming to the rescue in a thematic and heroic rush and will prevent the Xeno scum from kicking power armor butt all across the multi-verse...

jcd386 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

I mean, he outright admitted he'd like to see Berzerkers at 10 pts, because his point is that melee stats don't matter.

That sounds like a pretty extreme generalization to me...

Most power armor units don't pay off in CC compared to the effor to get them there. Yet, they are paying top points for their CC stats. That's my problem.

I can't be made to feel bad, as I'm a grad student.

Martel732 wrote:
Most power armor units don't pay off in CC compared to the effor to get them there. Yet, they are paying top points for their CC stats. That's my problem.

I can't be made to feel bad, as I'm a grad student.

Ok. I agree that is a problem.

Now, you'll recognize there's a gap between "top points" and "no points" so I'll ask you: How much is +1 to a melee stat worth? Is it free?

I think you're arguing different points.

Martel et al are arguing that Marines are in a bad spot.
Scotsman et al are arguing that specific claims are factually incorrect.

They are not mutually exclusive. Both core thesises appear true to me.

The problem comes from how it's being argued. Martel et al are using grandiose claims/hyperbole to attempt to elicit passion about this slight. So their claims go too far.

Claims like "CC stats are worth 0 points" or "Marines are no more durable than other infantry" or "Tacs are the worst troop in the game" are super common. Each one of those is factually false. Each one is easily proven false.

So, when a member of Team Scotsman sees these arguments, they attempt to correct the incorrect claim. That team then tries to apply as well-reasoned and unemotional a construct to do so. Typically, this comes from a desire to better analyze, better discuss the finer technical points.

Team Martel then sees this correction as a refutation of their thesis: that Marines are bad. And so we have an argument where we talk past eachother.

Wait a day or two, then we do the same thing all over again, sometimes even in the same thread.

Martel732 wrote:
Most power armor units don't pay off in CC compared to the effor to get them there. Yet, they are paying top points for their CC stats. That's my problem.

I can't be made to feel bad, as I'm a grad student.

If you're a grad student why are you so prone to hyperbole? Shouldn't we be getting a little more rigor and nuance?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Most power armor units don't pay off in CC compared to the effor to get them there. Yet, they are paying top points for their CC stats. That's my problem.

I can't be made to feel bad, as I'm a grad student.

Ok. I agree that is a problem.

Now, you'll recognize there's a gap between "top points" and "no points" so I'll ask you: How much is +1 to a melee stat worth? Is it free?

Depends on the stat and the situation IMO. I can totally accept that a tactical marine gets only nominal use out of his melee stats, and that combined, +1WS and +1S are probably only worth 1 point. 11pt marines would be totally acceptable in my eyes, and combined with a fair costing of their upgrade weaponry and vehicles, would most likely fix anything wrong with them. I would also apply CTs to all models, despite the probable internal balance issues that would cause (it mattering a whole lot in the case of the already strong CTs and not mattering all in the case of the weakest ones) because screw it, everyone else gets that and we can balance the individual cases out later.

That would get the army to usable, and unlike many people seem to be fearing, would not turn marines into a horde army. With 11pt marines you'd likely be outnumbered 2 to 1 by a real horde of orks, nids, whatever. A Space Marine, in terms of size and scale and comparison to other models present in the game, is a medium infantry model, not a walking tank. If you want them to seem incredibly powerful, you should probably not play 2000pt games of 40k with formations of huge tanks, knights, phalanxes of necrons, whole shrines of aspect warriors etc.

Like it or not, plenty of marine-comparable units exist for many of the other factions in the game already, even without getting into the super duper heavy stuff like baneblades.

Just so the record is clear here, a TLDR:

-Does changing marine point costs from 13 to 11 instantly fix them?

NO

-Do all other marine point costs suddenly make sense at 11ppm for basic power armor

NO, they need to have the balance pass other factions got post-indexes to their weaponry and vehicles

-does this mean every other faction, weapon, whatever in the game is fine and doesn't need adjustment

NO, obviously things in other factions will most likely need nerfs

I'm not imaging 80% of my marines never getting to swing.

80% of my boyz never get to swing. I think they should be 4 ppm now. Does that sound ok? Great!

IMO, +1 on one or two CC stats is worth 0 points.

Here is why: In comparison to 7th edition, melee got much worse mathematically. No more +1 attack per model after charging, power weapons didn't get significantly better, power fists got worse, because if you were a bit lucky, a space marine champ with a fist could kill a tank, while in 8th, the fist can deal 6 damage, which is half of a tanks wounds. Some heavy infantry or bikes got two or even three wounds.

All in all, melee lost a lot of cadence, shooting gained a lot, and melee got a lot worse against tanks and multi wound models as well.

 Billagio wrote:
80% of my boyz never get to swing. I think they should be 4 ppm now. Does that sound ok? Great!

That's a much larger percentage decrease than my proposal. You'd go to 5 ppm, but that's assuming boyz are overcosted to begin with. I personally can't believe anyone legitimately thinks marines are worth 13 ppm. You're losing points so fast as soon as any AP enters the picture, and only swing once in CC. It's laughable. They're paying 45% more than a sister for nowhere near 45% more survivability from T4.

Ah, but Ork boys have a proportionally larger amount of CC stats (3+ WS, 2A, reroll charge on a 6ppm model) and exceptionally poor shooting so I would argue that they need a bigger points drop

 Billagio wrote:
Ah, but Ork boys have a proportionally larger amount of CC stats (3+ WS, 2A, reroll charge on a 6ppm model) and exceptionally poor shooting so I would argue that they need a bigger points drop

Maybe. I'd playtest it. At the same time, I'd argue that there are far more weapons that remove marine points far more efficiently than Ork points. Not paying for armor you don't get to use is the way to go in 8th.

Dissy cannons are auto-win vs marines. Does that hold for orks? A heavy bolter is a dissy cannon to you.

Everything is auto-win vs orks currently :(

Orks are strong with a 3 hr time limit.

Not so much in a FLGS game.

I love that a DP can't challenge out my PF Sarge, now. That rocks.

I hate that the PF isn't much of a threat anymore.

 Billagio wrote:
Everything is auto-win vs orks currently :(

Flatly untrue in tournament land, Orks have been doing overall better than a few codex armies... and outside ITC have some major tournament wins.

I would love for GW to go to the extreme and make all weapon costs for every unit. A tactical sargeant should pay max 4 points for a power fist.

He'd still cost 17 ppm, which is too much sadly.

kombatwombat wrote:
Well this thread has certainly gone down the rabbit hole.

Let me try this a little differently. Say we did go yup, everybody is now Primaris, +1 Wound and Attack for all Astartes of any kind, -1 AP on all their standard chainswords/combat knives/Bolt pistols/bolters/Stormbolters, no more restrictions on Primaris getting in transports, your basic 2W/2A AP-1 Bolter Tactical Marine costs 16 or 17 points. I’ve now got every buff I’ve been campaigning for. And it looks... kinda like 1-2pt cheaper Primaris Marines.

So I ask you this: does the prospect of having to face an all-Primaris, slightly cheaper army frighten you? Is that an army you wouldn’t want to face because it’s too powerful? I’d be shocked if that were the case.

By comparison, let’s say we gave Ork Boyz an extra wound each and bumped them up a point or two. Does the prospect of facing a 2W Ork army frighten you? Because it scares the crap outta me.

How many different times are you going to word it before you stop and read for a second to absorb the fact that absolutely nobody is asking for a good unit like Boyz to be given buffs? On top of that, nobody on either side of the argument here is asking for costlier Marines even if they do get buffed.

If you feel like nobody is picking up what you're putting down no matter how many times you keep saying it, it's probably because it's not even the tiniest bit relevant to a single argument being made here. As far as I can tell all you are doing is debating some statement you said yourself that nobody else agreed with.

Trollbert wrote:
IMO, +1 on one or two CC stats is worth 0 points.

Here is why: In comparison to 7th edition, melee got much worse mathematically. No more +1 attack per model after charging, power weapons didn't get significantly better, power fists got worse, because if you were a bit lucky, a space marine champ with a fist could kill a tank, while in 8th, the fist can deal 6 damage, which is half of a tanks wounds. Some heavy infantry or bikes got two or even three wounds.

All in all, melee lost a lot of cadence, shooting gained a lot, and melee got a lot worse against tanks and multi wound models as well.

But marines can shoot to full effect AND charge in a a single turn now, unlike in 7th. Instead of one or the other, they get to do both. Very important.

Martel732 wrote:
He'd still cost 17 ppm, which is too much sadly.

Assuming 11p tacticals, it would be 15p vs 25p that costs now. Much more in line with his actual value.

Martel732 wrote:I'm not imaging 80% of my marines never getting to swing.

Well, true, but what're the phrases that people often use?

"Your experience doesn't matter; the plural of anecdote isn't evidence; a poor craftsmen blames his tools; the problem is the player not the game; ..."

I can think of a few more.

 Galas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
He'd still cost 17 ppm, which is too much sadly.

Assuming 11p tacticals, it would be 15p vs 25p that costs now. Much more in line with his actual value.

If we include 11 ppm, then that's probably the best we can do.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
IMO, +1 on one or two CC stats is worth 0 points.

Here is why: In comparison to 7th edition, melee got much worse mathematically. No more +1 attack per model after charging, power weapons didn't get significantly better, power fists got worse, because if you were a bit lucky, a space marine champ with a fist could kill a tank, while in 8th, the fist can deal 6 damage, which is half of a tanks wounds. Some heavy infantry or bikes got two or even three wounds.

All in all, melee lost a lot of cadence, shooting gained a lot, and melee got a lot worse against tanks and multi wound models as well.

But marines can shoot to full effect AND charge in a a single turn now, unlike in 7th. Instead of one or the other, they get to do both. Very important.

If your marines have a bolt pistol and a chain sword, they made 3 attacks in 7th (1 base, 1 for pistol and melee weapon and 1 for the charge). In 8th edition, they make 2 attacks and 1 shot.

I wish it were important. But it really isn't.

Trollbert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
IMO, +1 on one or two CC stats is worth 0 points.

Here is why: In comparison to 7th edition, melee got much worse mathematically. No more +1 attack per model after charging, power weapons didn't get significantly better, power fists got worse, because if you were a bit lucky, a space marine champ with a fist could kill a tank, while in 8th, the fist can deal 6 damage, which is half of a tanks wounds. Some heavy infantry or bikes got two or even three wounds.

All in all, melee lost a lot of cadence, shooting gained a lot, and melee got a lot worse against tanks and multi wound models as well.

But marines can shoot to full effect AND charge in a a single turn now, unlike in 7th. Instead of one or the other, they get to do both. Very important.

If your marines have a bolt pistol and a chain sword, they made 3 attacks in 7th (1 base, 1 for pistol and melee weapon and 1 for the charge). In 8th edition, they make 2 attacks and 1 shot.

And a Tactical Marine can fire at one target with bolters, another target with Plasma, another target with Las, and charge two other targets and stop them from firing. In 7th you could attack one target only (with very few exceptions). Huge difference, and if you charged two targets you lost your bonus attack. In 8th your bolters don't have to shoot the tank they can't hurt. Your Lascannon doesn't have to shoot guardsmen. They don't have to charge the berzerkers they just shot at, and can charge the cultists instead, or whatever. The flexibility has increased tremendously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I wish it were important. But it really isn't.

Tell that to the smashed Tau faces from my last game.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Trollbert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
IMO, +1 on one or two CC stats is worth 0 points.

Here is why: In comparison to 7th edition, melee got much worse mathematically. No more +1 attack per model after charging, power weapons didn't get significantly better, power fists got worse, because if you were a bit lucky, a space marine champ with a fist could kill a tank, while in 8th, the fist can deal 6 damage, which is half of a tanks wounds. Some heavy infantry or bikes got two or even three wounds.

All in all, melee lost a lot of cadence, shooting gained a lot, and melee got a lot worse against tanks and multi wound models as well.

But marines can shoot to full effect AND charge in a a single turn now, unlike in 7th. Instead of one or the other, they get to do both. Very important.

If your marines have a bolt pistol and a chain sword, they made 3 attacks in 7th (1 base, 1 for pistol and melee weapon and 1 for the charge). In 8th edition, they make 2 attacks and 1 shot.

And a Tactical Marine can fire at one target with bolters, another target with Plasma, another target with Las, and charge two other targets and stop them from firing. In 7th you could attack one target only (with very few exceptions). Huge difference, and if you charged two targets you lost your bonus attack. In 8th your bolters don't have to shoot the tank they can't hurt. Your Lascannon doesn't have to shoot guardsmen. They don't have to charge the berzerkers they just shot at, and can charge the cultists instead, or whatever. The flexibility has increased tremendously.

That's true, but how does this affect how much melee stats are worth?
Apart from that, most infantry troop units didn't get more expensive, so every army profits from that.

Insectium7, not to downplay a game I didnt saw but how do you even charge Tau? I learned the bad way to not charge directly a Tau castle with 6 Custodes guardians vs 20 firewarrios, a fiireblade and 2 missilesides.
What a masacre... For me.

I learned the same way to not deepstrike 5 custodes guardians near a guilliman bloob of intercessors with stalkers.

Trollbert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Trollbert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
IMO, +1 on one or two CC stats is worth 0 points.

Here is why: In comparison to 7th edition, melee got much worse mathematically. No more +1 attack per model after charging, power weapons didn't get significantly better, power fists got worse, because if you were a bit lucky, a space marine champ with a fist could kill a tank, while in 8th, the fist can deal 6 damage, which is half of a tanks wounds. Some heavy infantry or bikes got two or even three wounds.

All in all, melee lost a lot of cadence, shooting gained a lot, and melee got a lot worse against tanks and multi wound models as well.

But marines can shoot to full effect AND charge in a a single turn now, unlike in 7th. Instead of one or the other, they get to do both. Very important.

If your marines have a bolt pistol and a chain sword, they made 3 attacks in 7th (1 base, 1 for pistol and melee weapon and 1 for the charge). In 8th edition, they make 2 attacks and 1 shot.

And a Tactical Marine can fire at one target with bolters, another target with Plasma, another target with Las, and charge two other targets and stop them from firing. In 7th you could attack one target only (with very few exceptions). Huge difference, and if you charged two targets you lost your bonus attack. In 8th your bolters don't have to shoot the tank they can't hurt. Your Lascannon doesn't have to shoot guardsmen. They don't have to charge the berzerkers they just shot at, and can charge the cultists instead, or whatever. The flexibility has increased tremendously.

That's true, but how does this affect how much melee stats are worth?
Apart from that, most infantry troop units didn't get more expensive, so every army profits from that.

Marines subtly more than most actually, as their guys have the stats(ish) for both and have mixed gear. Orks and Nids had Assault Weapons anyways, and could therefore do both. Aspect Warriors tended to have only one type of weapon, so don't benefit as much from engaging in multirole actions (Howling Banshees can now pick a different shooting target with their pistols, yaaay...). Because marines are more generalist and often have mixed gear, it's a little boost worth mentioning.

Another interesting thing is that hitting in CC changed. Marines hit everything on a 3+ now. Prior to 8th it was a WS comparison and marines often hit on 4's and occasionally 5's. Anything that was formerly WS 4+ is now hit on 3s instead of 4s, for example. It's not the same as an extra attack for charging, but it's another interesting shift.

 Galas wrote:
Insectium7, not to downplay a game I didnt saw but how do you even charge Tau? I learned the bad way to not charge directly a Tau castle with 6 Custodes guardians vs 20 firewarrios, a fiireblade and 2 missilesides.
What a masacre... For me.

I learned the same way to not deepstrike 5 custodes guardians near a guilliman bloob of intercessors with stalkers.

Bodyblock with a Rhino. They can only Supporting Fire (or whatever it is called) once, even if the target dies - only the unit actually being charged is entitled to overwatch more than once.

 SHUPPET wrote:

On top of that, nobody on either side of the argument here is asking for costlier Marines even if they do get buffed.

*Slowly raises hand*

I don't think 11pt tac marines are the way to go. I think buffing the basic marine statline to 2W and 2A and giving them -1ap on their bolters is a much better way of buffing them. Contrary to the other fellow in here I do think that 11pt tac marines will turn them into a horde army, or at least hordier then marines were ever meant to be.

Unfortunately a 2W, 2A, marine with a bolt rifle is too good for 13 pts. Their cost will have to be raised to 16-18 points, which I am perfectly fine with BTW, because it makes marines seem more like "badass elite" army that they actually are in the fluff, which was my whole point about the fluff to begin with.

Scouts can stay at 1W and 1A and be chaff.

8th ed has turned everyone into horde, whether they should be or not. Elites just die. Cheaper is better. Embrace it.

Martel732 wrote:
8th ed has turned everyone into horde, whether they should be or not. Elites just die.

If "elite armies" were actually pointed appropriately that wouldn't be the case.

 Galas wrote:
Insectium7, not to downplay a game I didnt saw but how do you even charge Tau? I learned the bad way to not charge directly a Tau castle with 6 Custodes guardians vs 20 firewarrios, a fiireblade and 2 missilesides.
What a masacre... For me.

I learned the same way to not deepstrike 5 custodes guardians near a guilliman bloob of intercessors with stalkers.

My two cents. I'm going to play against my friend's tau next week with my small Blood Angels Force. My plan was to bring Captain Smash with the relic jump pack that rerolls charges and prevents overwatch. To cover the Sang Guard I was planning on bring Reivers with them on the drop (or just drop the Reivers in and have Guard use On wings of fire) to throw stun grenades that prevent overwatch as well.
While not foolproof and highly likely to be countered by good positioning of the castle, there's at least a way. If you don't play BA then I have no idea how to engage on them either.

 Mmmpi wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The examples I gave have in game lore about why they work. Eldar are just that fast. I don't care if you disbelieve.

Lol, you don't get it do you? Let explain it to you slowly then. Anything organic moving at a speed fast enough to kill an entire tactical squad in less than a second, would TEAR ITSELF APART due to the G forces associated with accelerations and direction changing at that speed. Hell, anything mechanical moving at that speed would tear itself apart too. Even if the Eldar did have the ability to move that fast, if they tried to do it they would rip the flesh straight off their own bones due to inertia.

Now there's nothing I've read in the lore that leads me to believe the laws of physics don't apply to howling banshees. Maybe if they had a localized time field or something that made time pass normal for them, but much slower for everything else around them it might be doable but I have never heard of anything like that in the lore.

Lol, you don't get it do you? Let me explain it to you slowly then. I know how physics work. I've said as much. I don't fething care however, what my real world physics book says when talking about a fantasy world.

Not to throw gasoline on a fire, but wouldn't it make more sense to counter the "anything mechanical would tear itself apart at that speed" argument by pointing out that a truck moving 70 mph would kill ten dudes in under a second if they were lined up properly and a truck isn't in any way designed to do that?

Edit: For the record I'm also a Marine player who would be happy to see the other Codexes get a second look after mine, better internal balance for Tau/Guard/Nids/etc means more varied builds on the other side of the table and that makes the game more interesting for me.

The Newman wrote:
Not to throw gasoline on a fire, but wouldn't it make more sense to counter the "anything mechanical would tear itself apart at that speed" argument by pointing out that a truck moving 70 mph would kill ten dudes in under a second if they were lined up properly and a truck isn't in any way designed to do that?

We are talking about a sword, not a truck. And I highly doubt an entire squad of tactical marines would be stupid enough to stand in a straight line chest to back, obligingly so that they can get killed by a howling banshee running full speed at them. Stop being a smartass.

 Galas wrote:
Insectium7, not to downplay a game I didnt saw but how do you even charge Tau? I learned the bad way to not charge directly a Tau castle with 6 Custodes guardians vs 20 firewarrios, a fiireblade and 2 missilesides.
What a masacre... For me.

I learned the same way to not deepstrike 5 custodes guardians near a guilliman bloob of intercessors with stalkers.

Quick summary:

I've been messing with Rhinos recently, so I had four of them and a Pod. He deployed defensively in a corner, and I gambled with my fewer drops for +1 for first turn and deployed directly across from him. I won 1st, so I banzai'd (advanced) across the table in Rhinos turn 1 popping smoke. I built a wall of Rhinos maybe 9 inches out from his front line with more models behind the Rhinos in a crater or coming up the flank behind a building. He blew up a Rhino and a Devastators Squad, and damaged a second Rhino in his first round. Opening of the second turn I dismounted everybody else 9" forward and was basically on top of him. Plus the Pod loaded with Sternguard I had about 50 guys up there, with another 10 man squad closing in on the flank. Lots of shooting little guns at drones and big guns at the big stuff, rerolling to hit, re-rolling 1s to wound. Cleared all drones, killed the Broadsides, took two Riptides down to about half HP, charged all the Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Riptides I could see with everything I had, Rhinos too. Did a few more wounds to a Riptide, killed off some Fire Warriors.

It could have been a much closer game after that but he botched some targeting priority for his very important 2nd turn, but also just rolled kinda terribly (no marker lights available, pathfinders and some of those little characters who have marker lights had been charged, and my Rhinos blocked meaningful LOS from the others). A couple bad decisions and one of "those turns" was a bit too much. Conceded bottom of turn two.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

On top of that, nobody on either side of the argument here is asking for costlier Marines even if they do get buffed.

Unfortunately a 2W, 2A, marine with a bolt rifle is too good for 13 pts. Their cost will have to be raised to 16-18 points, which I am perfectly fine with BTW, because it makes marines seem more like "badass elite" army that they actually are in the fluff, which was my whole point about the fluff to begin with.

You literally just described a primaris intercessor which is largely considered ineffective.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

On top of that, nobody on either side of the argument here is asking for costlier Marines even if they do get buffed.

Unfortunately a 2W, 2A, marine with a bolt rifle is too good for 13 pts. Their cost will have to be raised to 16-18 points, which I am perfectly fine with BTW, because it makes marines seem more like "badass elite" army that they actually are in the fluff, which was my whole point about the fluff to begin with.

You literally just described a primaris intercessor which is largely considered ineffective.

At their current point cost, which is what? 22 or something?

Martel732 wrote:
8th ed has turned everyone into horde, whether they should be or not. Elites just die. Cheaper is better. Embrace it.

Exactly, which is why no

Grotesques and Talos lists, custode lists, shining spears and dark reaper lists, daemon prince spam lists, those don't count

elite lists work in 8th edition.

w1zard wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

On top of that, nobody on either side of the argument here is asking for costlier Marines even if they do get buffed.

Unfortunately a 2W, 2A, marine with a bolt rifle is too good for 13 pts. Their cost will have to be raised to 16-18 points, which I am perfectly fine with BTW, because it makes marines seem more like "badass elite" army that they actually are in the fluff, which was my whole point about the fluff to begin with.

You literally just described a primaris intercessor which is largely considered ineffective.

At their current point cost, which is what? 22 or something?

18 I think. Book not on me

w1zard wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

On top of that, nobody on either side of the argument here is asking for costlier Marines even if they do get buffed.

Unfortunately a 2W, 2A, marine with a bolt rifle is too good for 13 pts. Their cost will have to be raised to 16-18 points, which I am perfectly fine with BTW, because it makes marines seem more like "badass elite" army that they actually are in the fluff, which was my whole point about the fluff to begin with.

You literally just described a primaris intercessor which is largely considered ineffective.

At their current point cost, which is what? 22 or something?

18.

One day someone is going to have to explain to me, why a termintors costs as much as he does and a 2w intercessor cost 18pts. Even if bonus save was worth 18pts, which it isn't with all the ap weapons being run around, I don't know how they end up at 40+pts each.

It's kinda odd that we still get all these "Buff Marines by giving them [Primaris stats/gear]" that don't, originally, mention Primaris.

It's almost like GW read all the Marine complaints, gave them what they asked for, then repointed. Sure, their points were off, but that's basically what they were.

On a side note, about Marines being badasses. They are. But so are Aspect Warriors. And Necron Warriors. And Tyranid Warriors. And Genestealers. And Kalabite Warriors, in a different way. And Orkz in their badass soccer-hooligan way. And even Guardsmen and Gaunts. in their baddass more-guys-than-you-have-ammo way.

Karol wrote:
One day someone is going to have to explain to me, why a termintors costs as much as he does and a 2w intercessor cost 18pts. Even if bonus save was worth 18pts, which it isn't with all the ap weapons being run around, I don't know how they end up at 40+pts each.

They probably shouldn't cost 40, but 2+ (esp in cover) is good, storm Bolters are ok, the 5++ is useful, a Powerfist is pretty good, and free Deep Striking is also pretty valuable imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
It's kinda odd that we still get all these "Buff Marines by giving them [Primaris stats/gear]" that don't, originally, mention Primaris.

It's almost like GW read all the Marine complaints, gave them what they asked for, then repointed. Sure, their points were off, but that's basically what they were.

On a side note, about Marines being badasses. They are. But so are Aspect Warriors. And Necron Warriors. And Tyranid Warriors. And Genestealers. And Kalabite Warriors, in a different way. And Orkz in their badass soccer-hooligan way. And even Guardsmen and Gaunts. in their baddass more-guys-than-you-have-ammo way.

Tyranid Warriors are on another level, man.

Rewatch that DoWII intro.

That Dread is a badass. Those Marines are badasses. Those ASM are badasses. That Captain is a badass. But so are the Banshees and Spider and Farseer.

Or do you think the couple Tac Marines should have sent all those Space Elves running all on their own?

Bharring wrote:
Rewatch that DoWII intro.

That Dread is a badass. Those Marines are badasses. Those ASM are badasses. That Captain is a badass. But so are the Banshees and Spider and Farseer.

Or do you think the couple Tac Marines should have sent all those Space Elves running all on their own?

Huh?

I said Tyranid Warriors, not Aspect Warriors?

What primaris gave, the AP system and multiple damage weapons took away.

Insect - You ninja'ed my post. It was an extension of my "badass" comment from the post above you, not a response to you.

Although now that I say that, I've decided to pick and irrational fight with you. So I'm going to insist you said Aspect not Tyranid, and that you edited your post. Jerk! (You should probably ignore this part of my post, because I'm clearly crazy.)

Bharring wrote:
Insect - You ninja'ed my post. It was an extension of my "badass" comment from the post above you, not a response to you.

Although now that I say that, I've decided to pick and irrational fight with you. So I'm going to insist you said Aspect not Tyranid, and that you edited your post. Jerk! (You should probably ignore this part of my post, because I'm clearly crazy.)

I can't ignore it, this is dakka. Round 1 FIGHT!
. . .

Gotcha.

Yeah I've stopped including Tyranid Warriors in my lineup of "basic troops", even though they technically are the tyranid "basic troops". At 3W 3A etc. they're too exotic. Genestealers work better on that scale.

w1zard wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Not to throw gasoline on a fire, but wouldn't it make more sense to counter the "anything mechanical would tear itself apart at that speed" argument by pointing out that a truck moving 70 mph would kill ten dudes in under a second if they were lined up properly and a truck isn't in any way designed to do that?

We are talking about a sword, not a truck. And I highly doubt an entire squad of tactical marines would be stupid enough to stand in a straight line chest to back, obligingly so that they can get killed by a howling banshee running full speed at them. Stop being a smartass.

There's the gasoline explosion.

Seriously though, ten dudes in lose combat formation (5-6 feet apart as specified by unit cohesion) are only going to cover a line 60 feet long at the outside. A little back-of-the-envelope math will tell you a truck doing 70 covers right aroung 100 feet per second, which is more than enough to plow through the whole lot. And yes people will start dodging, but a truck is big and obvious and easy to see coming. People react a lot slower when they don't know what's going on.

Meanwhile the best human sprinter on record was moving at about 15 mph. Eldar are supposed to be substantially faster than a human at the baseline and have centuries of training to get faster yet. Monomolecular weapons would be hideously effective at the kind of slashing attack that kind of speed would necessitate (that's how a katana works and they're not even monomolecular, only rising to the height of "hella sharp"), so at least in theory it's possible. Not likely, but within the realm of possibility if you take alien reflexes and the setting's absurdly sharp CC weapons into consideration.

Now who's the smartass.

Well, if we want to talk about physically possible, how does a phsysical thing like Power Armor or super-strong bones stop a monomolecular weapon at all? Shouldn't Eldar wound things on 2s, ignoring armor saves?

That'd make for a really stupid game.

Pay for it and you can have it. Just like everything else.

But you'll lose too many points in the shooting phase, so it's not feasible.

Martel732 wrote:
Pay for it and you can have it. Just like everything else.

But you'll lose too many points in the shooting phase, so it's not feasible.

But but but xenos are always underpriced?
That would break und the meta!

Bharring wrote:
Well, if we want to talk about physically possible, how does a phsysical thing like Power Armor or super-strong bones stop a monomolecular weapon at all? Shouldn't Eldar wound things on 2s, ignoring armor saves?

That'd make for a really stupid game.

I didn't say it wasn't stupid or that it made sense in the context of game stats or mechanics, just that if someone is going to claim "living things would tear themselves apart at that speed" they should take a minute to figure out how fast "that speed" actually is. Especially if "that speed" turns out to not be that fast.

Well, the force required to cut would decrease as sharpness of the blade increases or the width of the blade decreases. As those approach infinity/0, the force required also aproaches 0.

Monomolecular certainly isn't 0, but we're talking about sizes and measurements usually crunched with a x10^-23 factor.

I'd be surprised if the speed required were more than 1 MPH to cut through any currently-known material with a blade 1 molecule wide.

It actually probably works better the slower you are. A monomolecular blade would dull itself incredibly fast. Theoretically multiple times in the process of cutting through something. The slower the swing, the more capable whatever you're using to keep it "sharp" would be able to replace the missing molecules.

The fluff describes most monomolecular blades operating more like a lightsaber than anything else.

Truth though, Katanas (and to a lesser extent middle-eastern style sabres) are capable of cutting through some pretty hard stuff without losing a workable edge and they do it because they operate more like a saw than anything else.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Insectium7, not to downplay a game I didnt saw but how do you even charge Tau? I learned the bad way to not charge directly a Tau castle with 6 Custodes guardians vs 20 firewarrios, a fiireblade and 2 missilesides.
What a masacre... For me.

I learned the same way to not deepstrike 5 custodes guardians near a guilliman bloob of intercessors with stalkers.

Quick summary:

I've been messing with Rhinos recently, so I had four of them and a Pod. He deployed defensively in a corner, and I gambled with my fewer drops for +1 for first turn and deployed directly across from him. I won 1st, so I banzai'd (advanced) across the table in Rhinos turn 1 popping smoke. I built a wall of Rhinos maybe 9 inches out from his front line with more models behind the Rhinos in a crater or coming up the flank behind a building. He blew up a Rhino and a Devastators Squad, and damaged a second Rhino in his first round. Opening of the second turn I dismounted everybody else 9" forward and was basically on top of him. Plus the Pod loaded with Sternguard I had about 50 guys up there, with another 10 man squad closing in on the flank. Lots of shooting little guns at drones and big guns at the big stuff, rerolling to hit, re-rolling 1s to wound. Cleared all drones, killed the Broadsides, took two Riptides down to about half HP, charged all the Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Riptides I could see with everything I had, Rhinos too. Did a few more wounds to a Riptide, killed off some Fire Warriors.

It could have been a much closer game after that but he botched some targeting priority for his very important 2nd turn, but also just rolled kinda terribly (no marker lights available, pathfinders and some of those little characters who have marker lights had been charged, and my Rhinos blocked meaningful LOS from the others). A couple bad decisions and one of "those turns" was a bit too much. Conceded bottom of turn two.

So essentially, a poorly built & played Tau army can lose to marines. (What are commanders, marker lights, etc? Derp!)

An entire Tau army killed only 1 Rhino and 1 Devastator Squad.

Yeah, no matter what you face, if the full bore attack of an entire army can only eliminate ~200 points then you will win.

A real Tau army would kill all 4 of those Rhinos turn 1 if they even wanted to, and could effortlessly tank the sad sack shooting that would disembark afterwords. 3 Commanders + Y'Varha would laugh in the face of danger. Ha ha ha!

But let's continue the narrative that 40k in its current state is balanced because people run awful lists and play them poorly.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Insectium7, not to downplay a game I didnt saw but how do you even charge Tau? I learned the bad way to not charge directly a Tau castle with 6 Custodes guardians vs 20 firewarrios, a fiireblade and 2 missilesides.
What a masacre... For me.

I learned the same way to not deepstrike 5 custodes guardians near a guilliman bloob of intercessors with stalkers.

Quick summary:

I've been messing with Rhinos recently, so I had four of them and a Pod. He deployed defensively in a corner, and I gambled with my fewer drops for +1 for first turn and deployed directly across from him. I won 1st, so I banzai'd (advanced) across the table in Rhinos turn 1 popping smoke. I built a wall of Rhinos maybe 9 inches out from his front line with more models behind the Rhinos in a crater or coming up the flank behind a building. He blew up a Rhino and a Devastators Squad, and damaged a second Rhino in his first round. Opening of the second turn I dismounted everybody else 9" forward and was basically on top of him. Plus the Pod loaded with Sternguard I had about 50 guys up there, with another 10 man squad closing in on the flank. Lots of shooting little guns at drones and big guns at the big stuff, rerolling to hit, re-rolling 1s to wound. Cleared all drones, killed the Broadsides, took two Riptides down to about half HP, charged all the Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Riptides I could see with everything I had, Rhinos too. Did a few more wounds to a Riptide, killed off some Fire Warriors.

It could have been a much closer game after that but he botched some targeting priority for his very important 2nd turn, but also just rolled kinda terribly (no marker lights available, pathfinders and some of those little characters who have marker lights had been charged, and my Rhinos blocked meaningful LOS from the others). A couple bad decisions and one of "those turns" was a bit too much. Conceded bottom of turn two.

So essentially, a poorly built & played Tau army can lose to marines..... But let's continue the narrative that 40k in its current state is balanced because people run awful lists and play them poorly.

Uhh...what are you talking about? Sure, you can argue he made poor in-game decisions, but fire warriors, pathfinders, drones, and riptides are all solid Tau units. And there's no reason to be so toxic about it, unless you're trying to virtue signal or something to all the anti-xenos players. And I don't think anyone on here (or anywhere? ever?) has alleged that 8th is perfectly balanced.

A trunk hitting ten guys standing is a row isn't likely, but stranger things have happened. I'm still laughing at the idea that space ships traveling though hell, and *PAULDRONS* aren't over the top, but really good swords skills and fast reflexes are. Also, I believe most power weapons actually use a molecule disrupting field to do most of the actual cutting, so they really wouldn't dull, and may not even be sharp in the first place.

Durability wise I think marines are fine. Playing against them, it usually takes massed melta fire to quickly inflict casualties (I play sisters, so others would use plasma), weapons designed to kill...heavily...armored...targets...
You know, like marines. (Same armor save as a main battle tank). If I'm not using melta, or if AT weapons aren't being used, the only way I can reliably kill marines, particularly if they're in cover, is to absolutely drown them in bolter fire. Martel, that T4 really helps. Wounding on 4+ with bolters while being wounded on 3+ in return is a bigger difference then you're giving credit to. You're also overlooking the benefit of that higher leadership. MSU Marines are functionally immune to battle shock outside of being LDbombed.

For Close combat: I was in a game against a marine player. He was making the same complaint. He was saying he paid for CC stats, but since he was stuck in cover, he couldn't use them. My reply was that if he did use them, he'd probably win those melees. But, since I'm not an idiot, why would I let him? Hence the situation where if he broke cover I'd shoot him. Martel, why are you asking non-marine players to be stupid? Of course you have to plan to use that, just like other players have to plan to keep you from doing it to them. I think it's rather foolish though to say marines should just "la la la" skip their way across an open battle field and try to punch someone in the face, and not have to face any repercussion for it. Yes, you're going to say that it's not what you're saying. But it really is. You either want everyone else to be nerfed to the point where your MartySue Marines can hollywood tactics them, or you want marines buffed to the point where it's the same. You're asking your fellow gamers to not have their troops defend themselves, or use the best weapons available. Currently, I'd say you're leaning towards the buffed side of things, because you're asking for free WS, S, T, and LD.

Fixes. Offensive power. Make bolters better. Most of the models in the game that can take bolters are already overcosted. SM, CSM, Inquisitor Henchmen, SoB, just to name a few. Make bolters better and you amp up all of them. I'm thinking an increase in the number of shots. This would keep them feeling like elites, while improving their ability to fight hordes.

 Mmmpi wrote:

For Close combat: I was in a game against a marine player. He was making the same complaint. He was saying he paid for CC stats, but since he was stuck in cover, he couldn't use them. My reply was that if he did use them, he'd probably win those melees. But, since I'm not an idiot, why would I let him? Hence the situation where if he broke cover I'd shoot him. Martel, why are you asking non-marine players to be stupid? Of course you have to plan to use that, just like other players have to plan to keep you from doing it to them. I think it's rather foolish though to say marines should just "la la la" skip their way across an open battle field and try to punch someone in the face, and not have to face any repercussion for it. Yes, you're going to say that it's not what you're saying. But it really is. You either want everyone else to be nerfed to the point where your MartySue Marines can hollywood tactics them, or you want marines buffed to the point where it's the same.

I think to appease Martel they should drop marines to 10ppm but give them a 0+ WS and no attacks. That way if the enemy makes it into CC they just win.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Insectium7, not to downplay a game I didnt saw but how do you even charge Tau? I learned the bad way to not charge directly a Tau castle with 6 Custodes guardians vs 20 firewarrios, a fiireblade and 2 missilesides.
What a masacre... For me.

I learned the same way to not deepstrike 5 custodes guardians near a guilliman bloob of intercessors with stalkers.

Quick summary:

I've been messing with Rhinos recently, so I had four of them and a Pod. He deployed defensively in a corner, and I gambled with my fewer drops for +1 for first turn and deployed directly across from him. I won 1st, so I banzai'd (advanced) across the table in Rhinos turn 1 popping smoke. I built a wall of Rhinos maybe 9 inches out from his front line with more models behind the Rhinos in a crater or coming up the flank behind a building. He blew up a Rhino and a Devastators Squad, and damaged a second Rhino in his first round. Opening of the second turn I dismounted everybody else 9" forward and was basically on top of him. Plus the Pod loaded with Sternguard I had about 50 guys up there, with another 10 man squad closing in on the flank. Lots of shooting little guns at drones and big guns at the big stuff, rerolling to hit, re-rolling 1s to wound. Cleared all drones, killed the Broadsides, took two Riptides down to about half HP, charged all the Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Riptides I could see with everything I had, Rhinos too. Did a few more wounds to a Riptide, killed off some Fire Warriors.

It could have been a much closer game after that but he botched some targeting priority for his very important 2nd turn, but also just rolled kinda terribly (no marker lights available, pathfinders and some of those little characters who have marker lights had been charged, and my Rhinos blocked meaningful LOS from the others). A couple bad decisions and one of "those turns" was a bit too much. Conceded bottom of turn two.

So essentially, a poorly built & played Tau army can lose to marines. (What are commanders, marker lights, etc? Derp!)

An entire Tau army killed only 1 Rhino and 1 Devastator Squad.

Yeah, no matter what you face, if the full bore attack of an entire army can only eliminate ~200 points then you will win.

A real Tau army would kill all 4 of those Rhinos turn 1 if they even wanted to, and could effortlessly tank the sad sack shooting that would disembark afterwords. 3 Commanders + Y'Varha would laugh in the face of danger. Ha ha ha!

But let's continue the narrative that 40k in its current state is balanced because people run awful lists and play them poorly.

I'm not telling anyone to draw any conclusions from one game. Not sure where you're getting that.

There were command suits in his army. Two of them, one in deep strike reserves. Not sure what a Tau army is supposed to look like, but 2 command suits, 3 riptides, 30 Fire Warriors, some pathfinders, 2 Broadsides, 12? Shield drones three of those little markerlight buff characters.

I gurantee you if I posted my list the internet would bitch endlessly about how bad it was. 5 transports, 77 marines, 4 full 10 man Tac squads, etc. You know, "garbage units that nobody takes."

Wow, TWO Broadsides! That's definitely a power Tau list!

Why aren't you playing competitively in tournaments again?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow, TWO Broadsides! That's definitely a power Tau list!

Why aren't you playing competitively in tournaments again?

Snark it up, snarky. Post me a good Tau list.

If his list is crap, and my list is full of "hot garbage", where does that put us?

I would have rather he had more broadsides, as they're way easier to kill than Riptides, and they dont fly away from CC.

 Insectum7 wrote:


I gurantee you if I posted my list the internet would bitch endlessly about how bad it was. 5 transports, 77 marines, 4 full 10 man Tac squads, etc. You know, "garbage units that nobody takes."

Such rationale has no place on Dakka

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow, TWO Broadsides! That's definitely a power Tau list!

Why aren't you playing competitively in tournaments again?

Snark it up, snarky. Post me a good Tau list.

If his list is crap, and my list is full of "hot garbage", where does that put us?

I would have rather he had more broadsides, as they're way easier to kill than Riptides, and they dont fly away from CC.

3 Riptides, 3 Ionheads, Longstrike. Droneport with marker drones and a cadre to pilot them. Drop an ionhead for more shield/marker drones if you wish. Markerlight support via breacher teams and the Cadre Fireblade.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow, TWO Broadsides! That's definitely a power Tau list!

Why aren't you playing competitively in tournaments again?

Snark it up, snarky. Post me a good Tau list.

If his list is crap, and my list is full of "hot garbage", where does that put us?

I would have rather he had more broadsides, as they're way easier to kill than Riptides, and they dont fly away from CC.

Lol. Unless you beat a list that's nothing but quad fusion coldstars and fore warriors with an army of pure terminators not deep striking and foot slogging towards them IT DUZZINT COUNT.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow, TWO Broadsides! That's definitely a power Tau list!

Why aren't you playing competitively in tournaments again?

Snark it up, snarky. Post me a good Tau list.

If his list is crap, and my list is full of "hot garbage", where does that put us?

I would have rather he had more broadsides, as they're way easier to kill than Riptides, and they dont fly away from CC.

3 Riptides, 3 Ionheads, Longstrike. Droneport with marker drones and a cadre to pilot them. Drop an ionhead for more shield/marker drones if you wish. Markerlight support via breacher teams and the Cadre Fireblade.

Whats standard for the riptides? He had 2 with the gatling and one with Ion.

 Mmmpi wrote:
A trunk hitting ten guys standing is a row isn't likely, but stranger things have happened. I'm still laughing at the idea that space ships traveling though hell, and *PAULDRONS* aren't over the top, but really good swords skills and fast reflexes are. Also, I believe most power weapons actually use a molecule disrupting field to do most of the actual cutting, so they really wouldn't dull, and may not even be sharp in the first place.

Durability wise I think marines are fine. Playing against them, it usually takes massed melta fire to quickly inflict casualties (I play sisters, so others would use plasma), weapons designed to kill...heavily...armored...targets...
You know, like marines. (Same armor save as a main battle tank). If I'm not using melta, or if AT weapons aren't being used, the only way I can reliably kill marines, particularly if they're in cover, is to absolutely drown them in bolter fire. Martel, that T4 really helps. Wounding on 4+ with bolters while being wounded on 3+ in return is a bigger difference then you're giving credit to. You're also overlooking the benefit of that higher leadership. MSU Marines are functionally immune to battle shock outside of being LDbombed.

For Close combat: I was in a game against a marine player. He was making the same complaint. He was saying he paid for CC stats, but since he was stuck in cover, he couldn't use them. My reply was that if he did use them, he'd probably win those melees. But, since I'm not an idiot, why would I let him? Hence the situation where if he broke cover I'd shoot him. Martel, why are you asking non-marine players to be stupid? Of course you have to plan to use that, just like other players have to plan to keep you from doing it to them. I think it's rather foolish though to say marines should just "la la la" skip their way across an open battle field and try to punch someone in the face, and not have to face any repercussion for it. Yes, you're going to say that it's not what you're saying. But it really is. You either want everyone else to be nerfed to the point where your MartySue Marines can hollywood tactics them, or you want marines buffed to the point where it's the same. You're asking your fellow gamers to not have their troops defend themselves, or use the best weapons available. Currently, I'd say you're leaning towards the buffed side of things, because you're asking for free WS, S, T, and LD.

Fixes. Offensive power. Make bolters better. Most of the models in the game that can take bolters are already overcosted. SM, CSM, Inquisitor Henchmen, SoB, just to name a few. Make bolters better and you amp up all of them. I'm thinking an increase in the number of shots. This would keep them feeling like elites, while improving their ability to fight hordes.

No, that's not right. You're describing 3rd. We're so far from that now it's really gone full circle. But I'm tired and it's just not worth it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow, TWO Broadsides! That's definitely a power Tau list!

Why aren't you playing competitively in tournaments again?

LOL that's really not that bad pal

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
A trunk hitting ten guys standing is a row isn't likely, but stranger things have happened. I'm still laughing at the idea that space ships traveling though hell, and *PAULDRONS* aren't over the top, but really good swords skills and fast reflexes are. Also, I believe most power weapons actually use a molecule disrupting field to do most of the actual cutting, so they really wouldn't dull, and may not even be sharp in the first place.

Durability wise I think marines are fine. Playing against them, it usually takes massed melta fire to quickly inflict casualties (I play sisters, so others would use plasma), weapons designed to kill...heavily...armored...targets...
You know, like marines. (Same armor save as a main battle tank). If I'm not using melta, or if AT weapons aren't being used, the only way I can reliably kill marines, particularly if they're in cover, is to absolutely drown them in bolter fire. Martel, that T4 really helps. Wounding on 4+ with bolters while being wounded on 3+ in return is a bigger difference then you're giving credit to. You're also overlooking the benefit of that higher leadership. MSU Marines are functionally immune to battle shock outside of being LDbombed.

For Close combat: I was in a game against a marine player. He was making the same complaint. He was saying he paid for CC stats, but since he was stuck in cover, he couldn't use them. My reply was that if he did use them, he'd probably win those melees. But, since I'm not an idiot, why would I let him? Hence the situation where if he broke cover I'd shoot him. Martel, why are you asking non-marine players to be stupid? Of course you have to plan to use that, just like other players have to plan to keep you from doing it to them. I think it's rather foolish though to say marines should just "la la la" skip their way across an open battle field and try to punch someone in the face, and not have to face any repercussion for it. Yes, you're going to say that it's not what you're saying. But it really is. You either want everyone else to be nerfed to the point where your MartySue Marines can hollywood tactics them, or you want marines buffed to the point where it's the same. You're asking your fellow gamers to not have their troops defend themselves, or use the best weapons available. Currently, I'd say you're leaning towards the buffed side of things, because you're asking for free WS, S, T, and LD.

Fixes. Offensive power. Make bolters better. Most of the models in the game that can take bolters are already overcosted. SM, CSM, Inquisitor Henchmen, SoB, just to name a few. Make bolters better and you amp up all of them. I'm thinking an increase in the number of shots. This would keep them feeling like elites, while improving their ability to fight hordes.

No, that's not right. You're describing 3rd. We're so far from that now it's really gone full circle. But I'm tired and it's just not worth it.

Except that it is. Sorry you don't like it.

It isn't. Sorry you don't understand it. There's a lot design space between 80-100% casualties to 0% casualties. Sorry if you don't like it.

Yeah, you see I really don't have to put much effort into this because in the last 17 pages, several people already posted the reasons you're wrong.

Whoops.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow, TWO Broadsides! That's definitely a power Tau list!

Why aren't you playing competitively in tournaments again?

Snark it up, snarky. Post me a good Tau list.

If his list is crap, and my list is full of "hot garbage", where does that put us?

I would have rather he had more broadsides, as they're way easier to kill than Riptides, and they dont fly away from CC.

Lol. Unless you beat a list that's nothing but quad fusion coldstars and fore warriors with an army of pure terminators not deep striking and foot slogging towards them IT DUZZINT COUNT.

Cant forget when you list out all the stuff your "regular" opponents usually bring and its easily +200 points above what you said the points limit would be.

I don't know, after getting stomped into mulch by a "fluffy" Guard list while only killing a fraction of their models, I think I'm changing my vote on the original question to "G_d I hope so".

I won't even complain about paying for another book and (probably) having to buy more models to field a legal army.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow, TWO Broadsides! That's definitely a power Tau list!

Why aren't you playing competitively in tournaments again?

Snark it up, snarky. Post me a good Tau list.

If his list is crap, and my list is full of "hot garbage", where does that put us?

I would have rather he had more broadsides, as they're way easier to kill than Riptides, and they dont fly away from CC.

Lol. Unless you beat a list that's nothing but quad fusion coldstars and fore warriors with an army of pure terminators not deep striking and foot slogging towards them IT DUZZINT COUNT.

Not what was said. I haven't any care for stupid casual vs stupid casual games as they dont teach anything to the player or watcher.

Oh, slayer, you're so leet. One day i hope to be as single-minded as you. Such a focussed killing machine your armies must be. I bet you opponents tremble as you enter the game shop. Surely your battles are fought with the utmost precision, nary a rule missed, or a misplaced model or forgotted weapon fired forgiven. What a shining example to the 40k hobby your example is.

I'm not sure why people can't see how much more worthwhile the sister statline is when compared to marines.

Most marines never even see combat due to the faction having terrible mobility options, and their guns are obviously better than their melee weapons.

The difference in assault is laughable.
5 marines kill .44 more guardsmen in melee than 5 sisters do.

The difference in durability is very slight.
Sure, it takes 18 lasguns to kill a marine, but 12 to kill a sister, but this is about as big as the gap gets.
It takes 9 bolter shots to kill a marine, and 7 to kill a sister.
It takes 9 assault cannon shots to kill 2 marines, and it takes 8 to kill two sisters.
So in the end, against the guns that actually do the majority of the killing, they are effectively about the same.

Morale is largely irrelevant on any 5 man squad because they are so easy to wipe out.

And yet sisters do the same amount of damage in shooting as marines do with the same weapons, for about 70% of their cost. They do have slightly different weapon options, but can also take more guns per squad. They are simply more efficient at everything that matters.

Being 4 points cheaper is a big reason why sisters are actually decent right now. Actually having useful transports and acts of faith help A TON as well, but that's a whole other issue.

The next time you play marines, or sisters, mentally ask yourself when they are dying, or fighting, or shooting, if the difference in T/S/WS/LD made a real difference. I think you'll be surprised (or not) to see that it usually doesn't matter, but that having 30% more BS3+ power armor models might have.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh, slayer, you're so leet. One day i hope to be as single-minded as you. Such a focussed killing machine your armies must be. I bet you opponents tremble as you enter the game shop. Surely your battles are fought with the utmost precision, nary a rule missed, or a misplaced model or forgotted weapon fired forgiven. What a shining example to the 40k hobby your example is.

Once I'm done putting all my models together and have everything painted I hope to be that beacon. I have a Huron/Azrael stand-in I love to bust out for every battle basically.

Rules are forgotten here and there but forgetting units and weapons is pretty damn stupid of anyone, even in a 2500 point game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh, slayer, you're so leet. One day i hope to be as single-minded as you. Such a focussed killing machine your armies must be. I bet you opponents tremble as you enter the game shop. Surely your battles are fought with the utmost precision, nary a rule missed, or a misplaced model or forgotted weapon fired forgiven. What a shining example to the 40k hobby your example is.

Once I'm done putting all my models together and have everything painted I hope to be that beacon. I have a Huron/Azrael stand-in I love to bust out for every battle basically.

Rules are forgotten here and there but forgetting units and weapons is pretty damn stupid of anyone, even in a 2500 point game.

Nick Nanavati forgot a unit in reserves for the entire match in a recent finals tournament game. What a nobody.

I think you're just a toxic poster tbh

 Insectum7 wrote:
Whats standard for the riptides? He had 2 with the gatling and one with Ion.

You should always take the Heavy Burst Cannon IMHO.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh, slayer, you're so leet. One day i hope to be as single-minded as you. Such a focussed killing machine your armies must be. I bet you opponents tremble as you enter the game shop. Surely your battles are fought with the utmost precision, nary a rule missed, or a misplaced model or forgotted weapon fired forgiven. What a shining example to the 40k hobby your example is.

Once I'm done putting all my models together and have everything painted I hope to be that beacon. I have a Huron/Azrael stand-in I love to bust out for every battle basically.

Rules are forgotten here and there but forgetting units and weapons is pretty damn stupid of anyone, even in a 2500 point game.

Nick Nanavati forgot a unit in reserves for the entire match in a recent finals tournament game. What a nobody.

I think you're just a toxic poster tbh

So it happens once and suddenly it's normal?

jcd386 wrote:
I'm not sure why people can't see how much more worthwhile the sister statline is when compared to marines.

Most marines never even see combat due to the faction having terrible mobility options, and their guns are obviously better than their melee weapons.

The difference in assault is laughable.
5 marines kill .44 more guardsmen in melee than 5 sisters do.

The difference in durability is very slight.
Sure, it takes 18 lasguns to kill a marine, but 12 to kill a sister, but this is about as big as the gap gets.
It takes 9 bolter shots to kill a marine, and 7 to kill a sister.
It takes 9 assault cannon shots to kill 2 marines, and it takes 8 to kill two sisters.
So in the end, against the guns that actually do the majority of the killing, they are effectively about the same.

Morale is largely irrelevant on any 5 man squad because they are so easy to wipe out.

And yet sisters do the same amount of damage in shooting as marines do with the same weapons, for about 70% of their cost. They do have slightly different weapon options, but can also take more guns per squad. They are simply more efficient at everything that matters.

Being 4 points cheaper is a big reason why sisters are actually decent right now. Actually having useful transports and acts of faith help A TON as well, but that's a whole other issue.

The next time you play marines, or sisters, mentally ask yourself when they are dying, or fighting, or shooting, if the difference in T/S/WS/LD made a real difference. I think you'll be surprised (or not) to see that it usually doesn't matter, but that having 30% more BS3+ power armor models might have.

So what you're saying is it that against lasguns sisters take 33% more casulties (the most common gun in the game by numbers), about 24% more from bolters, 12% more from assault cannons.
Meanwhile sisters are 31% cheaper. That's in taking fire.

But you're leaving out the +1 leadership, and the fact that if marines make it into combat, they'll inflict more damage. So, more resilient against small arms by more than the cost difference, though less against dedicated anti-heavy infantry weapons, and the same against AT weapons.

"but we can't get our marines into close combat" you might say. Well, considering people have posted here that they have, and most Blood angel players have (and their troops aren't any more durable then standard marines) makes me wonder where you're messing up.

So, to sum up. Ranged offense is similar (marines have far more options for weapon upgrades then sisters), but with more range. Defensive durability is higher for marines, ranging from 31% and 29% (lasguns and bolters), to 0% (las cannons and missile launchers). Melee the marines are 33% more likely to hit, 33% more likely to wound, and 50% less likely to be wounded. After both, the higher leadership then makes them less likely to suffer battleshock by 50% (3 casualties for marines before the BS roll even matters, as opposed to two for sisters). Seems like that's a fair trade for four points.

I LOL at the notion that +1LD is worth anything when people do what they can to avoid big squads in the first place with both those units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I LOL at the notion that +1LD is worth anything when people do what they can to avoid big squads in the first place with both those units.

Kill two sisters and they have to make that roll. Kill two marines and they don't. Sure it's a 1/6, but it happens, and sisters are easier to kill unless you're using lascannons or melta.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I LOL at the notion that +1LD is worth anything when people do what they can to avoid big squads in the first place with both those units.

Bigger squads, fewer drops, more regular guys to chew through before you get to the special/heavies, easier to command board space while still in range for aura buffs.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I LOL at the notion that +1LD is worth anything when people do what they can to avoid big squads in the first place with both those units.

Kill two sisters and they have to make that roll. Kill two marines and they don't. Sure it's a 1/6, but it happens, and sisters are easier to kill unless you're using lascannons or melta.

1/6 chance to lose that extra Sister you bought because they're that much cheaper than the Marines? Yeah whatever on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I LOL at the notion that +1LD is worth anything when people do what they can to avoid big squads in the first place with both those units.

Bigger squads, fewer drops, more regular guys to chew through before you get to the special/heavies, easier to command board space while still in range for aura buffs.

You have transports if you want to create fewer drops, and two Sisters squads can fit in those.