Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
A: That's not auto-bad.
B: Are you taking morale into account?
Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?
I pretty much laugh at anyone that thinks Morale is a serious argument. Morale hasn't mattered since even 4th edition (it was nice when you made your opponent flee but it was unlikely).
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
A: That's not auto-bad.
B: Are you taking morale into account?
Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?
I pretty much laugh at anyone that thinks Morale is a serious argument. Morale hasn't mattered since even 4th edition (it was nice when you made your opponent flee but it was unlikely).
And you'll lose more games for not taking advantage of it.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Crimson wrote: These Dakka 'How to Fix Marines' threads are always so fething pointless.
Poster 1: "How to fix problem X, Y and Z on marines'
Poster2: "Primaris have fixed the problems X, Y and Z."
Poster1: "Noo, Primaris bad! No Primaris!"
Have you read what I've said? I haven't said 'they are bad'. Just that it would make them too powerful. Primaris are good but not that good. (Hence why no one runs them in tournaments).
Shurikens used to be AP:5 and had rending. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with shurikens.
Pulse weapons were AP: 5. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with pulse weapons.
Shootas were AP: 6. I wouldn't really change them either.
Spinter used to be AP: 5. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with splinters.
Okay.
Not taking morale into account is disingenuous, as it is part of unit durability.
20 Bolter shots kills about 6 Guardsmen. At which point they have a 50% chance (4+) of losing 3 more. For a total loss of (9x4) 36 points. (average roll would be 3.5, so 34 points if you want to count it that way)
20 Bolter shots kills 2.2 Marines. No losses to morale. For a total loss of 28ish points.
So when you're dealing with small amounts of small arms, Guard are more durable pp, but when dealing with larger amounts of small arms, Space Marines are more durable.
Not to mention the effect of cover, in which Space Marines halve the damage dealt to them by small arms.
I disagree morale is only used very rarely. Even if that. Morale should be taken into account far more often in games or be apart of close combat etc. The fact its only in when a unit suffers damage is a waste of an entire mechanic.
I disagree morale is only used very rarely. Even if that. Morale should be taken into account far more often in games or be apart of close combat etc. The fact its only in when a unit suffers damage is a waste of an entire mechanic.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have. I personally preferred the old Moral system. Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants. Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.
Thats fine with me honestly.
Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.
The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.
Not in terms of saves. S4 only helps a small bit. not completely as ap is generally how 'killy' a weapon can be against infantry. Strength helps with wound rolls but if it is a s10 ap0 its not going to do as much damage as a s10 ap-1. that changes the die by 1/6.
Bolters should be more powerful and would make some lacking armies much more powerful and have actual killing potential cause currently bolters are overpriced and not worthwhile compared to guardsmen with lasguns.
They are more powerful. They wound guard on a 3+ and marines on a 4+. They're currently -0- points. Sorry but you're not going to convince me that bolters are weak if you're comparing them to lasguns.
The models that require bolters are expensive mate. Stormbolters gaining an AP-1 would be very helpful and would justify the cost it takes to for the unit that can take them.
I am comparing bolters to lasguns because a lasgun is only 1 strength less than a bolter? So that justifies them being almost as powerful as a bolter? In a previous addition a bolter was AP5. So a -1 ap to 6+ saves. Now they are so close in profile its laughable.
They're not just as powerful as a bolter. They're only half as effective, and that's not including a marines's better BS. Even with AP: 0 they still kill guard at a higher rate then guard kill marines with las guns. Maybe don't run your 5 man tactical squads right at 50+ guardsmen in the open.
They're not just as powerful as a bolter. They're only half as effective, and that's not including a marines's better BS. Even with AP: 0 they still kill guard at a higher rate then guard kill marines with las guns. Maybe don't run your 5 man tactical squads right at 50+ guardsmen in the open.
I'll run my marines when they become useful, otherwise I'll take my 50 guardsmen and my knights over any space marine army. And all my generated CP that i can use for my custodes on jetbikes. Again this isn't just for marines but for everyone that uses bolters. Including regular guard units with heavy bolters.
If they did this it would increase the effectiveness of most imperial armies.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
Vets don't count towards the rule of three. They are a troop choice.
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines).
You are way off its 87pts. (plasma guns are 11pts each, marines are 13pts each) for a full squad of marines would be around 152pts or 169 (for a heavy bolter).... Which no one will do because bolter marines suck Tactical squads are useless because their firepower does not match any of the other units. Bolters also suffer the problem of needing to be rapid fired. for that 152pts I can get several squads of veterans and guardsmen with heavy emplacements or a voxcaster and a commissar. So no guardsmen still win in terms of sheer weight of fire especially once orders are contributing to them.... or the cadian special rule again Tact marines have nothing on guardsmen. if we were comparing one unit vs one unit sure. but we aren't we are comparing the sheer weight of fire and cost-effectiveness which you have repeatedly ignored.
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
A: That's not auto-bad.
B: Are you taking morale into account?
Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?
I pretty much laugh at anyone that thinks Morale is a serious argument. Morale hasn't mattered since even 4th edition (it was nice when you made your opponent flee but it was unlikely).
And you'll lose more games for not taking advantage of it.
If that were true, the LD shenanigans army traits would actually be popular.
They're not because relying on beating the opponent via morale is literally stupid to do.
They're not just as powerful as a bolter. They're only half as effective, and that's not including a marines's better BS. Even with AP: 0 they still kill guard at a higher rate then guard kill marines with las guns. Maybe don't run your 5 man tactical squads right at 50+ guardsmen in the open.
I'll run my marines when they become useful, otherwise I'll take my 50 guardsmen and my knights over any space marine army. And all my generated CP that i can use for my custodes on jetbikes. Again this isn't just for marines but for everyone that uses bolters. Including regular guard units with heavy bolters.
If they did this it would increase the effectiveness of most imperial armies.
So maybe you read my other suggestions as well?
My regular space marine opponent has no issues killing guard equivalents with bolters.
My sisters with bolters have no issues killing things like cultists.
I've found marines very useful if you use cover, mass fire where needed, and take advantage of moral.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
Being relevant only once, doesn't make it not relevant, however. If it's a viable option to use to kill more models, and is a core mechanic in the game, and we're talking about balancing units based around core mechanics, we gotta acknowledge its potential effects.
When I fight Guard, I gun for dealing about 7 casualties to each squad in order to maximize the potential efficiency for guardsmen running away. While it's true that I have to coordinate a little bit more in order to maximize the effects of morale, the effect is certainly measurable and relevant.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
I never said they should pay less than marines, I said marines shouldn't pay less than guard.
Yup, 20 guard bodies. Again, why are you running five marines straight at 20 guardsmen?
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have. I personally preferred the old Moral system. Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants. Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
I never said they should pay less than marines, I said marines shouldn't pay less than guard.
Yup, 20 guard bodies. Again, why are you running five marines straight at 20 guardsmen?
Why would you run marines? IF you could run guard for more CP and more sheer weight of fire?
20 guards = same cost as a 5 man squad of space marines.
My (standard) IG codex for 8th ed says that they're an elite choice.
Confused Conscripts and Guardsmen for vets. but I also have Tempestus Scions for 50pts as a troop choice.... so already better than marines.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
I never said they should pay less than marines, I said marines shouldn't pay less than guard.
Yup, 20 guard bodies. Again, why are you running five marines straight at 20 guardsmen?
Why would you run marines?
If you don't like them don't.
And those scions are only T3 with a 4+, and unless you're buying them a chimera, you can either make them walk and shoot them at long range, or control where they drop.
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
A: That's not auto-bad.
B: Are you taking morale into account?
Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?
I pretty much laugh at anyone that thinks Morale is a serious argument. Morale hasn't mattered since even 4th edition (it was nice when you made your opponent flee but it was unlikely).
And you'll lose more games for not taking advantage of it.
If that were true, the LD shenanigans army traits would actually be popular.
They're not because relying on beating the opponent via morale is literally stupid to do.
Morale traits aren't taken because lots of factions can shrug it off.
It just so happens that Guard aren't usually one of them, and we're talking explicitly about the relationship between Marines and Guard. Therefore, it matters to the discussion.
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
A: That's not auto-bad.
B: Are you taking morale into account?
Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?
I pretty much laugh at anyone that thinks Morale is a serious argument. Morale hasn't mattered since even 4th edition (it was nice when you made your opponent flee but it was unlikely).
And you'll lose more games for not taking advantage of it.
If that were true, the LD shenanigans army traits would actually be popular.
They're not because relying on beating the opponent via morale is literally stupid to do.
Morale traits aren't taken because lots of factions can shrug it off.
It just so happens that Guard aren't usually one of them, and we're talking explicitly about the relationship between Marines and Guard. Therefore, it matters to the discussion.
Guard also have the benefit of having orders. Morale doesn't really come in cause marines don't cause enough damage for it to matter. Once guardsmen get leman russes on the field the guard will automatically do better in terms of sheer weight of fire and effectiveness.
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
A: That's not auto-bad.
B: Are you taking morale into account?
Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?
I pretty much laugh at anyone that thinks Morale is a serious argument. Morale hasn't mattered since even 4th edition (it was nice when you made your opponent flee but it was unlikely).
And you'll lose more games for not taking advantage of it.
If that were true, the LD shenanigans army traits would actually be popular.
They're not because relying on beating the opponent via morale is literally stupid to do.
Morale traits aren't taken because lots of factions can shrug it off.
It just so happens that Guard aren't usually one of them, and we're talking explicitly about the relationship between Marines and Guard. Therefore, it matters to the discussion.
Guard also have the benefit of having orders. Morale doesn't really come in cause marines don't cause enough damage for it to matter. Once guardsmen get leman russes on the field the guard will automatically do better in terms of sheer weight of fire and effectiveness.
And marines have three non-special characters that give re-rolls to various attacks and damages. You also apparently don't talk to many guard players, because they mostly say LR's suck.
Well, why? If Guard are intended to be a tough unit, and they function as a tough unit, what's wrong with that? There's not really a strong reason to make Marines tougher per-point than Guard.
I find it rather surreal that we're arguing whether or not guardsmen should be more durable against every weapon in the game than the marines.
Not taking morale into account is disingenuous, as it is part of unit durability.
Omitting that there are several easy ways to mitigate morale is disingenuous. The guard player can pretty much dictate when and if their models are affected by the morale. Furthermore, citing averages on this example is misleading. Marines lose models to the morale rarely, but when they do, it means a loss of a lot of points. They also have less CP to use for anti-morale stratagems.
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
A: That's not auto-bad.
B: Are you taking morale into account?
Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?
I pretty much laugh at anyone that thinks Morale is a serious argument. Morale hasn't mattered since even 4th edition (it was nice when you made your opponent flee but it was unlikely).
And you'll lose more games for not taking advantage of it.
If that were true, the LD shenanigans army traits would actually be popular.
They're not because relying on beating the opponent via morale is literally stupid to do.
Morale traits aren't taken because lots of factions can shrug it off.
It just so happens that Guard aren't usually one of them, and we're talking explicitly about the relationship between Marines and Guard. Therefore, it matters to the discussion.
Guard also have the benefit of having orders. Morale doesn't really come in cause marines don't cause enough damage for it to matter. Once guardsmen get leman russes on the field the guard will automatically do better in terms of sheer weight of fire and effectiveness.
Non substantive irrelevant claim, there. We just showed that 20 bolter shots will cause a morale check, and marines can get far more effective weapons than bolters.
And those scions are only T3 with a 4+, and unless you're buying them a chimera, you can either make them walk and shoot them at long range, or control where they drop.
Hot-shot las guns make marines turn into giblets with an Ap -2 effectively removes their save and have better deployment options and hit at the same BS as a marine. I can take a squad of 10 for 100pts or 5 power. For a squad of 10 marines for a tactical squad its 165pts with maybe two special weapons / and a heavy weapon. or 9 power. so in total tempestus's have 1 less strength, 1 less toughness, but deal 80% more damage per a model due to their ap-. Again tell me how the 'elite space marines' can deal with that? Guardsmen also have orders.
Rerolls matter little if you need to make a 165pt unit more effective thus increasing cost of the entire unit to be useful. Cadians already have that on base and can take things at cheaper.
If you want to continue to say "Why play marines thats your fault." Then that proves my point marines aren't effective. Case and point you've only pointed as to why they are sorely in need buffs.
We just showed that 20 bolter shots will cause a morale check, and marines can get far more effective weapons than bolters.
If 1 marine dies that's 3 guardsmen dead in comparison. Thus a more substantial decrease in the effectiveness of the squad and the army. For every 13pts dead that is nearly a 1/10 of the squad removed entirely. Guardsmen have the abilities and special rules to back it up and can effectively eliminate morale checks. I play guard in my imperial soup lists their leadership checks rarely happen if done well. Morale is not used often this is unchanged.
Crimson wrote: These Dakka 'How to Fix Marines' threads are always so fething pointless.
Poster 1: "How to fix problem X, Y and Z on marines'
Poster2: "Primaris have fixed the problems X, Y and Z."
Poster1: "Noo, Primaris bad! No Primaris!"
Have you read what I've said? I haven't said 'they are bad'. Just that it would make them too powerful. Primaris are good but not that good. (Hence why no one runs them in tournaments).
So Primaris stats would make the marines too powerful but at the same time the Primaris are not powerful enough?
Well, why? If Guard are intended to be a tough unit, and they function as a tough unit, what's wrong with that? There's not really a strong reason to make Marines tougher per-point than Guard.
I find it rather surreal that we're arguing whether or not guardsmen should be more durable against every weapon in the game than the marines.
That's not a counter argument. Give me some core design principle that's broken by Guard being a simply "tough" unit.
Not taking morale into account is disingenuous, as it is part of unit durability.
Omitting that there are several easy ways to mitigate morale is disingenuous. The guard player can pretty much dictate when and if their models are affected by the morale. Furthermore, citing averages on this example is misleading. Marines lose models to the morale rarely, but when they do, it means a loss of a lot of points. They also have less CP to use for anti-morale stratagems.
There are many ways to mitigate morale. The problem for you here is that the basic Marine has his morale-mitigation built in. They can be in units of 5, and have ATSKNF. It's intrinsically part of the valuation of the unit. Guardsmen don't have mitigation built in, and come in squads of ten. They are intrinsically more suspect to morale than marines, and that's a part of their points value. Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about efficiency/durability per point, morale can't be ignored.
And those scions are only T3 with a 4+, and unless you're buying them a chimera, you can either make them walk and shoot them at long range, or control where they drop.
Hot-shpot las guns make marines turn into gibblets Ap -2 effectively removes their save and have better deployment options and hit at the same BS as a marine. I can t ake a squad of 10 for 100pts or 5 power. For a squad of 10 marines for a tactical squad its 165pts with maybe two special weapons / and a heavy weapon. or 9 power. so in total tempestus's have 1 less strength, 1 less toughness, but deal 80% more damage per a model.
If they manage to wound.
They still only wound on 5's, and marines still get a save. Actually, they get the very same save you've been claiming is too strong for IG to get. Hmmm
As for that 80% more damage? Nope. Three dead marines. Marines shooting back? Three dead scions. That's the same number in models, and 12 less in points for the marines. Of course this all assumes naked for both squads. Adding in special weapons changes things a bit. Particularly as both are lobbing 4 special weapons at each other.
Finally, You can take APC's and Drop pods for marines.
It's not, if you're using it right. And there are definitely factors that don't get crunched well in a calculator. Such as line of sight, deployment, actual tactics, ect.
Crimson wrote: These Dakka 'How to Fix Marines' threads are always so fething pointless.
Poster 1: "How to fix problem X, Y and Z on marines'
Poster2: "Primaris have fixed the problems X, Y and Z."
Poster1: "Noo, Primaris bad! No Primaris!"
Have you read what I've said? I haven't said 'they are bad'. Just that it would make them too powerful. Primaris are good but not that good. (Hence why no one runs them in tournaments).
So Primaris stats would make the marines too powerful but at the same time the Primaris are not powerful enough?
What is this I don't even...
It comes down to rules and effectiveness per a model. Primaris don't really have anything to make them entirely good as they are too specialized they don't have much tank hunting equipment and are a bit too expensive for their special units (hellblasters, aggressors, reivers, inceptors). Because of this they aren't used due to cost-effectiveness of Guardsmen for CP generation. Until marines are good for mono army settings they will never be good in a tournament scene. (So maybe a mono-army only ability then?)
There are many ways to mitigate morale. The problem for you here is that the basic Marine has his morale-mitigation built in. They can be in units of 5, and have ATSKNF. It's intrinsically part of the valuation of the unit. Guardsmen don't have mitigation built in, and come in squads of ten. They are intrinsically more suspect to morale than marines, and that's a part of their points value. Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about efficiency/durability per point, morale can't be ignored.
ATSKNF is a great rule... if it was used more often. But its not. If marines could use it to determine if they can retreat in combat sure it would be great. but you can just retreat from combat without a dice roll. Which is stupid but thats another topic. Morale is only used to calculate casualities and thats it.
We just showed that 20 bolter shots will cause a morale check, and marines can get far more effective weapons than bolters.
If 1 marine dies that's 3 guardsmen dead in comparison. Thus a more substantial decrease in the effectiveness of the squad and the army. For every 13pts dead that is nearly a 1/10 of the squad removed entirely. Guardsmen have the abilities and special rules to back it up and can effectively eliminate morale checks. I play guard in my imperial soup lists their leadership checks rarely happen if done well. Morale is not used often this is unchanged.
The exact same thing can be said in reverse, in fact, even more so. I will rewrite your statement:
If 3 Guardsmen die that's 1 marine dead in comparison. Thus a more substantial decrease in the effectiveness of the squad and the army. For every 12pts dead that is nearly a 1/3 of the squad removed entirely. Marines have the abilities and special rules to back it up and can effectively eliminate morale checks. I play Marines in my imperial soup lists their leadership checks rarely happen if done well. Morale is not used often this is unchanged.
So I'm not clear anything you said actually has any weight.
We just showed that 20 bolter shots will cause a morale check, and marines can get far more effective weapons than bolters.
If 1 marine dies that's 3 guardsmen dead in comparison. Thus a more substantial decrease in the effectiveness of the squad and the army. For every 13pts dead that is nearly a 1/10 of the squad removed entirely. Guardsmen have the abilities and special rules to back it up and can effectively eliminate morale checks. I play guard in my imperial soup lists their leadership checks rarely happen if done well. Morale is not used often this is unchanged.
The exact same thing can be said in reverse, in fact, even more so. I will rewrite your statement:
If 3 Guardsmen die that's 1 marine dead in comparison. Thus a more substantial decrease in the effectiveness of the squad and the army. For every 12pts dead that is nearly a 1/3 of the squad removed entirely. Marines have the abilities and special rules to back it up and can effectively eliminate morale checks. I play Marines in my imperial soup lists their leadership checks rarely happen if done well. Morale is not used often this is unchanged.
So I'm not clear anything you said actually has any weight.
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at a Predator (T7, 3+ AS) causes 0.0069 Wounds per Point (hereafter referred to as WPP for brevity’s sake): 1 shot, hitting 50% of the time, wounding 16% of the time and going through the tank’s armour 33% of the time will do 0.027 wounds, which is then divided by the model’s cost (4 points), giving us 0.0069 WPP. At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0056 WPP to the vehicle: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 33% of the time and defeating the tank’s armour 33% of the time causes 074 wounds, which is then divided by the model’s cost (13 points), giving us 0.0056 WPP. If you’re even the least bit good at math, you will have already calculated that the Guardsman does over 20% more Wounds per Point that a Tactical Marine against the Predator.
“Well, so what? It’s not like shooting at tanks is what Bolters are supposed to be good at, anyways!”
True, but the bad news is that it only goes downhill from here:
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at a Chaos Marine (T4, 3+ AS) will cause 0.0138 WPP: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 33% of the time and going through the armour 33% of the time will cause 0.055 wounds. Divided by model cost of 4 points leaves us with 0.0138 WWP. At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0085 WPP to his heretical counterpart: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and going through the filthy corrupted armour 33% of time will cause 0.111 wounds; divided by 13 points, we get 0.0085 WPP. So, that’s over 60% more WPP against the Chaos Marine for the Imperial Guardsman. Ouch.
“Hmm… well ok, that’s bad, but bolters have always been best at shredding light infantry anyways!”
Hang on to your hat, my friend!
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at another Guardsman will cause 0.0416 WPP: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and going through the armour 66% of the time will cause 0.166 wound, which is then divided by the model’s cost of 4 points = 0.0416 WPP. At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0227 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and going through the armour 66% of the time, divided by a model cost of 13 pts = 0.0227 WWP. That is over 80% more WPP in favour of the Guardsman! Holy smokes!
“Well, ok, Tacticals don’t do a lot of damage, but at least they are durable, right?”
Are they really, though? Let’s take a look:
A 4-points Guardsman will suffer 0.66 WPP from a Chaos Cultist (BS 4+) firing an autogun (S3 Ap0) at him from 24 inches away: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and bypassing the flak armour 66% of time will cause 0.16 wounds, which is then multiplied by the model’s cost (4 points), giving us 0.66 WPP suffered. A 13-points Tactical Marine will suffer 0.72 WPP from the same Chaos Cultist: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 33% of the time, bypassing the Marine’s armour 33% will cause 0.05 wounds, which multiplied by 13 (points), gives us 0.72 WPP. So the Tactical Marine will suffer about 8% more WPP than the Guardsman will in this instance. That’s unbalanced but within the realm of the tolerable. The thing is that once again, that’s just the tip of the iceberg…
When shot at by a Chaos Marine (BS 3+) wielding a Boltgun (S4 Ap 0), our Guardsman loses 1.18 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and bypassing the Guardsman’s armour 66% of the time causes 0.29 wounds, which multiplied by 4 points gives us 1.18 WPP. In the same situation, our Tactical Marine will suffer 1.44 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and bypassing power armour 33% of the time will cause 0.11 wounds, which multiplied by 13 points gives 1.44 WPP. In this scenario, our Tactical Marines suffers over 20% more WPP than the Guardsman! And if you think that’s bad, just wait when we introduce a weapon with a good AP into the mix!
When shot by a Tempestus Scion Stormtrooper (BS 3+) with a Plasmagun (S7 Ap -3), a Guardsman will suffer 2.22 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 83% of the time and completing negating his armour will cause 0.55 wounds. Multiplied by 4 points gives us 2.22 WPP. In the same situation, our Tactical Marine will lose 4.81 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and bypassing the armour 83% of the time will cause 0.37 wounds. Multiplied by 13 gives us 4.81 WPP.
Please read.
Mmmpi if continue to ignore points sure 1/3 of a marine squad? You must only count the one squad then, as you can fire multiple units for the cost of 1 tactical squad. As all of them have the same AP values as bolters.
In previous editions marines would just ignore it entirely from a hotshot lasgun and would still have their +3 save. While also having their +1 attack on charge. Marines are less effective this edition and you keep comparing 1 unit that costs less to one that costs more.
The problem here is that you continue to do it in a vacuum, guardsmen units continously have more units and thus sheer weight of fire and access to map wide abilities.... Marines have... erm that 6" ability that gives rerolls on hits. Wow amazing. best ability 10/10. Except I would need that unit to not only cost 225 pts but it would mean babysitting that entire unit for the rest of the game. Now tell me is that effective compared to.... 4 squads of infantry with 4 mortars or 4 heavy bolters (For 8pts derp), and 4 grenade launchers for less than 225. So yeah sure we can say "Oh marines are still effective model to model"
But thats not what is here. It is still an ineffective unit due to sheer weight of fire. For every tactical squad you bring, I can bring 3 squads of guardsmen with 1 special weapon and heavy weapon each. And we'd still have more room for more CP and better units. Guardsmen are cheap and effective. Actually too effective.
There are many ways to mitigate morale. The problem for you here is that the basic Marine has his morale-mitigation built in. They can be in units of 5, and have ATSKNF. It's intrinsically part of the valuation of the unit. Guardsmen don't have mitigation built in, and come in squads of ten. They are intrinsically more suspect to morale than marines, and that's a part of their points value. Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about efficiency/durability per point, morale can't be ignored.
ATSKNF is a great rule... if it was used more often. But its not. If marines could use it to determine if they can retreat in combat sure it would be great. but you can just retreat from combat without a dice roll. Which is stupid but thats another topic. Morale is only used to calculate casualities and thats it.
Your personal feelings about ATSKNF aren't relevant to the discussion about durability per point, which is the context here. Marines pay for ATSKNF, and Guard don't. When comparing the two units, you use morale because A:it's a core mechanic, and B: It's relevant to the cost of the units in question.
How do you calculate the effect of minimizing line of sight?
Of making your opponent second guess?
Of good target priority?
How about the effect that list building has on a list's performance?
How about the effective use of transports?
Or using AM's to tie up shooting squads?
The problem with that block of math is that it loses the forest for the trees. In addition you're also falling into issues with the standard deviation.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
I never said they should pay less than marines, I said marines shouldn't pay less than guard.
Yup, 20 guard bodies. Again, why are you running five marines straight at 20 guardsmen?
10 Infantry with both a special and heavy weapon cost less than a base Marine squad.
Asherian Command wrote: It comes down to rules and effectiveness per a model. Primaris don't really have anything to make them entirely good as they are too specialized they don't have much tank hunting equipment and are a bit too expensive for their special units (hellblasters, aggressors, reivers, inceptors). Because of this they aren't used due to cost-effectiveness of Guardsmen for CP generation. Until marines are good for mono army settings they will never be good in a tournament scene. (So maybe a mono-army only ability then?)
But nothing about that has to do with the basic statline. Sure, the lack options, everyone knows this. Give them more options and units and marines are basically fixed.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
I never said they should pay less than marines, I said marines shouldn't pay less than guard.
Yup, 20 guard bodies. Again, why are you running five marines straight at 20 guardsmen?
10 Infantry with both a special and heavy weapon cost less than a base Marine squad.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have. I personally preferred the old Moral system. Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants. Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
I never said they should pay less than marines, I said marines shouldn't pay less than guard.
Yup, 20 guard bodies. Again, why are you running five marines straight at 20 guardsmen?
10 Infantry with both a special and heavy weapon cost less than a base Marine squad.
Maybe that's why.
And they're less effective with them.
Are they though? If you take the cadian special rule they reroll all ones if they didn't move. If they have an order they reroll everything until the end of that phase. That means that +1 difference is completely nullified by basic math of increase of probabilities
Read it yesterday. Summarize for me why it's important here.
Marines cause less WPM than a guardsmen squad, take more damage from guardsmen squads PPM and have more damage to their leadership per a model per a point. They also have Less effective damage against the same units due to cost efficiencies.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
I never said they should pay less than marines, I said marines shouldn't pay less than guard.
Yup, 20 guard bodies. Again, why are you running five marines straight at 20 guardsmen?
10 Infantry with both a special and heavy weapon cost less than a base Marine squad.
Maybe that's why.
And they're less effective with them.
It doesn't matter if the individual model is less effective with them if the pricing is too low.
10 Infantry with a Plasma Gun and Autocannon are far more effective than 5 Marines with a Plasma Gun, even if they got that Plasma Gun for free.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
I wouldn't change And They Shall Know no Fear. Marines take so few casulties that cause battle shock that a re-roll pretty much fixes any losses they would have.
I personally preferred the old Moral system.
Remind marine players that unless they're fighting marines, they typically are stronger, tougher, and more durable then anything they're fighting against, outside of specialist melee units like ork boyz and guants.
Remind them that they can take more special/heavy weapons in a squad then other armies can for the same squad size. You get two plasma guns (one is a combi) for guard's one, and your better shots, and more durable.
Special weapons can only be taken if a squad is 10. So you can take one per a squad as cp generation is again everything emphasizing smaller squads. Marines being cheaper helps but i think making the tactical squads have half costed heavy weaponry and special weapons (like in 5th and 4th) would be helpful in bringing down the costs of space marines.
WE don't get two plasma guns for the 'guards one' you need a full squad of ten to do that which is around 190 pts. So no thank you. I'll take my 7 squads of guardsmen veterans for cheaper cp generation.
When you're fighting Guard, it's a mechanic at your disposal that you should use.
Oh I bet but its only relevant once. which is my point its only used when calculating casualities (sometimes psychic phase). But otherwise its so rare that it doesn't come into account in most games. Which if you've been reading the other thread on close combat changes would fix that issue i have.
You do get two special weapons, if you count the combi-weapon on your Sargent. You get one heavy or one special at 5, one of each at 10, and in both cases the sargent gets a combi. Why should marines get weapons cheaper, despite being better at using them (BS:3+)
You get two plasma guns for roughly 80 points (including the five marines). It costs the IG player close to 100 points for the same number, and they're worse shots. And good luck fielding 7 units of vets with the rule of three.
You also get 20 bodies vs 5 so...
Also there's no reason Guard should pay cheaper for weapons. Every other army pays for their BS to use their range weapons better, and THEN they have to pay higher for the weapon too? That's already in their base cost.
I never said they should pay less than marines, I said marines shouldn't pay less than guard.
Yup, 20 guard bodies. Again, why are you running five marines straight at 20 guardsmen?
10 Infantry with both a special and heavy weapon cost less than a base Marine squad.
Maybe that's why.
And they're less effective with them.
Are they though? If you take the cadian special rule they reroll all ones if they didn't move. If they have an order they reroll everything until the end of that phase. That means that +1 difference is completely nullified by basic math of increase of probabilities
Read it yesterday. Summarize for me why it's important here.
Marines cause less WPM than a guardsmen squad, take more damage from guardsmen squads PPM and have more damage to their leadership per a model per a point. They also have Less effective damage against the same units due to cost efficiencies.
Read it yesterday. Summarize for me why it's important here.
Marines cause less WPM than a guardsmen squad, take more damage from guardsmen squads PPM and have more damage to their leadership per a model per a point. They also have Less effective damage against the same units due to cost efficiencies.
I don't deny any of that, and my proposed direction of fixes is to increase offensive output for Marines.
But the bit about morale is specifically in regards to the claim of Guardsmen durability. Guard are intrinsically more vulnerable to morale and that is part of their point valuation. Do you deny this?
Are they though? If you take the cadian special rule they reroll all ones if they didn't move. If they have an order they reroll everything until the end of that phase. That means that +1 difference is completely nullified by basic math of increase of probabilities
And marines can take a captain to reroll 1's for multiple squads, and lieutenants to reroll 1's for wounds.
Seems like both have force multipliers.
Marines cause less WPM than a guardsmen squad, take more damage from guardsmen squads PPM and have more damage to their leadership per a model per a point. They also have Less effective damage against the same units due to cost efficiencies.
...by such a small margin that standard deviation in dice rolls is enough to throw that off.
It doesn't matter if the individual model is less effective with them if the pricing is too low.
10 Infantry with a Plasma Gun and Autocannon are far more effective than 5 Marines with a Plasma Gun, even if they got that Plasma Gun for free.
Math is all that matters there.
So 65 points of guard (roughly) as opposed to 80 points of marines (again, roughly). One has 9 guys with an auto cannon and a PG. The other has 5 guys with two plasma guns (sarge's combi is the 2nd). That's not that far off in fire power from each other, or in cost once you factor in the difference between BS 3 and 4. Or that if everything is rapid firing, a PG is better than an Autocannon.
Read it yesterday. Summarize for me why it's important here.
Marines cause less WPM than a guardsmen squad, take more damage from guardsmen squads PPM and have more damage to their leadership per a model per a point. They also have Less effective damage against the same units due to cost efficiencies.
I don't deny any of that, and my proposed direction of fixes is to increase offensive output for Marines.
But the bit about morale is specifically in regards to the claim of Guardsmen durability. Guard are intrinsically more vulnerable to morale and that is part of their point valuation. Do you deny this?
And marines can take a captain to reroll 1's for multiple squads, and lieutenants to reroll 1's for wounds.
Seems like both have force multipliers.
Marines don't have that on base though... Guardsmen do. Space marines pay a premium of 65 PTS extra to have that within... 6" which again means you have to have babysit the unit. So this 65 pt unit with an additional 87 pts.... means that my unit of space marines together costs me 152pts! for 6 models! While the guard get an additional 10.... oh and an infantry commander!... so thats 24 wounds compared to my 9 wounds? Oh yeah I have a better save but they have four times the damage.... while I have 1 plasma gun and 4 bolters. Oh man at this rate I can kill 2 models a turn!
.by such a small margin that standard deviation in dice rolls is enough to throw that off.
Precentages and WPPM are dramatically higher than you read and again you ignored it!
Are they though? If you take the cadian special rule they reroll all ones if they didn't move. If they have an order they reroll everything until the end of that phase. That means that +1 difference is completely nullified by basic math of increase of probabilities
And marines can take a captain to reroll 1's for multiple squads, and lieutenants to reroll 1's for wounds.
Seems like both have force multipliers.
Marines cause less WPM than a guardsmen squad, take more damage from guardsmen squads PPM and have more damage to their leadership per a model per a point. They also have Less effective damage against the same units due to cost efficiencies.
...by such a small margin that standard deviation in dice rolls is enough to throw that off.
It doesn't matter if the individual model is less effective with them if the pricing is too low.
10 Infantry with a Plasma Gun and Autocannon are far more effective than 5 Marines with a Plasma Gun, even if they got that Plasma Gun for free.
Math is all that matters there.
So 65 points of guard (roughly) as opposed to 80 points of marines (again, roughly). One has 9 guys with an auto cannon and a PG. The other has 5 guys with two plasma guns (sarge's combi is the 2nd). That's not that far off in fire power from each other, or in cost once you factor in the difference between BS 3 and 4. Or that if everything is rapid firing, a PG is better than an Autocannon.
TIL: base army trait is equal to a 70+ point HQ. Lol k
Also that infantry squad with an Autocannon, Plasma Gun, and a Bolter on the Sergeant is 60 points.
So 65 points of guard (roughly) as opposed to 80 points of marines (again, roughly). One has 9 guys with an auto cannon and a PG. The other has 5 guys with two plasma guns (sarge's combi is the 2nd). That's not that far off in fire power from each other, or in cost once you factor in the difference between BS 3 and 4. Or that if everything is rapid firing, a PG is better than an Autocannon.
Well, I gotta correct the Marine squad to 87(now) as a nitpick. But otherwise it's a good comparison. Don't forget Krak Grenades, which I wind up using all the time as it's a much better option against Custodes than firing a Bolter.
Its not, its 2x wounds and twice as much firepower as the marine squad has with reroll on 1s for all of the models in the imperial guard squad.
Again, counter base-trait is -1 to hit, which hurts guard more than reroll 1s help them. Design claim was originally made with no traits, so stick to it.
Its not, its 2x wounds and twice as much firepower as the marine squad has with reroll on 1s for all of the models in the imperial guard squad.
Again, counter base-trait is -1 to hit, which hurts guard more than reroll 1s help them. Design claim was originally made with no traits, so stick to it.
I already did ignore army traits. They're the ones that brought it up.
TIL: base army trait is equal to a 70+ point HQ. Lol k
Counter base-trait is -1 to hit, which will hurt guard more than reroll 1s will help.
Original and relevant claims for design change were based of single unit vs. single unit, ppm. Stick to it.
So this raven guard unit has a 157pts vs 30 guardsmen with 3 special weapons, 3 heavy weapons... rerolls all to hit on 1s.... and 21 lasgun shots, 3d6 grenade launchers, and s4 3D6 mortars.
sooooo.... 1.3 dead guardsmen per a turn from the space marine unit compared to 2.7 dead marines per a turn... IE 50% of the whole squad dead from 3 squads of shooting compared to one squad shooting into 1 platoon.
10 guardsmen with 6 lasguns, 1 laspistol, an AC and PG do 1.611 wounds to a squad of marines in rapid fire range (no overcharge). They do 3.694 wounds to Guardsmen. In close combat they do 0.611 wounds to Space Marines and 1.83 wounds to Guardsmen.
5 marines with 4 bolters and 1 PG do 1.63 wounds to a squad of marines in rapid fire range (no overcharge). They do 3.48 wounds to Guardsmen. In close combat they do 0.66 wounds to Marines and 1.77 wounds to Guardsmen.
Within the current 8E paradigm, the IG unit costs 57pts, the SM unit costs 76pts. The Marines have a couple extra bits over the guard (ATSKNF, Krak grenades, etc) . I think a simple 2/3ppm cost reduction on the Tac squad puts them where they need to be in relation to the guardsmen, and probably makes them among some of the most cost effective troops in the ame at that point.
The bigger issue either way is that heavy weapons and Knights and Primarchs and the like dont really care either way.
Ok, so here's my basic claim regarding morale, so we can get back to it.
Any unit to unit comparison has to take Morale into account. This is especially relevant between the ever popular Guard vs. Marine points-per-model comparison, since the intrinsic morale capabilities between to two are so different. Marines can, without additional cost, effectively ignore morale by having higher Leadership, taking minimum sized squads, and ATSKNF.
Any mitigation of morale by an Infantry squad is either at an additional cost beyond their 4 ppm, or by escalation into army traits. "At additional cost" should need no explanation. "Escalation into army traits" has the cost of the opposing side escalating into army traits. (and any obvious resulting complication for comparisons)
TIL: base army trait is equal to a 70+ point HQ. Lol k
Counter base-trait is -1 to hit, which will hurt guard more than reroll 1s will help.
Original and relevant claims for design change were based of single unit vs. single unit, ppm. Stick to it.
So this raven guard unit has a 157pts vs 30 guardsmen with 3 special weapons, 3 heavy weapons... rerolls all to hit on 1s.... and 21 lasgun shots, 3d6 grenade launchers, and s4 3D6 mortars.
sooooo.... 1.3 dead guardsmen per a turn from the space marine unit compared to 2.7 dead marines per a turn... IE 50% of the whole squad dead from 3 squads of shooting compared to one squad shooting into 1 platoon.
Got it.
Ok. So this is an admission that your whole careful post with all the number calculations you did is totally irrelevant, because there are other units and equipment in the game. If you can't stick to your own premises, we're done.
Vaktathi wrote: I think a simple 2/3ppm cost reduction on the Tac squad puts them where they need to be in relation to the guardsmen.
Is this assuming that guardsmen are ok at the current price? Because they should be more expensive, regardless of any comparison with SM.
5ppm would be fine!
The bigger issue either way is that heavy weapons and Knights and Primarchs and the like dont really care either way.
Honestly those units shouldn't even be playable in Match Play.
If you can't stick to your own premises, we're done.
The premise that guardsmen enmasse are more effective than marines? If you say "well use this then!" I am going to use it in calculations. If marines want to have that -1 to hit, and 1 to rerolls then i factored that in. Don't get angry if the math proves your point wrong.
Any unit to unit comparison has to take Morale into account. This is especially relevant between the ever popular Guard vs. Marine points-per-model comparison, since the intrinsic morale capabilities between to two are so different. Marines can, without additional cost, effectively ignore morale by having higher Leadership, taking minimum sized squads, and ATSKNF.
Morale means nothing if it is rarely used. morale does not happen as much as you think it does. Most times people just wipe out the whole squad. Yeah marines have a higher chance to not worry about it... but that doesn't really effect people's list building well does it?
Also for fun : Now lets add the ap -1 value With Bolters 1.6 to wound 1.3 dead guardsmen
If you can't stick to your own premises, we're done.
The premise that guardsmen enmasse are more effective than marines?
If the original point is about un-reinforced marines vs. Guard, that's one way of doing it, and it's nice and concise. The moment you escalate beyond that is the moment the Marines bring Storm Ravens and strafe them all to death, or whatever. You've sabotoged your basic premise for your argument.
Morale means nothing if it is rarely used. morale does not happen as much as you think it does. Most times people just wipe out the whole squad. Yeah marines have a higher chance to not worry about it... but that doesn't really effect people's list building well does it?
Aboslutely people build to avoid morale issues. I'm shocked you would claim otherwise. (though not really, at this point.)
. . .
On the one hand you've made the claim "marines don't do enough damage to force morale", on the other hand you're saying "most people just wipe the whole squad". It sure seems like you're avoiding something.
And those scions are only T3 with a 4+, and unless you're buying them a chimera, you can either make them walk and shoot them at long range, or control where they drop.
Hot-shpot las guns make marines turn into gibblets Ap -2 effectively removes their save and have better deployment options and hit at the same BS as a marine. I can t ake a squad of 10 for 100pts or 5 power. For a squad of 10 marines for a tactical squad its 165pts with maybe two special weapons / and a heavy weapon. or 9 power. so in total tempestus's have 1 less strength, 1 less toughness, but deal 80% more damage per a model.
If they manage to wound.
They still only wound on 5's, and marines still get a save. Actually, they get the very same save you've been claiming is too strong for IG to get. Hmmm
As for that 80% more damage? Nope. Three dead marines. Marines shooting back? Three dead scions. That's the same number in models, and 12 less in points for the marines. Of course this all assumes naked for both squads. Adding in special weapons changes things a bit. Particularly as both are lobbing 4 special weapons at each other.
Finally, You can take APC's and Drop pods for marines.
It's not, if you're using it right. And there are definitely factors that don't get crunched well in a calculator. Such as line of sight, deployment, actual tactics, ect.
You know those 3 things dont disprove him right? An acolyte is still a worse guardsmen even if I abuse all of those things, because I could of abused those things just as easily but with better models.
Your arguement is literally "you can still win if you handicap yourself" which is true, but you are still handicapping yourself.
If the original point is about un-reinforced marines vs. Guard, that's one way of doing it, and it's nice and concise. The moment you escalate beyond that is the moment the Marines bring Storm Ravens and strafe them all to death, or whatever. You've sabotoged your basic premise for your argument.
Check post.
Aboslutely people build to avoid morale issues. I'm shocked you would claim otherwise. (though not really, at this point.) . . . On the one hand you've made the claim "marines don't do enough damage to force morale", on the other hand you're saying "most people just wipe the whole squad". It sure seems like you're avoiding something.
What that knight titans ruin that meta? No I agree they are used to force morale... But marines can't they do not do effective enough damage at 24" to matter or to force a leadership check or morale check as effectively as a guardsmen squad can in terms of WPP
If the original point is about un-reinforced marines vs. Guard, that's one way of doing it, and it's nice and concise. The moment you escalate beyond that is the moment the Marines bring Storm Ravens and strafe them all to death, or whatever. You've sabotoged your basic premise for your argument.
Check post.
Aboslutely people build to avoid morale issues. I'm shocked you would claim otherwise. (though not really, at this point.)
. . .
On the one hand you've made the claim "marines don't do enough damage to force morale", on the other hand you're saying "most people just wipe the whole squad". It sure seems like you're avoiding something.
What that knight titans ruin that meta? No I agree they are used to force morale... But marines can't they do not do effective enough damage at 24" to matter or to force a leadership check or morale check as effectively as a guardsmen squad can in terms of WPP
Yeah. . . you're not even showing up to the discussion anymore. So we're done.
If the original point is about un-reinforced marines vs. Guard, that's one way of doing it, and it's nice and concise. The moment you escalate beyond that is the moment the Marines bring Storm Ravens and strafe them all to death, or whatever. You've sabotoged your basic premise for your argument.
Check post.
Aboslutely people build to avoid morale issues. I'm shocked you would claim otherwise. (though not really, at this point.) . . . On the one hand you've made the claim "marines don't do enough damage to force morale", on the other hand you're saying "most people just wipe the whole squad". It sure seems like you're avoiding something.
What that knight titans ruin that meta? No I agree they are used to force morale... But marines can't they do not do effective enough damage at 24" to matter or to force a leadership check or morale check as effectively as a guardsmen squad can in terms of WPP
Yeah. . . you're not even showing up to the discussion anymore. So we're done.
More like I misread your comment actually :(
So no I do think Morale issues can happen its just not common for them to happen as by marines effecting a squad of guardsmen because they do not do enough damage for that guardsmen squad to feel those effects. Unless the marines are specifically targeted for anti-infantry. Then maybe they could force the check, but tactical squads are horrible, overpriced, and the worst troop choice out of the three choices for marines. So why use them at all? If it was say an intercessor squad vs a guardsmen squad... sure! Guardsmen are dead because the intercessors have twice the wounds, ap-1 weapons and +1 attack in close combat.
The intercessors are a better tactical squad. But Tacticals are worse cause of their cost effectiveness in terms of morale. They cannot reliably do enough damage to force a morale check for the guardsmen.
Guardsmen do have worse LD and less options for a morale check, but marines have less effectiveness per a model compared to guardsmen even with that in mind.
There are many ways to mitigate morale. The problem for you here is that the basic Marine has his morale-mitigation built in. They can be in units of 5, and have ATSKNF. It's intrinsically part of the valuation of the unit. Guardsmen don't have mitigation built in, and come in squads of ten. They are intrinsically more suspect to morale than marines, and that's a part of their points value. Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about efficiency/durability per point, morale can't be ignored.
ATSKNF is a great rule... if it was used more often. But its not. If marines could use it to determine if they can retreat in combat sure it would be great. but you can just retreat from combat without a dice roll. Which is stupid but thats another topic. Morale is only used to calculate casualities and thats it.
Your personal feelings about ATSKNF aren't relevant to the discussion about durability per point, which is the context here. Marines pay for ATSKNF, and Guard don't. When comparing the two units, you use morale because A:it's a core mechanic, and B: It's relevant to the cost of the units in question.
And a garbage addition to the BRB is a universal stratagem to pass a morale check. How do I, as a BA player, try to maximize morale casualties? By focusing fire. But as it stands I have to split that firepower into two separate units because one will shrug off the losses because you, as a guard player, had a mountain of CP, and if I remember some of the litany of posts I’ve read of yours, Guard have no “good” strats to spend them on, so it seems like fearless guardsmen aren’t out of the question.
Crimson wrote: These Dakka 'How to Fix Marines' threads are always so fething pointless.
Poster 1: "How to fix problem X, Y and Z on marines'
Poster2: "Primaris have fixed the problems X, Y and Z."
Poster1: "Noo, Primaris bad! No Primaris!"
Have you read what I've said? I haven't said 'they are bad'. Just that it would make them too powerful. Primaris are good but not that good. (Hence why no one runs them in tournaments).
So Primaris stats would make the marines too powerful but at the same time the Primaris are not powerful enough?
What is this I don't even...
I think this makes sense given more context; Primaris stats generally fix a lot of what’s wrong with standard marines. Then new problems are introduced because they are a) too expensive, and b)too inflexible, and c)have no ablative wounds so lose firepower to casualties far too quickly. GE slowly adding more options to sergeants at least helps (just stuck a BA fist on a sergeant today!). Primaris that were introduced as replacement kits for mini marines with +1W and A at not much of a price premium, and ATSKNF being “roll two, pick lowest” would have gone a long way to prevent me from whining so frequently on this forum. Instead GW kept the twisted little monkeys as they were, and introduced steroid 30k legion marines with mono weapon loadouts that no one asked for.
So a marine should fear a lasgun as much as a battlecannon? That's mad, Also if Ppwer Armous is a 2+Sv you'll be ok with 2+ sisters etc?
Why? They are quite different in universe? Marine armour was always better than sisters armour, as they were built to be part of it, not just wear it.
Actually no, the Witch Hunter codex specificly mention that SoB armors offer hte same level of protection then the Space Marine ones. The difference is in auxilary systems like auto-senses and strength enhancement. Thus, they should have the same armor save, because that's what ''same level of protection'' is supposed to mean and represent. They are different in style and auxilary function, but they don't have a difference in efficency when submitted to firepower. If you give Space Marine a better armor save then Sisters, you just retconned this piece of fluff. In my opinion, if you boost the armors of Space Marine, you should boost the armors of the SIsters. If you boost their regular bolters so should you boost theirs (they are supposed to be just as powerful and more reliable then the Space Marines one). Of course, you could be forced to raise their point cost accordingly.
@ Asherion Command: As I play them, a buffed 10 Man Tactical Squad (Chapter Master + Lt. re-rolls) inflicts 6.4 casualties on an Infantry Squad with only their bolters. The higher value weapons will likely be shooting something else. 6.4 Casualties is enough to force a morale check, and has a good chance of taking down a few more guys. So my "crappy" Tacs can eliminate the threat of an Infantry squad at the same time as they are engaging something else, because most of the time the Guard don't have any special weapons, 2 or 3 of them is not a credible threat, and I haven't done any assaulting either.
This is how I play it, and this is how I see that they should be played.
If you like the Intercessors, play the Intercessors. I have no problem with that. I find that Tacticals can more meaningfully engage with heavier targets because they bring special/heavies into the mix, while Intercessors do not. And Tacticals can use cheap, numerous transports to strike more effectively.
I'll have to rethink the balance of things with veteran marines apparently dropping in price, so we'll see how that goes.
Bremon wrote: And a garbage addition to the BRB is a universal stratagem to pass a morale check. How do I, as a BA player, try to maximize morale casualties? By focusing fire. But as it stands I have to split that firepower into two separate units because one will shrug off the losses because you, as a guard player, had a mountain of CP, and if I remember some of the litany of posts I’ve read of yours, Guard have no “good” strats to spend them on, so it seems like fearless guardsmen aren’t out of the question.
And let's not forget that in addition to that the Guard has their own stratagem for mitigating morale too, so you actually need to split your firepower into three units!
Insectum7 wrote: @ Asherion Command: As I play them, a buffed 10 Man Tactical Squad (Chapter Master + Lt. re-rolls) inflicts 6.4 casualties on an Infantry Squad with only their bolters. The higher value weapons will likely be shooting something else. 6.4 Casualties is enough to force a morale check, and has a good chance of taking down a few more guys. So my "crappy" Tacs can eliminate the threat of an Infantry squad at the same time as they are engaging something else, because most of the time the Guard don't have any special weapons, 2 or 3 of them is not a credible threat, and I haven't done any assaulting either.
This is how I play it, and this is how I see that they should be played.
If you like the Intercessors, play the Intercessors. I have no problem with that. I find that Tacticals can more meaningfully engage with heavier targets because they bring special/heavies into the mix, while Intercessors do not. And Tacticals can use cheap, numerous transports to strike more effectively.
I'll have to rethink the balance of things with veteran marines apparently dropping in price, so we'll see how that goes.
Again that is a ton of investment for 1 tactical squad that is almost 350pts there. And 2CP as well! Thats a lot of investment for just 1 350 pt squad firing at 1 40pt unit.
A single sternguard squad is 80pts has 30" range, and ap -2. Less investment and +1 attack +1LD as well. Making them far more effective.... which begs the question why would you take a tactical squad if there is no incentive to use one? Marines vs guardsmen who wins? Guardsmen due to how cheap they are and how easy it is to spam their special weapons and heavy weapons. And as the "no one uses heavy weapons with squads." That is true people just take mortars in groups of three instead.
There are many ways to mitigate morale. The problem for you here is that the basic Marine has his morale-mitigation built in. They can be in units of 5, and have ATSKNF. It's intrinsically part of the valuation of the unit. Guardsmen don't have mitigation built in, and come in squads of ten. They are intrinsically more suspect to morale than marines, and that's a part of their points value. Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about efficiency/durability per point, morale can't be ignored.
ATSKNF is a great rule... if it was used more often. But its not. If marines could use it to determine if they can retreat in combat sure it would be great. but you can just retreat from combat without a dice roll. Which is stupid but thats another topic. Morale is only used to calculate casualities and thats it.
Your personal feelings about ATSKNF aren't relevant to the discussion about durability per point, which is the context here. Marines pay for ATSKNF, and Guard don't. When comparing the two units, you use morale because A:it's a core mechanic, and B: It's relevant to the cost of the units in question.
And a garbage addition to the BRB is a universal stratagem to pass a morale check. How do I, as a BA player, try to maximize morale casualties? By focusing fire. But as it stands I have to split that firepower into two separate units because one will shrug off the losses because you, as a guard player, had a mountain of CP, and if I remember some of the litany of posts I’ve read of yours, Guard have no “good” strats to spend them on, so it seems like fearless guardsmen aren’t out of the question.
You may have mistaken me for someone else, as I haven't made any claim that I recall about Guard Stratagems. However, if my opponent want's to spend 2 CP to save the lives of 3 Guardsmen, that's fine by me. My greater point is that if you're going to compare two units and use their points cost as a measure, you need to use the entire range of aspects those point values are including. But you also have to keep the comparisons concise, because after you conflate it to chapter tactics, etc. things get out of control real fast, and I think we've all been down that route plenty of times. Very little productive conversation happens there.
As for focusing fire, it seems very strange to me that spreading wounds across multiple units should be a problem when the target units are T3 5+ save, and you have an entire army to do it with. If I'm fighting guard, there's usually a turn or two where I can meaningfully engage 3 or more Infantry units, and so I spread the love around to force as much morale as possible.
Insectum7 wrote: @ Asherion Command: As I play them, a buffed 10 Man Tactical Squad (Chapter Master + Lt. re-rolls) inflicts 6.4 casualties on an Infantry Squad with only their bolters. The higher value weapons will likely be shooting something else. 6.4 Casualties is enough to force a morale check, and has a good chance of taking down a few more guys. So my "crappy" Tacs can eliminate the threat of an Infantry squad at the same time as they are engaging something else, because most of the time the Guard don't have any special weapons, 2 or 3 of them is not a credible threat, and I haven't done any assaulting either.
This is how I play it, and this is how I see that they should be played.
If you like the Intercessors, play the Intercessors. I have no problem with that. I find that Tacticals can more meaningfully engage with heavier targets because they bring special/heavies into the mix, while Intercessors do not. And Tacticals can use cheap, numerous transports to strike more effectively.
I'll have to rethink the balance of things with veteran marines apparently dropping in price, so we'll see how that goes.
Again that is a ton of investment for 1 tactical squad that is almost 350pts there. And 2CP as well! Thats a lot of investment for just 1 350 pt squad firing at 1 40pt unit.
Okay, see this is what I'm talking about. That's exactly the sort of poor, bad faith reasoning that's easily avoided, but you shoot right down that path.
A: Chapter Master upgrade is 3 CP.
B: That 150 points + 3 CP is buffing 90% of my 2000 point army.
C: The Tactical Squad is engaging the Guardsmen at the same time as they engage something else.
So. . . 350 points isn't just squaring off against 40 in a vacuum, as you illustrate it.
If you're going to continue down that path, we're done.
A single sternguard squad is 80pts has 30" range, and ap -2. Less investment and +1 attack +1LD as well. Making them far more effective.... which begs the question why would you take a tactical squad if there is no incentive to use one? Marines vs guardsmen who wins? Guardsmen due to how cheap they are and how easy it is to spam their special weapons and heavy weapons. And as the "no one uses heavy weapons with squads." That is true people just take mortars in groups of three instead.
I'll make that calculation once I have my printed copy in my hands, alongside all relevant potential FAQ updates that come along with it.
Okay, see this is what I'm talking about. That's exactly the sort of poor, bad faith reasoning that's easily avoided, but you shoot right down that path.
A: Chapter Master upgrade is 3 CP. B: That 150 points + 3 CP is buffing 90% of my 2000 point army. C: The Tactical Squad is engaging the Guardsmen at the same time as they engage something else.
So. . . 350 points isn't just squaring off against 40 in a vacuum, as you illustrate it.
If you're going to continue down that path, we're done.
How is that bad faith your assuming that your tactical squad and your army is always in range of those auras! Auras are not board wide they are within a certain range. Assuming that they are always there to buff that squad is disingenious unless you run your whole army as a giant blob. 6 inches! away from your chapter master is nothing and should not be taken into account for every single space marine shot. If it were then space marines would be far better, but they aren't! They always have to be in range and 6 inches is nothing on the board. If you running your army as a blob you cannot capture objectives. a 150 pts + 170 = 320 pts + 65 pts for a LT. thats 385pts investment. Your using up an entire round of shooting of one 170 pt squad at 1 40pt unit.
If you assume it is buffing 90% of your army your clearly not playing space marines.
Insectum7 “As for focusing fire, it seems very strange to me that spreading wounds across multiple units should be a problem when the target units are T3 5+ save, and you have an entire army to do it with. If I'm fighting guard, there's usually a turn or two where I can meaningfully engage 3 or more Infantry units, and so I spread the love around to force as much morale as possible.”
You don’t see why spreading wounds around is a problem? That’s practically the entire crux of this entire thread. Are being purposely obtuse? Is this a bad faith argument I’m better served by not engaging in? You focus fire so 18 casualties wipes a 30 man unit automatically. I think others have concisely shown that spreading wounds around is a problem because the average space marine has far too little damage output for the points cost.
Apologies for mistaking you for someone else with regards to stratagems though. It was someone wishing Guard stratagems were of the quality of marine stratagems which lead to an outcry from vanilla marine players wondering where their “good” stratagems were.
Okay, see this is what I'm talking about. That's exactly the sort of poor, bad faith reasoning that's easily avoided, but you shoot right down that path.
A: Chapter Master upgrade is 3 CP.
B: That 150 points + 3 CP is buffing 90% of my 2000 point army.
C: The Tactical Squad is engaging the Guardsmen at the same time as they engage something else.
So. . . 350 points isn't just squaring off against 40 in a vacuum, as you illustrate it.
If you're going to continue down that path, we're done.
How is that bad faith your assuming that your tactical squad and your army is always in range of those auras! Auras are not board wide they are within a certain range. Assuming that they are always there to buff that squad is disingenious unless you run your whole army as a giant blob. 6 inches! away from your chapter master is nothing and should not be taken into account for every single space marine shot. If it were then space marines would be far better, but they aren't! They always have to be in range and 6 inches is nothing on the board. If you running your army as a blob you cannot capture objectives. a 150 pts + 170 = 320 pts + 65 pts for a LT. thats 385pts investment. Your using up an entire round of shooting of one 170 pt squad at 1 40pt unit.
If you assume it is buffing 90% of your army your clearly not playing space marines.
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Ishagu wrote: The game is definitely not perfect but it's a quality wargame with more dynamics and variety than others. The sales and fans certainly agree.
I have never met anyone who switched to 40K from Dust, Bolt Action, Flames of War, Infinity, Dropzone Commander, or any other reasonably popular wargame because they liked 40K's rules more. Models, yes, fluff, yes, availability, yes, community, yes, rules- hell no. The mechanical changes in AoS and Kill Team show that new-GW is at least willing to innovate on the core WHF/40K system, but they're still a long ways from having a ruleset that is appealing to wargamers on its own right.
Having the rules support a model range rather than the other way around means they're wedded to all the bloat and chrome that gets in the way of good design, but they could at least take a page from the rest of the industry (or their prior games, see: Epic) and consider things like command systems, alternating activation, and range modifiers. Epic's command/activation system gave elite armies like Space Marines a simple, tangible advantage over Orks or Guard that had nothing to do with rivet-counting weapon stats or slapping special rules on them.
I know of people that don't like infinity ruleset but like 40K. They just aren't looking for a nice ruleset, they are looking for one that let them play whatever fantasy they have. Also minis and fluff are a huge appeal for these people.
GW doesn't just produce a game, and they have been telling us for a while, it appeals to a wider range of people than pure gamers. So in this sense they are successful.
Note : I'm not saying 40K is a perfectly fine ruleset. I don't think it is.
Edit : look like I was pretty late in the thread, sorry for that
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.
Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.
Bremon wrote: Insectum7 “As for focusing fire, it seems very strange to me that spreading wounds across multiple units should be a problem when the target units are T3 5+ save, and you have an entire army to do it with. If I'm fighting guard, there's usually a turn or two where I can meaningfully engage 3 or more Infantry units, and so I spread the love around to force as much morale as possible.”
You don’t see why spreading wounds around is a problem? That’s practically the entire crux of this entire thread. Are being purposely obtuse? Is this a bad faith argument I’m better served by not engaging in? You focus fire so 18 casualties wipes a 30 man unit automatically. I think others have concisely shown that spreading wounds around is a problem because the average space marine has far too little damage output for the points cost.
Apologies for mistaking you for someone else with regards to stratagems though. It was someone wishing Guard stratagems were of the quality of marine stratagems which lead to an outcry from vanilla marine players wondering where their “good” stratagems were.
I really don't see the issue with spreading wounds around, I honestly can't see your angle on this. "You focus fire so 18 casualties wipes a 30 man unit automatically" is an unclear statement? To clarify, my usual play is to try and do 7 casualties per unit, spread across a number of units (in practice 3-4 Infantry Squads), and force morale on each unit to get some extra kills. A buffed Tactical Squad averages 6.4, which gets me close, and then I have whatever supporting bolter fire from other nearby units to cover for bad luck or whatever. I'm not sure why that seems like an unrealistic model.
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.
Ok, so I don't play ITC, so progressively scoring objectives are not my norm and becomes much less of a factor. But otherwise it's very possible for me to buff a 2K list completely around 2 models.
Ok, so I don't play ITC, so progressively scoring objectives are not my norm and becomes much less of a factor. But otherwise it's very possible for me to buff a 2K list completely around 2 models.
Well then you better be playing on a completely empty board cause once that unit encounters a terrain they cannot maintain cohesion and would be force not to move. and thus would lose the buff.
Its possible but its also completely illegal would get you thrown out of a tournament or disqualified
Plus that would mean your list would only generate 5cp, so you use 1/2 of your cp for 1 character. Thus handcapping your whole army. Chapter master is not worth the 3cp.
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.
Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.
He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.
Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.
He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).
Thought so. I don't have that luxury and most players don't as well. (faces knights on a regular)
Ok, so I don't play ITC, so progressively scoring objectives are not my norm and becomes much less of a factor. But otherwise it's very possible for me to buff a 2K list completely around 2 models.
Well then you better be playing on a completely empty board cause once that unit encounters a terrain they cannot maintain cohesion and would be force not to move. and thus would lose the buff.
Its possible but its also completely illegal would get you thrown out of a tournament or disqualified
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Infantry move freely through all the terrain common on our boards, ruins, forests, etc.
Asherian Command wrote: Plus that would mean your list would only generate 5cp, so you use 1/2 of your cp for 1 character. Thus handcapping your whole army. Chapter master is not worth the 3cp.
8CP for Battalion + battleforged. Yeah it's not much, but Chapter Master is 100% worth it imo. Probably because I'm buffing 2K with it.
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.
Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.
He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).
Thought so. I don't have that luxury and most players don't as well. (faces knights on a regular)
We're talking Marines vs. Guardsmen here, which is a matchup for everybody who plays the game. And my meta has it's Imperial Soup with Castellan, loyal 32, Eldar super-soup etc. I've been more focused on Tyranids recently because that's what I've been painting.
He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).
Ah Slayer, so true to form. Can't win the actual argument so calls me worthless and insults my meta.
I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.
And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.
And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.
If you say so. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, and your experience playing not-guard isn't necessarily relevant to Guard. Maybe you haven't lost more models to morale because you play against terrible players in a casual meta. Hmm? See how lazy that reasoning is?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.
And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.
If you say so. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, and your experience playing not-guard isn't necessarily relevant to Guard. Maybe you haven't lost more models to morale because you play against terrible players in a casual meta. Hmm? See how lazy that reasoning is?
“I lreally don't see the issue with spreading wounds around, I honestly can't see your angle on this. "You focus fire so 18 casualties wipes a 30 man unit automatically" is an unclear statement? To clarify, my usual play is to try and do 7 casualties per unit, spread across a number of units (in practice 3-4 Infantry Squads), and force morale on each unit to get some extra kills. A buffed Tactical Squad averages 6.4, which gets me close, and then I have whatever supporting bolter fire from other nearby units to cover for bad luck or whatever. I'm not sure why that seems like an unrealistic model.”
Insectum7 what are you accomplishing with this? You aren’t wiping things, you aren’t shifting things off objectives, you aren’t getting kill points, you’re doing nothing. So if your shooting remains at 100% efficacy you will have maybe wiped each target in 3 turns. Killing 7 models and you’re getting D6 extra kills. Why not kill 16-18 nearly guarantee the 30 bodies are wiped? Then you’re displacing bubble wrap, displacing objective control, disrupting the enemy’s game plan. The issue is marines need more killing power to be able to clear the chaff better.
As for your buff anecdotes... I can’t imagine your horde marines being effective, nor much fun to play against. Actually scratch that; they probably are fun to play against; it’s not hard to lay waste to mass amounts of mini marines. An 18”ish circle of marines wandering the table maximizing buffs...I’m not buying it, otherwise Templars wouldn’t be so poor.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.
And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.
If you say so. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, and your experience playing not-guard isn't necessarily relevant to Guard. Maybe you haven't lost more models to morale because you play against terrible players in a casual meta. Hmm? See how lazy that reasoning is?
Skitarii have the same exact LD stat..
Do you play them the same as you would play Guard? Do you field them as a screen? How many points are they? Do you have support units that are in jeopardy if I get past them, like Guard do? Or does the army as a whole fight differently than Guard?
Insectum7 what are you accomplishing with this? You aren’t wiping things, you aren’t shifting things off objectives, you aren’t getting kill points, you’re doing nothing. So if your shooting remains at 100% efficacy you will have maybe wiped each target in 3 turns. Killing 7 models and you’re getting D6 extra kills. Why not kill 16-18 nearly guarantee the 30 bodies are wiped? Then you’re displacing bubble wrap, displacing objective control, disrupting the enemy’s game plan. The issue is marines need more killing power to be able to clear the chaff better.
As for your buff anecdotes... I can’t imagine your horde marines being effective, nor much fun to play against. Actually scratch that; they probably are fun to play against; it’s not hard to lay waste to mass amounts of mini marines. An 18”ish circle of marines wandering the table maximizing buffs...I’m not buying it, otherwise Templars wouldn’t be so poor.
"What are you accomplishing with this?" I'm killing more guardsmen than I would if I didn't do it. I'm not getting the "why not kill 16 to 18 and nearly guaranteeing that 30 bodies are wiped". Like I really have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some giant combined squad here? Because I haven't seen that in person. If there was a giant combined squad, then sure, that's a great thing to do.
As for objectives and kill points, I don't play ITC, thus my priorities are different. I think my marine horde fares better outside of ITC because I don't have to worry about progressive scoring.
Honestly it's a bit of a bear to play, because there are so many re-rolls. I've begun to find it cumbersome over the last few months.
Marmatag wrote: God I would love to play someone who spams power armored marines.
Ravagers alone would kill nearly 30 per turn, not even factoring in blasters, poison, etc.
I wouldn't even need Doom.
I've only played the Eldar super soup with the marines once, and honestly I shot through most of them before losing. I lost but I didn't feel that far behind. Reapers, Spears, Fliers of some sort, Ravagers, all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Progressive scoring is really important to balancing the game out. I suspect there is baby seal clubbing happening here.
Ok, so I don't play ITC, so progressively scoring objectives are not my norm and becomes much less of a factor. But otherwise it's very possible for me to buff a 2K list completely around 2 models.
Well then you better be playing on a completely empty board cause once that unit encounters a terrain they cannot maintain cohesion and would be force not to move. and thus would lose the buff.
Its possible but its also completely illegal would get you thrown out of a tournament or disqualified
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Infantry move freely through all the terrain common on our boards, ruins, forests, etc.
Asherian Command wrote: Plus that would mean your list would only generate 5cp, so you use 1/2 of your cp for 1 character. Thus handcapping your whole army. Chapter master is not worth the 3cp.
8CP for Battalion + battleforged. Yeah it's not much, but Chapter Master is 100% worth it imo. Probably because I'm buffing 2K with it.
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.
Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.
He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).
Thought so. I don't have that luxury and most players don't as well. (faces knights on a regular)
We're talking Marines vs. Guardsmen here, which is a matchup for everybody who plays the game. And my meta has it's Imperial Soup with Castellan, loyal 32, Eldar super-soup etc. I've been more focused on Tyranids recently because that's what I've been painting.
He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).
Ah Slayer, so true to form. Can't win the actual argument so calls me worthless and insults my meta.
Capter master is not worth it...Calgar is worth it.
There is a gulf spanning from my house to England that is comparable in size to the distance between elements of a competitive list, and a true competitive list.
"Ravagers alone would kill nearly 30 per turn, not even factoring in blasters, poison, etc. "
Wow, that's some really hot rolling.
I assume you hit and wound with every shot. Then charge into CC and get a kill for every attack. Then he rolls terribad for leadership with 10man units?
Isn't Ravagers a max of 18 Dissie shots (3 boats, 2 guns each, 3 shots per gun)?
Marmatag wrote: There is a gulf spanning from my house to England that is comparable in size to the distance between elements of a competitive list, and a true competitive list.
And yet, at the same time you're in the minority of 40K players, play a particular ruleset, and this needs to be understood when we're talking about balance.
Marmatag wrote: There is a gulf spanning from my house to England that is comparable in size to the distance between elements of a competitive list, and a true competitive list.
And yet, at the same time you're in the minority of 40K players, play a particular ruleset, and this needs to be understood when we're talking about balance.
Minority of players or pro-players where the game starts to break as players push the game to its very limits. If there is a fundamental game flaw it becomes more apparent at pro level play.
Marmatag wrote: God I would love to play someone who spams power armored marines.
Ravagers alone would kill nearly 30 per turn, not even factoring in blasters, poison, etc.
I wouldn't even need Doom.
I'm wondering how, without substantial rerolls or other bonuses, against marines in the open without cover, 3 Ravagers with 3 Disintegrators each are going to average 10 dead marines, not 30. Even with rerolls to hit and wound, you're only averaging 20.
Okay, see this is what I'm talking about. That's exactly the sort of poor, bad faith reasoning that's easily avoided, but you shoot right down that path.
A: Chapter Master upgrade is 3 CP.
B: That 150 points + 3 CP is buffing 90% of my 2000 point army.
C: The Tactical Squad is engaging the Guardsmen at the same time as they engage something else.
So. . . 350 points isn't just squaring off against 40 in a vacuum, as you illustrate it.
If you're going to continue down that path, we're done.
How is that bad faith your assuming that your tactical squad and your army is always in range of those auras! Auras are not board wide they are within a certain range. Assuming that they are always there to buff that squad is disingenious unless you run your whole army as a giant blob. 6 inches! away from your chapter master is nothing and should not be taken into account for every single space marine shot. If it were then space marines would be far better, but they aren't! They always have to be in range and 6 inches is nothing on the board. If you running your army as a blob you cannot capture objectives. a 150 pts + 170 = 320 pts + 65 pts for a LT. thats 385pts investment. Your using up an entire round of shooting of one 170 pt squad at 1 40pt unit.
If you assume it is buffing 90% of your army your clearly not playing space marines.
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Absolutely - You are doing it right. with Calgar or Gman in my army. Most of my army is getting buffed. A lot of times I will swing chronos out on a flank with 1 squad of intercessors so I can hold and objective and get LOS on something cheaky. I use Scions of Gman a lot on that one unit though. Only missing out on reroll wounds over there. Plus Chornos hits on 2's anyways. This is the key to playing mono space marines. Big units spread out wide with ancient banner and buffs rerolls all over. Not saying it's strong but its the most effective way to play it.
The solution is to make no difference between Primaris and Mini marines. I'm more than convinced they should all be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP Boltguns.
While I would like to see marines become dedicated squad focused, like primaris, overall, it'd invalidate armies and I ain't about that. I do think it could provide an actual meaningful difference between LSM and CSM other than spikes.
Marmatag wrote: God I would love to play someone who spams power armored marines.
Ravagers alone would kill nearly 30 per turn, not even factoring in blasters, poison, etc.
I wouldn't even need Doom.
I'm wondering how, without substantial rerolls or other bonuses, against marines in the open without cover, 3 Ravagers with 3 Disintegrators each are going to average 10 dead marines, not 30. Even with rerolls to hit and wound, you're only averaging 20.
Unless I'm missing something?
Hes exagerating a little bit. Unless hes also bringing jetfighters with dessie as well.
"Even with rerolls to hit and wound, you're only averaging 20."
You can't Doom 20 Marines. That's capped at 10. And they're super unlikely to be units of 6+, so really you're just dooming 5.
Also, what reroll-all-misses to DE have?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Hes exagerating a little bit. Unless hes also bringing jetfighters with dessie as well."
Something that averages 10 is 'nearly 30' is not a slight exaggeration. It's a complete whiff of scale.
Sir Heckington wrote: The solution is to make no difference between Primaris and Mini marines. I'm more than convinced they should all be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP Boltguns.
While I would like to see marines become dedicated squad focused, like primaris, overall, it'd invalidate armies and I ain't about that. I do think it could provide an actual meaningful difference between LSM and CSM other than spikes.
Well, there could be Hellblaster style special weapon squads for weapons other than the plasma too, and people could form their displaced special weapon guys into those.
Sir Heckington wrote: The solution is to make no difference between Primaris and Mini marines. I'm more than convinced they should all be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP Boltguns.
While I would like to see marines become dedicated squad focused, like primaris, overall, it'd invalidate armies and I ain't about that. I do think it could provide an actual meaningful difference between LSM and CSM other than spikes.
Well, there could be Hellblaster style special weapon squads for weapons other than the plasma too, and people could form their displaced special weapon guys into those.
True true, it'd be an odd thing to work with for sure, but I think it'd help alot. Obviously chaos would get the new statline, but I think it'd be cool to see Chaos play drastically different from normal Marines in this case.
Marmatag wrote: There is a gulf spanning from my house to England that is comparable in size to the distance between elements of a competitive list, and a true competitive list.
And yet, at the same time you're in the minority of 40K players, play a particular ruleset, and this needs to be understood when we're talking about balance.
Minority of players or pro-players where the game starts to break as players push the game to its very limits. If there is a fundamental game flaw it becomes more apparent at pro level play.
That's only sort of true in this situation. Like has been acknowledged earlier, progressive scoring actually changes quite a bit. And since armies are built to a particular mission type, that skews results when trying to use that data for non ITC.
Sir Heckington wrote: The solution is to make no difference between Primaris and Mini marines. I'm more than convinced they should all be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP Boltguns.
While I would like to see marines become dedicated squad focused, like primaris, overall, it'd invalidate armies and I ain't about that. I do think it could provide an actual meaningful difference between LSM and CSM other than spikes.
It would be interesting to see honestly, I think giving all squad sarges for space marines +1 wound would help tremendously and -1 AP boltguns, heavy bolters, storm bolters, would help as well. +1 wound for all vets would be nice. And then special rules for tactical squads that make them competitive such as taking an objective entirely from the opponent if they are close to it. Or a bolter drill mechanic for tacticals.
Sir Heckington wrote: The solution is to make no difference between Primaris and Mini marines. I'm more than convinced they should all be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP Boltguns.
While I would like to see marines become dedicated squad focused, like primaris, overall, it'd invalidate armies and I ain't about that. I do think it could provide an actual meaningful difference between LSM and CSM other than spikes.
Well, there could be Hellblaster style special weapon squads for weapons other than the plasma too, and people could form their displaced special weapon guys into those.
True true, it'd be an odd thing to work with for sure, but I think it'd help alot. Obviously chaos would get the new statline, but I think it'd be cool to see Chaos play drastically different from normal Marines in this case.
Give Chaos daemons and better possessed. Bam Instant chaos primaris space marines.
Maybe something similar to the Gal Valrok?
For hellblasters I wouldn't mind a mini-gatling gun.
dhallnet wrote: "A little bit" when he can kill nearly 30 marines with 27 shots ?
If I made my calculous well that be 8 dead marines per round on average provided there is no cover. It would be around 30 marines over the span of a 5 turn games on average if you factor in some cover and some ravagers being damaged.
Sir Heckington wrote: The solution is to make no difference between Primaris and Mini marines. I'm more than convinced they should all be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP Boltguns.
While I would like to see marines become dedicated squad focused, like primaris, overall, it'd invalidate armies and I ain't about that. I do think it could provide an actual meaningful difference between LSM and CSM other than spikes.
A tactical marine should probably be 15 points and be a baseline intercessor with all the tactical gear options and bolters should be ap-1
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s -1w and -1a. Very weak stuff.
dhallnet wrote: "A little bit" when he can kill nearly 30 marines with 27 shots ?
If I made my calculous well that be 8 dead marines per round on average provided there is no cover. It would be around 30 marines over the span of a 5 turn games on average if you factor in some cover and some ravagers being damaged.
Sir Heckington wrote: The solution is to make no difference between Primaris and Mini marines. I'm more than convinced they should all be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP Boltguns.
While I would like to see marines become dedicated squad focused, like primaris, overall, it'd invalidate armies and I ain't about that. I do think it could provide an actual meaningful difference between LSM and CSM other than spikes.
A tactical marine should probably be 15 points and be a baseline intercessor with all the tactical gear options and bolters should be ap-1
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s and -1a. Very weak stuff.
Nah, just have no difference between mini Marines and Primaris. There never should have been a difference, they are just new sculpts, thats all they ever should have been. GW should have taken the idea with 8th and gone and upgraded all marines.
A tactical marine should probably be 15 points and be a baseline intercessor with all the tactical gear options and bolters should be ap-1
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s and -1a. Very weak stuff.
Except you can't do that. Minimarines will be squatted eventually, so Primaris cannot have completely crazy stats, as they will be the standard marines soon enough.
Bharring wrote: "Even with rerolls to hit and wound, you're only averaging 20."
You can't Doom 20 Marines. That's capped at 10. And they're super unlikely to be units of 6+, so really you're just dooming 5.
Also, what reroll-all-misses to DE have?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Hes exagerating a little bit. Unless hes also bringing jetfighters with dessie as well."
Something that averages 10 is 'nearly 30' is not a slight exaggeration. It's a complete whiff of scale.
No - not really.
Hes getting reroll 1's to hit and wound if he is blackheart. Killing 20 is well within reason if they aren't in cover.
27 dissie shots with reroll 1s to hit and wound (this is the normal loadout since its , its dead easy to do) would expect to kill 13.6~ marines with average dice. This pretty horrible if they are tacticals - its comical if they are carrying anything heavier than a bolter (although to be fair any marine not carrying a 3++ in the new version of the game is a chump.)
Also non T5 Primaris. (Although obviously if you can kill 10 Aggressors you are laughing all the way to the bank).
Maybe this doesn't sound too bad - but this is literally a quarter of a DE/Eldar army in a 2k list. Have fun with the rest.
Bharring wrote: "Even with rerolls to hit and wound, you're only averaging 20."
You can't Doom 20 Marines. That's capped at 10. And they're super unlikely to be units of 6+, so really you're just dooming 5.
Also, what reroll-all-misses to DE have?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Hes exagerating a little bit. Unless hes also bringing jetfighters with dessie as well."
Something that averages 10 is 'nearly 30' is not a slight exaggeration. It's a complete whiff of scale.
No - not really.
Hes getting reroll 1's to hit and wound if he is blackheart. Killing 20 is well within reason if they aren't in cover.
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s -1w and -1a. Very weak stuff.
Ogrins are 30/35 points (?) and your Hulk Intercessor seems better from a quick glance. You're quite missing the mark imho with 25pts
A tactical marine should probably be 15 points and be a baseline intercessor with all the tactical gear options and bolters should be ap-1
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s and -1a. Very weak stuff.
Except you can't do that. Minimarines will be squatted eventually, so Primaris cannot have completely crazy stats, as they will be the standard marines soon enough.
Maybe so but a space marine should be more like the stats I listed above anyways - maybe not the 3 wounds profile but if a standard marines has 2 wounds then a primaris would have to have 3. If I could squat secondis right now and make the stats for a primaris marine it would be WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 2W A3 3+ with -1 ap from any weapons attack and theyed be 20 points.
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s -1w and -1a. Very weak stuff.
Ogrins are 30/35 points (?) and your Hulk Intercessor seems better from a quick glance.
Organs would be pretty bad without their gear giving them tons of autocannon attacks in CC and 1+ save action going on with stratagems. Go ahead and put some geared out bulgrans against my hulk intercessors with stratagems and all available. My marines are going to get wooped.
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s -1w and -1a. Very weak stuff.
Ogrins are 30/35 points (?) and your Hulk Intercessor seems better from a quick glance.
Organs would be pretty bad without their gear giving them tons of autocannon attacks in CC and 1+ save action going on with stratagems. Go ahead and put some geared out bulgrans against my hulk intercessors with stratagems and all available. My marines are going to get wooped.
The price was without the gear afaik (they should be 42 with shield+maul). And I'll admit I'm not aware of every shenanigans they can pull. But on paper your profile+loadout seems a bit too much to me for 25 pts. Not that it matters anyway, I get the intent was to show intercessors should be stronger, which I do not completely disagree with but there isn't much space for that (the whole primaris line is trapped between minimarines & custodes)
Bharring wrote: "Even with rerolls to hit and wound, you're only averaging 20."
You can't Doom 20 Marines. That's capped at 10. And they're super unlikely to be units of 6+, so really you're just dooming 5.
Also, what reroll-all-misses to DE have?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Hes exagerating a little bit. Unless hes also bringing jetfighters with dessie as well."
Something that averages 10 is 'nearly 30' is not a slight exaggeration. It's a complete whiff of scale.
No - not really.
Hes getting reroll 1's to hit and wound if he is blackheart. Killing 20 is well within reason if they aren't in cover.
That gets my math about 13.5 kills?
Within reason is not the average. I'd say it's within 1 standard deviation is within reason.
Isn't Ravagers a max of 18 Dissie shots (3 boats, 2 guns each, 3 shots per gun)?
No, it's 9 shots per boat. Rerolling 1s to hit and wound, as well as leadership penalties against big squads from phantasm grenade launchers. Of course one of the 10 man units would be Doomed.
In reality it's not 30. That was an exaggeration. But i comfortably kill 2 10man squads per turn with dice leftover with these guys, thanks to leadership debuffs. I could do 3 squads, but it would require a little bit of luck.
So more like 20-25.
At the absolute worst i'm killing 2 full squads. Assuming no wargear & no primaris, that's still 260 points a turn.
Eldar annihilate marines. You guys aren't even a challenge. No offense.
Isn't Ravagers a max of 18 Dissie shots (3 boats, 2 guns each, 3 shots per gun)?
No, it's 9 shots per boat. Rerolling 1s to hit and wound, as well as leadership penalties against big squads from phantasm grenade launchers. Of course one of the 10 man units would be Doomed.
In reality it's not 30. That was an exaggeration. But i comfortably kill 2 10man squads per turn with dice leftover with these guys, thanks to leadership debuffs.
Oh good. Can you inform Slayer-Fan that Morale actually matters?
"Within reason is not the average. I'd say it's within 1 standard deviation is within reason."
I don't have a calculator handy, but your StdDev looks off.
A roughly (1/3) chance occuring 20+ times in 27 tries? I'm fairly sure the odds of that are very small.
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s -1w and -1a. Very weak stuff.
Ogrins are 30/35 points (?) and your Hulk Intercessor seems better from a quick glance.
Organs would be pretty bad without their gear giving them tons of autocannon attacks in CC and 1+ save action going on with stratagems. Go ahead and put some geared out bulgrans against my hulk intercessors with stratagems and all available. My marines are going to get wooped.
The price was without the gear afaik (they are at 42 with the maul). And I'll admit I'm not aware of every shenanigans they can pull. But on paper your profile+loadout seems a bit too much for 25 pts
Well it seems that way because most the units at the price point are totally garbage...terminators/agressors (only not garbage if they shoot twice which is special)/Inceptors (garbage). If all those units went to 3 wounds with no price increases they would go from garbage to playable - they wouldn't be OP.
Bullgryns win tournaments. They get get a 1+ save with -1 to hit with some cheap buffs put on them. They used to be able to get 2++ saves but now I think that is maxed at a 3++. They have like 5 attacks each with the proper buffs and each 1 is an autocannon swing with flat 2 damage. In any case - I think they are probably over priced if not for the insane buffs they can get.
Plus I also believe the mobile units pay to little for their mobility - so in my perfect world of balance - slow units cost less and fast units cost more.
Bharring wrote: "Within reason is not the average. I'd say it's within 1 standard deviation is within reason."
I don't have a calculator handy, but your StdDev looks off.
A roughly (1/3) chance occuring 20+ times in 27 tries? I'm fairly sure the odds of that are very small.
You need to factor in morale losses. Marines aren't immune to it. And we're talking 10 man blobs.
Bharring wrote: "Ravagers alone would kill nearly 30 per turn, not even factoring in blasters, poison, etc. "
Wow, that's some really hot rolling.
I assume you hit and wound with every shot. Then charge into CC and get a kill for every attack. Then he rolls terribad for leadership with 10man units?
Isn't Ravagers a max of 18 Dissie shots (3 boats, 2 guns each, 3 shots per gun)?
They're 27 (9 shots for each boat) shots, tipycally with re-rolling 1s to hit and to wound. 3 ravagers with the max buffs, without allied buffs but only drukhari bonuses, should get 21-22 hits and 16-17 wounds against a tipycal T4 SM target. Definitely far from the nearly 30 dudes killed in a turn. If the SM player fields squads of 5 dudes some of the wounds could be wasted in overkilling a squad.
Good luck killing marines with poison shots.
But honestly SM without vehicles don't make any sense, especially against drukhari which rely on their dissies more than lances. Spamming T7+ units is definitely more effective against drukhari than spamming power armor dudes.
Isn't Ravagers a max of 18 Dissie shots (3 boats, 2 guns each, 3 shots per gun)?
No, it's 9 shots per boat. Rerolling 1s to hit and wound, as well as leadership penalties against big squads from phantasm grenade launchers. Of course one of the 10 man units would be Doomed.
In reality it's not 30. That was an exaggeration. But i comfortably kill 2 10man squads per turn with dice leftover with these guys, thanks to leadership debuffs.
Oh good. Can you inform Slayer-Fan that Morale actually matters?
It matters for marines, yes. No one else, really, takes a hit from morale.
Kill 7 marines in a squad of 10, with -2 leadership (or worse), and they're losing whatever the dice roll is. Even with a reroll it's still expected to be a 3. So 14 marines to kill 20. Pretty reasonable. Then if you can manage to get 6 in the last squad, with a nice morale fail, it's 3 squads.
At the absolute worst i'm killing 2 full squads. Assuming no wargear & no primaris, that's still 260 points a turn.
Eldar annihilate marines. You guys aren't even a challenge. No offense.
My models are all fearless, as I take the Relic Banner.
Full disclosure, I might have joined your meta as we lost out on a bid for a place in the East Bay. That would have been interesting. Instead we nabbed a place in SF, so why drive 45 min when I can walk 5-10.
At the absolute worst i'm killing 2 full squads. Assuming no wargear & no primaris, that's still 260 points a turn.
Eldar annihilate marines. You guys aren't even a challenge. No offense.
My models are all fearless, as I take the Relic Banner.
Full disclosure, I might have joined your meta as we lost out on a bid for a place in the East Bay. That would have been interesting. Instead we nabbed a place in SF, so why drive 45 min when I can walk 5-10.
Fearless models are stickier. In this case it would not be that many.
Or course morale matters in this game against elite models. If you can stack -2 or -3 leadership on them, you are really, really amping up your casualties. Dark Eldar are all about morale penalties. Space Marine players are always a bit shocked when they start losing models to me in the morale phase. The best is when they reroll into a 6.
Friendly advice if you guys ever start playing competitively. Make your opponents roll morale. The losses happen way more than you'd think.
Even assuming you kill 7 and get the remaining 3 from morale, you're still more likely than not failing to kill 2 10man squads. Within a reasonable distance for it to not be unlikely, though.
But we're a far cry from 30 in a round easily. And if you fail by one model, their best weapon says around.
Bharring wrote: "Within reason is not the average. I'd say it's within 1 standard deviation is within reason."
I don't have a calculator handy, but your StdDev looks off.
A roughly (1/3) chance occuring 20+ times in 27 tries? I'm fairly sure the odds of that are very small.
It's not a (1/3) chance 3 times. Rerolls of 1 to hit and wound and it's only a 6+ save in the open.
the math is easy.
27 shots
3's to hit reroll 1's
3's to wound reroll 1's
6+ saves
It's 27x .89x.89 x.82 = 17.5 - That is the average.
Bharring wrote: "Within reason is not the average. I'd say it's within 1 standard deviation is within reason."
I don't have a calculator handy, but your StdDev looks off.
A roughly (1/3) chance occuring 20+ times in 27 tries? I'm fairly sure the odds of that are very small.
It's not a (1/3) chance 3 times. Rerolls of 1 to hit and wound and it's only a 6+ save in the open.
the math is easy.
27 shots
3's to hit reroll 1's
3's to wound reroll 1's
6+ saves
It's 27x .89x.89 x.82 = 17.5 - That is the average.
Cover is easy to get on 5 man squads though, and also some overkill with wasted wounds. That 17.5 is lower in the reality, and it's about 3 ravagers at full strenght. Paper things that go down, or at least degrade, very easily.
I'm not talking about 5 man squads in cover. We're talking 10 man squads.
5 man squads aren't losing models to morale, period. Unless they pull the sergeant and roll a 4+, which is still possible, but not something I plan on.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.
And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.
If you say so. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, and your experience playing not-guard isn't necessarily relevant to Guard. Maybe you haven't lost more models to morale because you play against terrible players in a casual meta. Hmm? See how lazy that reasoning is?
Skitarii have the same exact LD stat..
Do you play them the same as you would play Guard? Do you field them as a screen? How many points are they? Do you have support units that are in jeopardy if I get past them, like Guard do? Or does the army as a whole fight differently than Guard?
Insectum7 what are you accomplishing with this? You aren’t wiping things, you aren’t shifting things off objectives, you aren’t getting kill points, you’re doing nothing. So if your shooting remains at 100% efficacy you will have maybe wiped each target in 3 turns. Killing 7 models and you’re getting D6 extra kills. Why not kill 16-18 nearly guarantee the 30 bodies are wiped? Then you’re displacing bubble wrap, displacing objective control, disrupting the enemy’s game plan. The issue is marines need more killing power to be able to clear the chaff better.
As for your buff anecdotes... I can’t imagine your horde marines being effective, nor much fun to play against. Actually scratch that; they probably are fun to play against; it’s not hard to lay waste to mass amounts of mini marines. An 18”ish circle of marines wandering the table maximizing buffs...I’m not buying it, otherwise Templars wouldn’t be so poor.
"What are you accomplishing with this?" I'm killing more guardsmen than I would if I didn't do it. I'm not getting the "why not kill 16 to 18 and nearly guaranteeing that 30 bodies are wiped". Like I really have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some giant combined squad here? Because I haven't seen that in person. If there was a giant combined squad, then sure, that's a great thing to do.
As for objectives and kill points, I don't play ITC, thus my priorities are different. I think my marine horde fares better outside of ITC because I don't have to worry about progressive scoring.
Honestly it's a bit of a bear to play, because there are so many re-rolls. I've begun to find it cumbersome over the last few months.
You...really know nothing about Skitarii? Uh okay here's the basics without posting the codex
1. One of them is 7 points, the other 8
2. For more than an Infantry dude, they get a 4+/6++, BS3+, and a better gun
3. One of these guns is 30", S4, RF1, and has a rule to be AP-1 on a 6 to wound
4. The other gun is 18", S3, Assault 3, and a 6 to wound is D2
5. The one with the Assault gun has a toughness lowering rule, but it's irrelevant
6. Special weapons are an 18" Assault 2 Plasma Gun and a 60" S7 AP-2 DD3 Sniper Rifle. We don't talk about the Arc rifle because it's terrible
7. I don't feel like getting into the FW Dogmas. If you're that interested in how they interact with their army traits, Google it or shoot me a PM. I was doing great with my Skitarii until the army was destroyed.
So as you can imagine, the ones with the longer range would play more akin to Infantry where you camp and shoot, and the other you might treat more like Vets if they were in the Troop slot. When you think about it, these dudes are fantastic deals. For the price, they're not exactly hard to kill though. For 1 T3 4+ wound, you could instead get 2 T3 5+, which is of course more durable. With the same LD, you'd think you'd buy that one upgrade that, for ONLY 5 points, lets you reroll morale tests.
Here's the kicker though: you don't need it! Morale isn't dangerous enough that I would take that over Ignoring Cover.
You didn't factor in morale, in 10 man squads, which was the whole point. Is your reading comprehension terrible or are you grinding an axe? The whole point is that stacked leadership penalties, in 10 man squads, makes it really easy to remove them.
You...really know nothing about Skitarii? Uh okay here's the basics without posting the codex
1. One of them is 7 points, the other 8
2. For more than an Infantry dude, they get a 4+/6++, BS3+, and a better gun
3. One of these guns is 30", S4, RF1, and has a rule to be AP-1 on a 6 to wound
4. The other gun is 18", S3, Assault 3, and a 6 to wound is D2
5. The one with the Assault gun has a toughness lowering rule, but it's irrelevant
6. Special weapons are an 18" Assault 2 Plasma Gun and a 60" S7 AP-2 DD3 Sniper Rifle. We don't talk about the Arc rifle because it's terrible
7. I don't feel like getting into the FW Dogmas. If you're that interested in how they interact with their army traits, Google it or shoot me a PM. I was doing great with my Skitarii until the army was destroyed.
So as you can imagine, the ones with the longer range would play more akin to Infantry where you camp and shoot, and the other you might treat more like Vets if they were in the Troop slot. When you think about it, these dudes are fantastic deals. For the price, they're not exactly hard to kill though. For 1 T3 4+ wound, you could instead get 2 T3 5+, which is of course more durable. With the same LD, you'd think you'd buy that one upgrade that, for ONLY 5 points, lets you reroll morale tests.
Here's the kicker though: you don't need it! Morale isn't dangerous enough that I would take that over Ignoring Cover.
Ok, so that looks like I could use morale if I needed to, and I certainly could. But because they're quite different than Guard, in a different army, I might be fighting them differently to begin with.
But for the purposes of the original debate, it doesn't look like I'd need to use it to get my points-per-model back when rapid-firing bolters at them.
Marmatag,
THere were a couple different claims here.
One was that killing 20 Marines with 27 Dissie shots was within 1 StdDev. Which was clearly bogus. That's what I'm refutiing here.
As for your 10mans, as shown above, if you need to kill 7 Marines to wipe the remaining 3 in Morale, then you're more likely than not going to fail that. But the numbers are *really* close, so it'll happen frequenlty (although less than 50% of the time).
Bharring wrote: "Within reason is not the average. I'd say it's within 1 standard deviation is within reason."
I don't have a calculator handy, but your StdDev looks off.
A roughly (1/3) chance occuring 20+ times in 27 tries? I'm fairly sure the odds of that are very small.
It's not a (1/3) chance 3 times. Rerolls of 1 to hit and wound and it's only a 6+ save in the open.
the math is easy.
27 shots
3's to hit reroll 1's
3's to wound reroll 1's
6+ saves
It's 27x .89x.89 x.82 = 17.5 - That is the average.
reroll 1's is about a .77 chance, not a .89
Okay....so that math there...that's if they are buffed by Gman...LOL. Man I am tired. You are totally correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: You didn't factor in morale, in 10 man squads, which was the whole point. Is your reading comprehension terrible or are you grinding an axe? The whole point is that stacked leadership penalties, in 10 man squads, makes it really easy to remove them.
You...really know nothing about Skitarii? Uh okay here's the basics without posting the codex
1. One of them is 7 points, the other 8
2. For more than an Infantry dude, they get a 4+/6++, BS3+, and a better gun
3. One of these guns is 30", S4, RF1, and has a rule to be AP-1 on a 6 to wound
4. The other gun is 18", S3, Assault 3, and a 6 to wound is D2
5. The one with the Assault gun has a toughness lowering rule, but it's irrelevant
6. Special weapons are an 18" Assault 2 Plasma Gun and a 60" S7 AP-2 DD3 Sniper Rifle. We don't talk about the Arc rifle because it's terrible
7. I don't feel like getting into the FW Dogmas. If you're that interested in how they interact with their army traits, Google it or shoot me a PM. I was doing great with my Skitarii until the army was destroyed.
So as you can imagine, the ones with the longer range would play more akin to Infantry where you camp and shoot, and the other you might treat more like Vets if they were in the Troop slot. When you think about it, these dudes are fantastic deals. For the price, they're not exactly hard to kill though. For 1 T3 4+ wound, you could instead get 2 T3 5+, which is of course more durable. With the same LD, you'd think you'd buy that one upgrade that, for ONLY 5 points, lets you reroll morale tests.
Here's the kicker though: you don't need it! Morale isn't dangerous enough that I would take that over Ignoring Cover.
Ok, so that looks like I could use morale if I needed to, and I certainly could. But because they're quite different than Guard, in a different army, I might be fighting them differently to begin with.
But for the purposes of the original debate, it doesn't look like I'd need to use it to get my points-per-model back when rapid-firing bolters at them.
The utility is still the same though, as I specifically outlined. One would be played more statically akin to Infantry, and the other mobile akin to Vets. Difference is HQ buffs, mostly.
The problem with playing the expected value game is that it doesn't adequately represent split fire, and also, having shots determined in a sequence not all at once.
If the first vehicle rolls hot, that changes how you allocate your remaining shots.
I'm a huge fan of math hammer against single targets, but if you roll in the top third with one gunboat, that changes how the other 2 will be allocating shots.
I'm perfectly fine accepting that i've been lucky in the past. But it is a dice game.
The nice thing is that if i get unlucky, i can cover that with a pretty absurd volume of shots from everything else. And in reality i'm not firing the ravagers first, because of their range.
You...really know nothing about Skitarii? Uh okay here's the basics without posting the codex
1. One of them is 7 points, the other 8
2. For more than an Infantry dude, they get a 4+/6++, BS3+, and a better gun
3. One of these guns is 30", S4, RF1, and has a rule to be AP-1 on a 6 to wound
4. The other gun is 18", S3, Assault 3, and a 6 to wound is D2
5. The one with the Assault gun has a toughness lowering rule, but it's irrelevant
6. Special weapons are an 18" Assault 2 Plasma Gun and a 60" S7 AP-2 DD3 Sniper Rifle. We don't talk about the Arc rifle because it's terrible
7. I don't feel like getting into the FW Dogmas. If you're that interested in how they interact with their army traits, Google it or shoot me a PM. I was doing great with my Skitarii until the army was destroyed.
So as you can imagine, the ones with the longer range would play more akin to Infantry where you camp and shoot, and the other you might treat more like Vets if they were in the Troop slot. When you think about it, these dudes are fantastic deals. For the price, they're not exactly hard to kill though. For 1 T3 4+ wound, you could instead get 2 T3 5+, which is of course more durable. With the same LD, you'd think you'd buy that one upgrade that, for ONLY 5 points, lets you reroll morale tests.
Here's the kicker though: you don't need it! Morale isn't dangerous enough that I would take that over Ignoring Cover.
Ok, so that looks like I could use morale if I needed to, and I certainly could. But because they're quite different than Guard, in a different army, I might be fighting them differently to begin with.
But for the purposes of the original debate, it doesn't look like I'd need to use it to get my points-per-model back when rapid-firing bolters at them.
The utility is still the same though, as I specifically outlined. One would be played more statically akin to Infantry, and the other mobile akin to Vets. Difference is HQ buffs, mostly.
Sure, that's fine. But it looks to me that Morale can be used against them, just as it can be used against Guard, even if it hasn't happened in your experience.
This is also a disconnect. Slayer plays ITC. You can't leave 1 guardsmen left alive, because he'll hide behind a building or inside a building, and that denies you a chance to get "kill more," which adds up. It might also stop you from getting butchers bill, or last strike, or reaper, or any secondary that requires he dies.
You don't play ITC. One sole guardsmen left alive doesn't really bother you in the same way it bothers us.
"The problem with playing the expected value game is that it doesn't adequately represent split fire, and also, having shots determined in a sequence not all at once.
If the first vehicle rolls hot, that changes how you allocate your remaining shots.
I'm a huge fan of math hammer against single targets, but if you roll in the top third with one gunboat, that changes how the other 2 will be allocating shots."
While true, that actually hurts you in this case.
You need exactly 7 kills on each unit. You will average short of 14, but lets pretend 14 for simplicity.
You need all 14 wounds to be exactly evenly split.
The more choices you have, the closer to the even split you can get. But the limit is the perfect split, not better. So it's good that you get to pick, but even if you *do* manage 14+ wounds, you can't guarentee they'll all be where you need them. Because you allocate in blocks of 3 attacks (to say nothing of allocating 3 weapons at a time), there's no way to prevent potential overkill when going for the 7th wound on any given unit.
As such, regardless of your choices, even if you averaged 14 kills exactly, you'd still be more likely than not to fail to do 7 wounds to each squad.
Add on the fact that you don't even average 14 kills, so if you could allocate perfectly, you're still more likely than not to succeed.
So no, you're still not more likely than not to wipe 20 Marines by killing 7 in each squad and letting the last 3 die to Ld.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (side note: with the numbers as they are, incidental fire - basically splinter rifles and such - should ensure both squads die. It's still contrived to be facing 2x10-man Marine squads instead of 4x5-mans, though.)
On the Skitarii front I'd have thought the interesting thing is how much Ruststalkers and Infiltrators got reduced.
A 10 man blob of stalkers has morale issues - but at 140 points with the blades I'd have thought it would be interesting. 20 wounds, movement 8, strength 5, mortals on a 6. Build a close combat detachment with Ryza for extra lols. Seems like reasonable damage potential and if it dies its not exactly the end of the world.
Marmatag wrote: This is also a disconnect. Slayer plays ITC. You can't leave 1 guardsmen left alive, because he'll hide behind a building or inside a building, and that denies you a chance to get "kill more," which adds up. It might also stop you from getting butchers bill, or last strike, or reaper, or any secondary that requires he dies.
You don't play ITC. One sole guardsmen left alive doesn't really bother you in the same way it bothers us.
Totally. One or two guardsmen is very ignorable for me, maybe even moreso because I play UM, and fragments of squads can't stop my guys from shooting.
“(side note: with the numbers as they are, incidental fire - basically splinter rifles and such - should ensure both squads die. It's still contrived to be facing 2x10-man Marine squads instead of 4x5-mans, though.)”
Unless you’re maybe playing against Insectums hordemarines who are 90+% buffed at all times. Maybe bigger squads than 5 man are involved then, but likely not.
DA could make a case for 10 man squads with their ability to limit morale losses to take advantage of things like WotDA.
Re: ITC scoring; I don’t play ITC, but I still can’t leave a single body sitting on an objective in CA or BRB missions; squads need to be wiped regardless. Missions with Kill points are more fun to me in general though.
While everyone math-hammers how awesome Ravagers are at killing Marines (hint: they are good at it), I'll contemplate the rather snooze-worthy special rules Imperial marines get:
And They Shall Know No Fear: AKA the rule you never use because you don't make Morale test on 5 Man Squads.
Combat Squads: AKA the other rule you never use because there is no reason to by a maximum strength squad.
Wouldn't it be nice if these rules were rewritten to be useful? Something like:
And They Shall Know No Fear: The Astartes never flee from battle, but from time to time they fall into a coma from myriad minor injuries. Units with this rule never lose more than 1 model to a failed Morale Test.
Combat Squads: The Astartes commonly operate in divided squads that skillfully support each other in combat. When deploying, a unit with this rule that has the maximum unit size may divide into two equally sized units. These units operate independently during play.
Additionally, whenever a <Chapter> unit with this rule of minimum model size or smaller is the target of a Space Marines Stratagem, a second <Chapter> unit with this rule of minimum model size or smaller within 6" benefits from the same Stratagem at not cost in Command Points.
Marmatag wrote: This is also a disconnect. Slayer plays ITC. You can't leave 1 guardsmen left alive, because he'll hide behind a building or inside a building, and that denies you a chance to get "kill more," which adds up. It might also stop you from getting butchers bill, or last strike, or reaper, or any secondary that requires he dies.
You don't play ITC. One sole guardsmen left alive doesn't really bother you in the same way it bothers us.
Even with core rules, morale doesn't matter. I didn't START using ITC when 8th was flowing. I merely adapted it, rather than being molded by it.
alextroy wrote: While everyone math-hammers how awesome Ravagers are at killing Marines (hint: they are good at it), I'll contemplate the rather snooze-worthy special rules Imperial marines get:
And They Shall Know No Fear: AKA the rule you never use because you don't make Morale test on 5 Man Squads.
Combat Squads: AKA the other rule you never use because there is no reason to by a maximum strength squad.
Wouldn't it be nice if these rules were rewritten to be useful? Something like:
And They Shall Know No Fear: The Astartes never flee from battle, but from time to time they fall into a coma from myriad minor injuries. Units with this rule never lose more than 1 model to a failed Morale Test.
Combat Squads: The Astartes commonly operate in divided squads that skillfully support each other in combat. When deploying, a unit with this rule that has the maximum unit size may divide into two equally sized units. These units operate independently during play.
Additionally, whenever a <Chapter> unit with this rule of minimum model size or smaller is the target of a Space Marines Stratagem, a second <Chapter> unit with this rule of minimum model size or smaller within 6" benefits from the same Stratagem at not cost in Command Points.
Now we have rules that can actually be used.
Prior to bringing the banner I commonly used both rules in their current form, actually. That's been less common recently, but I rather enjoy Combat Squads in particular, which I've used to rearrange what goes in Transports and what stays back. ATSKNF is. . . much less useful than it used to be though, that's very true.
It's not efficient but with the upgrade in chapter approved I'm just going to stop running tact marines and make them all veterans. They still only have one wound but for the same price as tact marines they have 2 atacks each, Sgt has 3, and a 30" rapid fire -2ap. I get a feeling the vets are what standard marines should have been. Then I'm just running primaris marines and scouts for CPs.
lolman1c wrote: It's not efficient but with the upgrade in chapter approved I'm just going to stop running tact marines and make them all veterans. They still only have one wound but for the same price as tact marines they have 2 atacks each, Sgt has 3, and a 30" rapid fire -2ap. I get a feeling the vets are what standard marines should have been. Then I'm just running primaris marines and scouts for CPs.
Well not the same exact price, but Sternguard are actually a decent pick with Storm Bolters now. You'd likely be better off with Command Squads though unless you plan to bring Heavy Weapons (why the Grav Cannon didn't drop in price we will never know).
lolman1c wrote: It's not efficient but with the upgrade in chapter approved I'm just going to stop running tact marines and make them all veterans. They still only have one wound but for the same price as tact marines they have 2 atacks each, Sgt has 3, and a 30" rapid fire -2ap. I get a feeling the vets are what standard marines should have been. Then I'm just running primaris marines and scouts for CPs.
Well not the same exact price, but Sternguard are actually a decent pick with Storm Bolters now. You'd likely be better off with Command Squads though unless you plan to bring Heavy Weapons (why the Grav Cannon didn't drop in price we will never know).
Or for 2pts each you get a veteran squad with stormshields and storm bolters with a ++3!
lolman1c wrote: It's not efficient but with the upgrade in chapter approved I'm just going to stop running tact marines and make them all veterans. They still only have one wound but for the same price as tact marines they have 2 atacks each, Sgt has 3, and a 30" rapid fire -2ap. I get a feeling the vets are what standard marines should have been. Then I'm just running primaris marines and scouts for CPs.
It's +3 points for that and it is not worth it. Really only deathwatch is good. Seeing them get points drops is kind of amusing. Then again we all expect this from GW at this point. They blow with points.
lolman1c wrote: It's not efficient but with the upgrade in chapter approved I'm just going to stop running tact marines and make them all veterans. They still only have one wound but for the same price as tact marines they have 2 atacks each, Sgt has 3, and a 30" rapid fire -2ap. I get a feeling the vets are what standard marines should have been. Then I'm just running primaris marines and scouts for CPs.
Well not the same exact price, but Sternguard are actually a decent pick with Storm Bolters now. You'd likely be better off with Command Squads though unless you plan to bring Heavy Weapons (why the Grav Cannon didn't drop in price we will never know).
Or for 2pts each you get a veteran squad with stormshields and storm bolters with a ++3!
That too. Pop 3×4 squads like that in a Termite and go nuts with it.
lolman1c wrote: It's not efficient but with the upgrade in chapter approved I'm just going to stop running tact marines and make them all veterans. They still only have one wound but for the same price as tact marines they have 2 atacks each, Sgt has 3, and a 30" rapid fire -2ap. I get a feeling the vets are what standard marines should have been. Then I'm just running primaris marines and scouts for CPs.
Well not the same exact price, but Sternguard are actually a decent pick with Storm Bolters now. You'd likely be better off with Command Squads though unless you plan to bring Heavy Weapons (why the Grav Cannon didn't drop in price we will never know).
Or for 2pts each you get a veteran squad with stormshields and storm bolters with a ++3!
That too. Pop 3×4 squads like that in a Termite and go nuts with it.
its what I run with Bobby G + 20 wounds is no joke!
And marines can take a captain to reroll 1's for multiple squads, and lieutenants to reroll 1's for wounds.
Seems like both have force multipliers.
Marines don't have that on base though... Guardsmen do. Space marines pay a premium of 65 PTS extra to have that within... 6" which again means you have to have babysit the unit. So this 65 pt unit with an additional 87 pts.... means that my unit of space marines together costs me 152pts! for 6 models! While the guard get an additional 10.... oh and an infantry commander!... so thats 24 wounds compared to my 9 wounds? Oh yeah I have a better save but they have four times the damage.... while I have 1 plasma gun and 4 bolters. Oh man at this rate I can kill 2 models a turn!
.by such a small margin that standard deviation in dice rolls is enough to throw that off.
Precentages and WPPM are dramatically higher than you read and again you ignored it!
Guard don't have it on base either though. They have to buy an officer if they want orders, and said officer only effects one squad, maybe two. Meanwhile, that 65 point captain buffs every squad in 6", and can kill an IG squad on his own practically.
You have 3 bolters, a plasma gun, and two combi-plasma. One of those combi's is hitting on 2+. Hmmm...seems like the fire power is a bit more even...
Finally, your math doesn't take everything in account. It assumes two squads on a salt flat at 6". That's not a typical game board.
Are they though? If you take the cadian special rule they reroll all ones if they didn't move. If they have an order they reroll everything until the end of that phase. That means that +1 difference is completely nullified by basic math of increase of probabilities
And marines can take a captain to reroll 1's for multiple squads, and lieutenants to reroll 1's for wounds.
Seems like both have force multipliers.
Marines cause less WPM than a guardsmen squad, take more damage from guardsmen squads PPM and have more damage to their leadership per a model per a point. They also have Less effective damage against the same units due to cost efficiencies.
...by such a small margin that standard deviation in dice rolls is enough to throw that off.
It doesn't matter if the individual model is less effective with them if the pricing is too low.
10 Infantry with a Plasma Gun and Autocannon are far more effective than 5 Marines with a Plasma Gun, even if they got that Plasma Gun for free.
Math is all that matters there.
So 65 points of guard (roughly) as opposed to 80 points of marines (again, roughly). One has 9 guys with an auto cannon and a PG. The other has 5 guys with two plasma guns (sarge's combi is the 2nd). That's not that far off in fire power from each other, or in cost once you factor in the difference between BS 3 and 4. Or that if everything is rapid firing, a PG is better than an Autocannon.
TIL: base army trait is equal to a 70+ point HQ. Lol k
Also that infantry squad with an Autocannon, Plasma Gun, and a Bolter on the Sergeant is 60 points.
That's actually 5 points less.
TIL Guard don't pay for officers. Oh wait. They still do.
As for the points, you'll notice where I said roughly. I got in the ball park, I'm fine with that.
So 65 points of guard (roughly) as opposed to 80 points of marines (again, roughly). One has 9 guys with an auto cannon and a PG. The other has 5 guys with two plasma guns (sarge's combi is the 2nd). That's not that far off in fire power from each other, or in cost once you factor in the difference between BS 3 and 4. Or that if everything is rapid firing, a PG is better than an Autocannon.
Well, I gotta correct the Marine squad to 87(now) as a nitpick. But otherwise it's a good comparison. Don't forget Krak Grenades, which I wind up using all the time as it's a much better option against Custodes than firing a Bolter.
Its not, its 2x wounds and twice as much firepower as the marine squad has with reroll on 1s for all of the models in the imperial guard squad.
It's only a poor comparison if you can't do math.
It's a slight edge on fire power for the guard. Two plasma and two auto cannons and 14 las guns vs one plasma, two combi plasma, and three bolters (five if the combi's fire both). The guard are 50% less accurate, and are 50% less likely to wound with las guns. Oh, and less likely to wound with plasma/autocannons as well, seeing as they need threes, rather than twos.
TIL: base army trait is equal to a 70+ point HQ. Lol k
Counter base-trait is -1 to hit, which will hurt guard more than reroll 1s will help.
Original and relevant claims for design change were based of single unit vs. single unit, ppm. Stick to it.
So this raven guard unit has a 157pts vs 30 guardsmen with 3 special weapons, 3 heavy weapons... rerolls all to hit on 1s.... and 21 lasgun shots, 3d6 grenade launchers, and s4 3D6 mortars.
sooooo.... 1.3 dead guardsmen per a turn from the space marine unit compared to 2.7 dead marines per a turn... IE 50% of the whole squad dead from 3 squads of shooting compared to one squad shooting into 1 platoon.
Got it.
lets do it without it and just do 1 platoon
3/6 of a chance to hit 4+
6 lasguns
3.2?
1.16 to wound
.77 to lose a marine
1d6 4+
Average of 3
3
1.5 to hit
.75 to wound
.5 To lose a marine
mortar
average 3
3
1.5
1 to wound
.66 chance to wound!
Your math is wrong. You didn't include officers in your points. You don't get those extra shots, or rerolls for guard without their officers.
Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.
Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.
Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.
I've done it. Hell, I've been doing it for years in WHFB. It is terrain dependent, but not as bad as you seem to think, particularly if you're using transports to minimize your footprint while advancing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.
And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.
Marmatag wrote: God I would love to play someone who spams power armored marines.
Ravagers alone would kill nearly 30 per turn, not even factoring in blasters, poison, etc.
I wouldn't even need Doom.
I'm wondering how, without substantial rerolls or other bonuses, against marines in the open without cover, 3 Ravagers with 3 Disintegrators each are going to average 10 dead marines, not 30. Even with rerolls to hit and wound, you're only averaging 20.
Unless I'm missing something?
You're not missing anything. They Hyperbole train is running on track 3!
What's your point? This has been the case since the RT days. And it will continue to be true as long as a SM costs more pts than a guardsman.
No, it hasn't always been the case. Due the AP change guard resilience against small arms has markedly increased, whilst the marines remained the same. Do the math.
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.)
Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Isn't Ravagers a max of 18 Dissie shots (3 boats, 2 guns each, 3 shots per gun)?
No, it's 9 shots per boat. Rerolling 1s to hit and wound, as well as leadership penalties against big squads from phantasm grenade launchers. Of course one of the 10 man units would be Doomed.
In reality it's not 30. That was an exaggeration. But i comfortably kill 2 10man squads per turn with dice leftover with these guys, thanks to leadership debuffs. I could do 3 squads, but it would require a little bit of luck.
So more like 20-25.
At the absolute worst i'm killing 2 full squads. Assuming no wargear & no primaris, that's still 260 points a turn.
Eldar annihilate marines. You guys aren't even a challenge. No offense.
Anecdotal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: I had another thought I wanted to suggest!
What if power armor and Terminator armor had the following always on ability.
" A model wearing power armor or terminator armor applies a -1 to all incoming wound rolls"
Is this something that would make a big difference in the basic marine line?
That would make a huge difference. But why not just make them T5 at that point?
Having said that, most small arms already have trouble wounding marines outside of massed numbers, so I don't imagine it would fly.
alextroy wrote: While everyone math-hammers how awesome Ravagers are at killing Marines (hint: they are good at it), I'll contemplate the rather snooze-worthy special rules Imperial marines get:
And They Shall Know No Fear: AKA the rule you never use because you don't make Morale test on 5 Man Squads.
Combat Squads: AKA the other rule you never use because there is no reason to by a maximum strength squad.
Wouldn't it be nice if these rules were rewritten to be useful? Something like:
And They Shall Know No Fear: The Astartes never flee from battle, but from time to time they fall into a coma from myriad minor injuries. Units with this rule never lose more than 1 model to a failed Morale Test.
Combat Squads: The Astartes commonly operate in divided squads that skillfully support each other in combat. When deploying, a unit with this rule that has the maximum unit size may divide into two equally sized units. These units operate independently during play.
Additionally, whenever a <Chapter> unit with this rule of minimum model size or smaller is the target of a Space Marines Stratagem, a second <Chapter> unit with this rule of minimum model size or smaller within 6" benefits from the same Stratagem at not cost in Command Points.
Now we have rules that can actually be used.
I'm really not sure how ATSKNF should be handled, but I agree Combat Squads is basically useless right now. There's literally no reason not to take 2x 5-Marine units other than deliberately wanting to mug yourself off. I do think your solution's a little bit convoluted, though. How about:
• Reduce the Tactical Flexibility stratagem to 0 CP, also have it allow combat-squadded units to recombine (alternatively, delete the stratagem and just make this part of the CS rule)
• Any stratagems used on the unit apply to both combat squads
?
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.)
Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Of course marines have always cost more points! We're talking about resilience/points ratio. In 7th edition a Tactical Marine costed 14 points, Guardsman costed 5. So marine costed 2,8 times as much as the guardsman. However, bolters were four times more effective at killing guardsmen than marines, thus bolter killed more points of guard than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (14 points) would have killed four guardsmen (20 points.) In 8th marine costs 13 points, guardsman four, so marine costs 3,3 times as much as guardsman (so relatively more than in 7th.) However, due how AP works, bolters now are only 2.7 times as killy against guardsmen than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (13 points) now only kill 2,7 guardsmen (10,5 points.) So point the efficiency of bolters against the guardsmen has almost halved!
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.)
Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Of course marines have always cost more points! We're talking about resilience/points ratio. In 7th edition a Tactical Marine costed 14 points, Guardsman costed 5. So marine costed 2,8 times as much as the guardsman. However, bolters were four times more effective at killing guardsmen than marines, thus bolter killed more points of guard than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (14 points) would have killed four guardsmen (20 points.) In 8th marine costs 13 points, guardsman four, so marine costs 3,3 times as much as guardsman (so relatively more than in 7th.) However, due how AP works, bolters now are only 2.7 times as killy against guardsmen than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (13 points) now only kill 2,7 guardsmen (10,5 points.) So point the efficiency of bolters against the guardsmen has almost halved!
That's actually not quite a third in reduced killing power. Using your math as a base. That's exactly the outcome one would expect to have from getting a 5+ armor save against a bolter. If points killed is your only issue, then 5 point guardsmen fix everything. 2.7 x 5 = 13.5. There, marines are fixed.
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.)
Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Of course marines have always cost more points! We're talking about resilience/points ratio. In 7th edition a Tactical Marine costed 14 points, Guardsman costed 5. So marine costed 2,8 times as much as the guardsman. However, bolters were four times more effective at killing guardsmen than marines, thus bolter killed more points of guard than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (14 points) would have killed four guardsmen (20 points.) In 8th marine costs 13 points, guardsman four, so marine costs 3,3 times as much as guardsman (so relatively more than in 7th.) However, due how AP works, bolters now are only 2.7 times as killy against guardsmen than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (13 points) now only kill 2,7 guardsmen (10,5 points.) So point the efficiency of bolters against the guardsmen has almost halved!
That's actually not quite a third in reduced killing power. Using your math as a base. That's exactly the outcome one would expect to have from getting a 5+ armor save against a bolter. If points killed is your only issue, then 5 point guardsmen fix everything. 2.7 x 5 = 13.5. There, marines are fixed.
Except it is not. T4 needs to kinda be better then T3 vs S4 since it gets bumed by S5 and at S8+ it no longer matters
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.)
Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Of course marines have always cost more points! We're talking about resilience/points ratio. In 7th edition a Tactical Marine costed 14 points, Guardsman costed 5. So marine costed 2,8 times as much as the guardsman. However, bolters were four times more effective at killing guardsmen than marines, thus bolter killed more points of guard than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (14 points) would have killed four guardsmen (20 points.) In 8th marine costs 13 points, guardsman four, so marine costs 3,3 times as much as guardsman (so relatively more than in 7th.) However, due how AP works, bolters now are only 2.7 times as killy against guardsmen than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (13 points) now only kill 2,7 guardsmen (10,5 points.) So point the efficiency of bolters against the guardsmen has almost halved!
That's actually not quite a third in reduced killing power. Using your math as a base. That's exactly the outcome one would expect to have from getting a 5+ armor save against a bolter. If points killed is your only issue, then 5 point guardsmen fix everything. 2.7 x 5 = 13.5. There, marines are fixed.
Except it is not. T4 needs to kinda be better then T3 vs S4 since it gets bumed by S5 and at S8+ it no longer matters
So you're saying marines have to rely on their better armor to ward off damage from anti-personel weapons, and that AT weapons don't care how tough the infantry it's being fired at is. Got it.
Don't forget too, that T4 is more resilient against S6, and 7, both of which are very common.
At this point S5 is looking more like a quirk in the system, rather than an issue with T4.
You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Just b.c SoB players dont play Horde, i do and they are fantastic. 120 bodies on the table are amazing in the index and even more so in the beta codex, I cant turn 1 you with 3 Seraphim and Celestine anymore, but 3++/6+++ is a bit better IMO on 90+ models (including tanks able to have 4++).
I might be doing a tournament with them next week (Im seeing if i cant get them ready in time, i need to redo my list)
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
What people aren't happy about with the beta are the removed options, and the fail that faith was turned into.
The biggest long term issue with sisters is that they lack toughness 4, which makes them more vulnerable to attacks.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
There is quite a bit of debate if what you wrote is true.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
Obviously you’re not a Sisters player.
I am and i think we came out on top for the insane added defense we got, we took some offensive power for defense.
What other army can have 4++/6+++ and for 1 turn 3++/6+++, regening wounds on full army including tanks each turn if wanted too? The power of sisters is going to be able to take damage within worrying about AP of weapons.
Having Melee units with 80+ melee attacks @ S5 -1ap, and cheaper vehicles across the board.
4++ Immolators with a FnP
Yeah AoF are 200% worst, but over all the army is 300% tougher and AoF are now kinda there as a bonus.
We really need to play test it more tho, i do feel the AOF should be a bit easier to get off, or dont limited them attempt once a turn.
Edit: Yeah some models will still not be played with, like P-engines, they still are way to slow.
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.)
Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Of course marines have always cost more points! We're talking about resilience/points ratio. In 7th edition a Tactical Marine costed 14 points, Guardsman costed 5. So marine costed 2,8 times as much as the guardsman. However, bolters were four times more effective at killing guardsmen than marines, thus bolter killed more points of guard than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (14 points) would have killed four guardsmen (20 points.) In 8th marine costs 13 points, guardsman four, so marine costs 3,3 times as much as guardsman (so relatively more than in 7th.) However, due how AP works, bolters now are only 2.7 times as killy against guardsmen than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (13 points) now only kill 2,7 guardsmen (10,5 points.) So point the efficiency of bolters against the guardsmen has almost halved!
That's actually not quite a third in reduced killing power. Using your math as a base. That's exactly the outcome one would expect to have from getting a 5+ armor save against a bolter. If points killed is your only issue, then 5 point guardsmen fix everything. 2.7 x 5 = 13.5. There, marines are fixed.
Except it is not. T4 needs to kinda be better then T3 vs S4 since it gets bumed by S5 and at S8+ it no longer matters
So you're saying marines have to rely on their better armor to ward off damage from anti-personel weapons, and that AT weapons don't care how tough the infantry it's being fired at is. Got it.
Don't forget too, that T4 is more resilient against S6, and 7, both of which are very common.
At this point S5 is looking more like a quirk in the system, rather than an issue with T4.
I am saying it is pointless to pay for T4 if it is at most going to make you go even vs the stuff it works vs and your just bleeding points on everything else.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
Obviously you’re not a Sisters player.
I am and i think we came out on top for the insane added defense we got, we took some offensive power for defense.
What other army can have 4++/6+++ and for 1 turn 3++/6+++, regening wounds on full army including tanks each turn if wanted too? The power of sisters is going to be able to take damage within worrying about AP of weapons.
Having Melee units with 80+ melee attacks @ S5 -1ap, and cheaper vehicles across the board.
4++ Immolators with a FnP
Yeah AoF are 200% worst, but over all the army is 300% tougher and AoF are now kinda there as a bonus.
We really need to play test it more tho, i do feel the AOF should be a bit easier to get off, or dont limited them attempt once a turn.
Edit: Yeah some models will still not be played with, like P-engines, they still are way to slow.
Stacking invuln buffs is useful, no doubt. But everything else is either incorrect, or very narrow in scope. The 3++ for example is for one unit, and only once a game. It has to be a unit that can take an imagifer, so not the tanks, or seraphim, or repentia for example. Oh, and you have to decide when the game starts, and it costs command points.
In addition, the 6+++ only affects sororitas infantry.
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.)
Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Of course marines have always cost more points! We're talking about resilience/points ratio. In 7th edition a Tactical Marine costed 14 points, Guardsman costed 5. So marine costed 2,8 times as much as the guardsman. However, bolters were four times more effective at killing guardsmen than marines, thus bolter killed more points of guard than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (14 points) would have killed four guardsmen (20 points.) In 8th marine costs 13 points, guardsman four, so marine costs 3,3 times as much as guardsman (so relatively more than in 7th.) However, due how AP works, bolters now are only 2.7 times as killy against guardsmen than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (13 points) now only kill 2,7 guardsmen (10,5 points.) So point the efficiency of bolters against the guardsmen has almost halved!
That's actually not quite a third in reduced killing power. Using your math as a base. That's exactly the outcome one would expect to have from getting a 5+ armor save against a bolter. If points killed is your only issue, then 5 point guardsmen fix everything. 2.7 x 5 = 13.5. There, marines are fixed.
Except it is not. T4 needs to kinda be better then T3 vs S4 since it gets bumed by S5 and at S8+ it no longer matters
So you're saying marines have to rely on their better armor to ward off damage from anti-personel weapons, and that AT weapons don't care how tough the infantry it's being fired at is. Got it.
Don't forget too, that T4 is more resilient against S6, and 7, both of which are very common.
At this point S5 is looking more like a quirk in the system, rather than an issue with T4.
I am saying it is pointless to pay for T4 if it is at most going to make you go even vs the stuff it works vs and your just bleeding points on everything else.
So your saying marines and guard are both wounded on 3's by hvy. bolters and hvy. flamers, and again by krak missiles, bright lances, and las cannons.
But in the first cases, marines still get a 4+ save, and in the latter cases you have ANTI TANK WEAPONS. Oh, and marines still get a save from those while not in cover.
Against las guns, bolters, shurikens, plasma, chainswords (most of the time), plasma, scatter lasers, and morters, that T4 give you an advantage. Ask ork players (who get a 6+ save) if their T4 is a waste of points.
So no, your not wasting your points for T4.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
You should try playing both setups before you judge. Sisters are quite a lot weaker with the Beta Codex than they were in the index. Between the new Acts of Faith being terrible and the Celestine nerfs, Sisters of Battle have very little to offer. Our strength as an index was heavily propped up on being able to use 24" move Celestine and 24" move Seraphim to cheese other lists by either locking up powerful shooting units first turn or picking off valuable support characters(i.e. Standard of the Emperor Ascendent) and following up with alphastriking Dominions. Now that we actually have to go mano y mano with other armies, we don't really have the tools to compete anymore.
You could try running 120+ model blobs but you'll lose to any army that can quickly lock you into combat, can snipe your 5 wound Canoness, can out maneuver your incredibly slow infantry blob, or can simply outshoot your frankly pathetic offensive output.
None of this has anything to do with SoB being 9ppm, however. It has more to do with the beta codex being terrible.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
Obviously you’re not a Sisters player.
I am and i think we came out on top for the insane added defense we got, we took some offensive power for defense.
What other army can have 4++/6+++ and for 1 turn 3++/6+++, regening wounds on full army including tanks each turn if wanted too? The power of sisters is going to be able to take damage within worrying about AP of weapons.
Having Melee units with 80+ melee attacks @ S5 -1ap, and cheaper vehicles across the board.
4++ Immolators with a FnP
Yeah AoF are 200% worst, but over all the army is 300% tougher and AoF are now kinda there as a bonus.
We really need to play test it more tho, i do feel the AOF should be a bit easier to get off, or dont limited them attempt once a turn.
Edit: Yeah some models will still not be played with, like P-engines, they still are way to slow.
Stacking invuln buffs is useful, no doubt. But everything else is either incorrect, or very narrow in scope. The 3++ for example is for one unit, and only once a game. It has to be a unit that can take an imagifer, so not the tanks, or seraphim, or repentia for example. Oh, and you have to decide when the game starts, and it costs command points.
In addition, the 6+++ only affects sororitas infantry.
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.)
Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Of course marines have always cost more points! We're talking about resilience/points ratio. In 7th edition a Tactical Marine costed 14 points, Guardsman costed 5. So marine costed 2,8 times as much as the guardsman. However, bolters were four times more effective at killing guardsmen than marines, thus bolter killed more points of guard than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (14 points) would have killed four guardsmen (20 points.) In 8th marine costs 13 points, guardsman four, so marine costs 3,3 times as much as guardsman (so relatively more than in 7th.) However, due how AP works, bolters now are only 2.7 times as killy against guardsmen than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (13 points) now only kill 2,7 guardsmen (10,5 points.) So point the efficiency of bolters against the guardsmen has almost halved!
That's actually not quite a third in reduced killing power. Using your math as a base. That's exactly the outcome one would expect to have from getting a 5+ armor save against a bolter. If points killed is your only issue, then 5 point guardsmen fix everything. 2.7 x 5 = 13.5. There, marines are fixed.
Except it is not. T4 needs to kinda be better then T3 vs S4 since it gets bumed by S5 and at S8+ it no longer matters
So you're saying marines have to rely on their better armor to ward off damage from anti-personel weapons, and that AT weapons don't care how tough the infantry it's being fired at is. Got it.
Don't forget too, that T4 is more resilient against S6, and 7, both of which are very common.
At this point S5 is looking more like a quirk in the system, rather than an issue with T4.
I am saying it is pointless to pay for T4 if it is at most going to make you go even vs the stuff it works vs and your just bleeding points on everything else.
So your saying marines and guard are both wounded on 3's by hvy. bolters and hvy. flamers, and again by krak missiles, bright lances, and las cannons.
But in the first cases, marines still get a 4+ save, and in the latter cases you have ANTI TANK WEAPONS. Oh, and marines still get a save from those while not in cover.
Against las guns, bolters, shurikens, plasma, chainswords (most of the time), plasma, scatter lasers, and morters, that T4 give you an advantage. Ask ork players (who get a 6+ save) if their T4 is a waste of points.
So no, your not wasting your points for T4.
Small correction, Seraphim start at 5++ so they go up to 3++ with both Celestine and the warlord trait.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
Obviously you’re not a Sisters player.
I am and i think we came out on top for the insane added defense we got, we took some offensive power for defense.
What other army can have 4++/6+++ and for 1 turn 3++/6+++, regening wounds on full army including tanks each turn if wanted too? The power of sisters is going to be able to take damage within worrying about AP of weapons.
Having Melee units with 80+ melee attacks @ S5 -1ap, and cheaper vehicles across the board.
4++ Immolators with a FnP
Yeah AoF are 200% worst, but over all the army is 300% tougher and AoF are now kinda there as a bonus.
We really need to play test it more tho, i do feel the AOF should be a bit easier to get off, or dont limited them attempt once a turn.
Edit: Yeah some models will still not be played with, like P-engines, they still are way to slow.
You’re giving people a wayyy skewed idea of Sisters strengths...
Our vehicles got 5-10 points cheaper, so did a lot of other armies vehicles and ours were already overpriced;
Where are you getting that we can have 4++ invuln saves across the army and how are we regening vehicles?;
I wouldn’t call a 6 fnp “not having to worry about the AP of weapons”;
If you think 80 melee attacks at Str5 AP -1 is impreasive you’ve obviously never played a mass horde Ork army that can lay down several hundred even stronger attacks;
I wanna believe in Sisters but they’ve been gimped hard - I could take Celestine and 30 Seraphims 24+ inches turn one and crush an opponent- I cant even move them 15” now if I’m lucky. I could shoot Rets twice per turn, now I get a +1 to hit IF I’M LUCKY. You wanna slog 6” moving Sisters across an open field to go into close combat with an opponent? Our AoFs ARE our gimmicks- how do you compete when every other Codex out there has gimmicks and ours don’t even work?
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
Obviously you’re not a Sisters player.
I am and i think we came out on top for the insane added defense we got, we took some offensive power for defense.
What other army can have 4++/6+++ and for 1 turn 3++/6+++, regening wounds on full army including tanks each turn if wanted too? The power of sisters is going to be able to take damage within worrying about AP of weapons.
Having Melee units with 80+ melee attacks @ S5 -1ap, and cheaper vehicles across the board.
4++ Immolators with a FnP
Yeah AoF are 200% worst, but over all the army is 300% tougher and AoF are now kinda there as a bonus.
We really need to play test it more tho, i do feel the AOF should be a bit easier to get off, or dont limited them attempt once a turn.
Edit: Yeah some models will still not be played with, like P-engines, they still are way to slow.
Stacking invuln buffs is useful, no doubt. But everything else is either incorrect, or very narrow in scope. The 3++ for example is for one unit, and only once a game. It has to be a unit that can take an imagifer, so not the tanks, or seraphim, or repentia for example. Oh, and you have to decide when the game starts, and it costs command points.
In addition, the 6+++ only affects sororitas infantry.
I don't need to do the exact math, or compare %s, etc. (besides, 1: I've got better things to do, 2: I'm sure one of you have already posted it.) Because marines have always cost more than guardsmen (and always will). Therefore anything that kills a marine just cost the SM player more pts than it would've the IG player. The % of the change doesn't matter to me - 1 dead marine is still 1 less marine (SW to be exact atm) that I've got on the table.
Of course marines have always cost more points! We're talking about resilience/points ratio. In 7th edition a Tactical Marine costed 14 points, Guardsman costed 5. So marine costed 2,8 times as much as the guardsman. However, bolters were four times more effective at killing guardsmen than marines, thus bolter killed more points of guard than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (14 points) would have killed four guardsmen (20 points.) In 8th marine costs 13 points, guardsman four, so marine costs 3,3 times as much as guardsman (so relatively more than in 7th.) However, due how AP works, bolters now are only 2.7 times as killy against guardsmen than marines. Bolter shots required to kill one marine (13 points) now only kill 2,7 guardsmen (10,5 points.) So point the efficiency of bolters against the guardsmen has almost halved!
That's actually not quite a third in reduced killing power. Using your math as a base. That's exactly the outcome one would expect to have from getting a 5+ armor save against a bolter. If points killed is your only issue, then 5 point guardsmen fix everything. 2.7 x 5 = 13.5. There, marines are fixed.
Except it is not. T4 needs to kinda be better then T3 vs S4 since it gets bumed by S5 and at S8+ it no longer matters
So you're saying marines have to rely on their better armor to ward off damage from anti-personel weapons, and that AT weapons don't care how tough the infantry it's being fired at is. Got it. Don't forget too, that T4 is more resilient against S6, and 7, both of which are very common.
At this point S5 is looking more like a quirk in the system, rather than an issue with T4.
I am saying it is pointless to pay for T4 if it is at most going to make you go even vs the stuff it works vs and your just bleeding points on everything else.
So your saying marines and guard are both wounded on 3's by hvy. bolters and hvy. flamers, and again by krak missiles, bright lances, and las cannons. But in the first cases, marines still get a 4+ save, and in the latter cases you have ANTI TANK WEAPONS. Oh, and marines still get a save from those while not in cover. Against las guns, bolters, shurikens, plasma, chainswords (most of the time), plasma, scatter lasers, and morters, that T4 give you an advantage. Ask ork players (who get a 6+ save) if their T4 is a waste of points. So no, your not wasting your points for T4.
Um.. You can get a 5++ SoF with a WL trait, give it the Relic for +3" aura and now you have a 9" 5++ aura for all SoF, Celestine makes it a 4++, then your Seraphim are now always a 3++, you can then use a strat for once a game. Its a army wide 4++ if you stay within range. If you are starting in vehicles that is easy to do, with Seraphim as well.
And the 6+++ effects infantry is correct, i forgot about it already (its a lot of new rules to remember lol).
Edit: ADD: And the "Not worry about AP' for for the vehicles and Seraphim +1 unit for a turn, when your vehicles are 3+/4++ yeah you dont need to worry about AP, -1 will still work, but -2, -3, -4? Nah, you dont care. And Seraphim will not care at all for at least starting turn up till turn 2. Seraphim with a 3++/6+++, who is going to be shooting them honestly? If they want to waste the shots, be my guess, my Doms will be safe for SB strat.
So you have to have a Canoness as your warlord, moving 6” - and keep the whole army moving 6” a turn to stay in that bubble? Very unrealistic way to play.
Eldar and several other armies will run circles around you.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
Obviously you’re not a Sisters player.
I am and i think we came out on top for the insane added defense we got, we took some offensive power for defense.
What other army can have 4++/6+++ and for 1 turn 3++/6+++, regening wounds on full army including tanks each turn if wanted too? The power of sisters is going to be able to take damage within worrying about AP of weapons.
Having Melee units with 80+ melee attacks @ S5 -1ap, and cheaper vehicles across the board.
4++ Immolators with a FnP
Yeah AoF are 200% worst, but over all the army is 300% tougher and AoF are now kinda there as a bonus.
We really need to play test it more tho, i do feel the AOF should be a bit easier to get off, or dont limited them attempt once a turn.
Edit: Yeah some models will still not be played with, like P-engines, they still are way to slow.
SPACE MARINES. Space marines can do 3+/4++(the 6+++ is largely irrelevant) and they do it better, because they have actual offense they can use, whereas SoB are just slinging bolters downfield. They can also get tech marines that can heal their tanks without have to keep them all within 6" of a single character and blowing 3CP per turn.
We also didn't get much in the way of defense. The 4++ means gak all for T3 infantry that was dying to bolters, heavy bolters, and assault cannons before anyway. We've never really cared about high AP weaponry because it's always been overkill. Using plasma to kill a battle sister is only 2ppm more efficient than using it to kill an ork boy. Just use an assault cannon or aggressors or plague spitters. Even getting our two and a half tanks to 4++ only really happens on the first turn and forces you to give up your Dominion's scout move. It isn't even great on Exorcists because Exorcists are too unreliable to actually use, they can still just be locked up in combat, and because 4++ won't stop people from actually nuking your tanks. Immolators with a 4++ are okay for a first turn anti-alphastrike bunker but after that...you can't really do anything with them. You gave up their scout move to keep the 4++ so now it takes 2 turns to get them where they want to go. We're a little bit sturdier on defense at the cost of MOST of our offense and ALL of our mobility. ADDITIONAL THING: We're not going from no invul in these situations to a 4++ either. We've always been able to get the army up to a 5++ with Celestine. It's not even that big of a jump.
Those are Arco Flaggellents and they're t3 with a 5++ invul. They're also not actual Sisters of battle models and still aren't great because there's no delivery system for them other than cramming incredibly fragile bodies in incredibly fragile rhinos that have a choice between either crawling up the board with the 4++ blob or hoping that your opponent doesn't kill too many when the thing blows up. The Arcos don't even get the bonuses to invuls. Vehicles outside of the Exorcist AREN'T cheaper, the weapons the vehicle CARRY are cheaper because EVERYONE'S heavy flamers and meltas went down in price.
Sisters of Battle are expected, under the Beta Codex, to go toe to toe with every other army in 40k in a straight up slugfest despite not having, and never having, the tools to win the game that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
davidgr33n wrote: So you have to have a Canoness as your warlord, moving 6” - and keep the whole army moving 6” a turn to stay in that bubble? Very unrealistic way to play.
Eldar and several other armies will run circles around you.
Not to mention armies like Orkz that will just lock the whole blob in CQC for the rest of the game. Once your OoBR bonus is up, your sisters are swinging 1 attack each hitting on 4s wounding on 5s. You could try hiding some repentia or Arcos in there but they'd just slugga/shoota them off before the charge.
Also, one more thing: The canonesses aura can get up to 9", Celestine's aura is always going to be 6, same with Vessels of the Emperor's Will. There's no point in taking that relic in a blob list.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Just b.c SoB players dont play Horde, i do and they are fantastic. 120 bodies on the table are amazing in the index and even more so in the beta codex, I cant turn 1 you with 3 Seraphim and Celestine anymore, but 3++/6+++ is a bit better IMO on 90+ models (including tanks able to have 4++).
I might be doing a tournament with them next week (Im seeing if i cant get them ready in time, i need to redo my list)
Power Armour in 8th is a terrible defensive ability - T3 in Power Armour is even worse.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
You should try playing both setups before you judge. Sisters are quite a lot weaker with the Beta Codex than they were in the index. Between the new Acts of Faith being terrible and the Celestine nerfs, Sisters of Battle have very little to offer. Our strength as an index was heavily propped up on being able to use 24" move Celestine and 24" move Seraphim to cheese other lists by either locking up powerful shooting units first turn or picking off valuable support characters(i.e. Standard of the Emperor Ascendent) and following up with alphastriking Dominions. Now that we actually have to go mano y mano with other armies, we don't really have the tools to compete anymore.
You could try running 120+ model blobs but you'll lose to any army that can quickly lock you into combat, can snipe your 5 wound Canoness, can out maneuver your incredibly slow infantry blob, or can simply outshoot your frankly pathetic offensive output.
None of this has anything to do with SoB being 9ppm, however. It has more to do with the beta codex being terrible.
Celestine needed to be hit anyway, so nice try saying that was such a nerf.
Also saying you were only reliant on that singular strategy is silly. Like, do you actually PLAY Sisters? You have one of the single best transports in the game (Repressors), speed all over the map, and cheap units.
Also "sniping" characters is laughable. You can't even snipe Guard Commanders and they're WAY less durable!
Celestine needed to be hit anyway, so nice try saying that was such a nerf.
Also saying you were only reliant on that singular strategy is silly. Like, do you actually PLAY Sisters? You have one of the single best transports in the game (Repressors), speed all over the map, and cheap units.
Also "sniping" characters is laughable. You can't even snipe Guard Commanders and they're WAY less durable!
1. Subjective.
2. At the competative level, yes that was it. In more casual environments you can get away with more, though it's still an uphill battle. As for those repressors, sure they're good. But to use them as you describe now requires you to give up all of the beta advantages.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Outside the Acts of Faith, it's pretty strong. They were already a strong Index list, and with their main Anti-Tank from Melta coming down in cost and the three Orders that aren't terrible, they definitely came out better than before.
You should try playing both setups before you judge. Sisters are quite a lot weaker with the Beta Codex than they were in the index. Between the new Acts of Faith being terrible and the Celestine nerfs, Sisters of Battle have very little to offer. Our strength as an index was heavily propped up on being able to use 24" move Celestine and 24" move Seraphim to cheese other lists by either locking up powerful shooting units first turn or picking off valuable support characters(i.e. Standard of the Emperor Ascendent) and following up with alphastriking Dominions. Now that we actually have to go mano y mano with other armies, we don't really have the tools to compete anymore.
You could try running 120+ model blobs but you'll lose to any army that can quickly lock you into combat, can snipe your 5 wound Canoness, can out maneuver your incredibly slow infantry blob, or can simply outshoot your frankly pathetic offensive output.
None of this has anything to do with SoB being 9ppm, however. It has more to do with the beta codex being terrible.
Celestine needed to be hit anyway, so nice try saying that was such a nerf.
Also saying you were only reliant on that singular strategy is silly. Like, do you actually PLAY Sisters? You have one of the single best transports in the game (Repressors), speed all over the map, and cheap units.
Also "sniping" characters is laughable. You can't even snipe Guard Commanders and they're WAY less durable!
Do you play Sisters???
I’ve been playing Sisters since 1995 and they’re total garbage with this beta garbage.
Yes, Sisters players were pretty much reliant on 3 things to stay playable: Celestine and Seraphim double movement and Forge Worlds’ Repressor. So now we have Repressors (at at 112 points apiece and negligible offensive output).
Pray tell, where’s our winning strategy? I’d like to know.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In competitive play Sisters were coming in around middle of the pack, now you’ll see Sisters lists coming up in the bottom 10% guaranteed.
Eldenfirefly wrote: You know, I just realised we have the perfect example of a "cheaper" marine. And it hardly solves anything. Sisters of battle have troops in power armor which are just 9 points a pop. But their beta codex came out and nobody on their thread seems to be happy. So, even at a price point of 9 points a model, a troop model in power armor doesn't seem to solve anything.
Just b.c SoB players dont play Horde, i do and they are fantastic. 120 bodies on the table are amazing in the index and even more so in the beta codex, I cant turn 1 you with 3 Seraphim and Celestine anymore, but 3++/6+++ is a bit better IMO on 90+ models (including tanks able to have 4++).
I might be doing a tournament with them next week (Im seeing if i cant get them ready in time, i need to redo my list)
Power Armour in 8th is a terrible defensive ability - T3 in Power Armour is even worse.
Well your right it is not ideal they save 4 points a head not getting the garbage CC stats and 1 point of T. In a unit to unit comparison sisters are better then marines.
It actually is if the model isn't overpointed. Think about the current example of Sisters vs Marines. You basically compare, with 3 sisters being 27 and 2 Marines being 26...
1. 3 T3 wounds to 2 T4 wounds
2. Which is 3 3+ compared to 2 3+
3. 3 BS3+ Bolter shots instead of 2 BS3+ Bolter shots
4. 3 S3 attacks that hit on a 4+ to 2 S4 attacks that hit on a 3+
The melee is basically even (and both suck in melee anyway) but the durability and damage output is just better with the Sisters. Them being cheaper also means more easily fit in Special Weapons too. Who cares if they have limited access if they fit in everything easier?
Celestine needed to be hit anyway, so nice try saying that was such a nerf.
Also saying you were only reliant on that singular strategy is silly. Like, do you actually PLAY Sisters? You have one of the single best transports in the game (Repressors), speed all over the map, and cheap units.
Also "sniping" characters is laughable. You can't even snipe Guard Commanders and they're WAY less durable!
1. Subjective.
2. At the competative level, yes that was it. In more casual environments you can get away with more, though it's still an uphill battle. As for those repressors, sure they're good. But to use them as you describe now requires you to give up all of the beta advantages.
3. Yes difficult, but not impossible.
1. Not subjective. Celestine needed to be hit.
2. No you don't give up anything using Repressors. I don't even know why you'd make that up.
3. Please tell me what can kill even a Guard Commander on the cheap that's a Sniper. I await your findings.
It actually is if the model isn't overpointed. Think about the current example of Sisters vs Marines. You basically compare, with 3 sisters being 27 and 2 Marines being 26...
1. 3 T3 wounds to 2 T4 wounds
2. Which is 3 3+ compared to 2 3+
3. 3 BS3+ Bolter shots instead of 2 BS3+ Bolter shots
4. 3 S3 attacks that hit on a 4+ to 2 S4 attacks that hit on a 3+
The melee is basically even (and both suck in melee anyway) but the durability and damage output is just better with the Sisters. Them being cheaper also means more easily fit in Special Weapons too. Who cares if they have limited access if they fit in everything easier?
Now include T4 vs T3 into your equation. So the sisters hit 2/3 (2) and wound 1. Space marines hit .67/2 (1.34) (.89) Seems rather close to even.
Celestine needed to be hit anyway, so nice try saying that was such a nerf.
Also saying you were only reliant on that singular strategy is silly. Like, do you actually PLAY Sisters? You have one of the single best transports in the game (Repressors), speed all over the map, and cheap units.
Also "sniping" characters is laughable. You can't even snipe Guard Commanders and they're WAY less durable!
1. Subjective.
2. At the competative level, yes that was it. In more casual environments you can get away with more, though it's still an uphill battle. As for those repressors, sure they're good. But to use them as you describe now requires you to give up all of the beta advantages.
3. Yes difficult, but not impossible.
1. Not subjective. Celestine needed to be hit.
2. No you don't give up anything using Repressors. I don't even know why you'd make that up.
3. Please tell me what can kill even a Guard Commander on the cheap that's a Sniper. I await your findings.
1. Yes Subjective. Just because YOU can't handle her doesn't make her broken, especially in the context of her own army.
2. Because I didn't make it up. If you're using Repressor's speed, you're not getting acts of faith for it, or the warlord buffs. Remember, the only model that can take buffs that actually help a repressor are all foot infantry.
3. Who said on the cheap? I said you had to work for it, not that it was impossible. Please read my comments next time.
I completely agree with Slayer-Fan123 on this matter.
Celestine was clearly overpowered, repressors are still auto-takes and among the best vehicles in 40k unless I missed some new nerf about them, and snipers are not a thing in competitive gaming.
I haven't seen the new sisters' rules though so I actually don't know how they are now.
Well people at my store refused to play the SoB player, because he was running her and 30 seraphin and locking down armies in melee. No one liked it, so they stoped playing her. But that is just my store.
Now include T4 vs T3 into your equation. So the sisters hit 2/3 (2) and wound 1. Space marines hit .67/2 (1.34) (.89) Seems rather close to even.
But if sobs are cheaper, then at some point you reach 1500 or 2000pts, and sob have an army build while marines end up with 8-9man sized squads, because they cost more points.
Our AoFs ARE our gimmicks- how do you compete when every other Codex out there has gimmicks and ours don’t even work?
Play a lot vs GK whose gimmik does not work either
So...any reason why those guys didn't kill said seraphim in melee? They're not that tough.
Yup on the army size, until you factor in availible support and options. The killing power for a marine squad is actually higher than for sisters, and marines can bully them in melee, most of the time.
Yeah, army rules not working is a problem for a few armies, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be fixed.
Karol wrote: Well people at my store refused to play the SoB player, because he was running her and 30 seraphin and locking down armies in melee. No one liked it, so they stoped playing her. But that is just my store.
Wait, your store where everyone is an ultracompetitive git who refuse to tone down their lists for your Grey Knights? What a bunch of hypocritical wussies!
Karol wrote: Well people at my store refused to play the SoB player, because he was running her and 30 seraphin and locking down armies in melee. No one liked it, so they stoped playing her. But that is just my store.
Wait, your store where everyone is an ultracompetitive git who refuse to tone down their lists for your Grey Knights? What a bunch of hypocritical wussies!
Am not sure I understand what you mean by that. What is a git, in the first place? As toning down goes, no one tones does stuff here for anyone. So it ain't something special, because of me or GK. Also what does me or GK have to do with people not wanting to play against SoB at my store in the first place. I am confused.
Karol wrote: Well people at my store refused to play the SoB player, because he was running her and 30 seraphin and locking down armies in melee. No one liked it, so they stoped playing her. But that is just my store.
Now include T4 vs T3 into your equation. So the sisters hit 2/3 (2) and wound 1. Space marines hit .67/2 (1.34) (.89) Seems rather close to even.
But if sobs are cheaper, then at some point you reach 1500 or 2000pts, and sob have an army build while marines end up with 8-9man sized squads, because they cost more points.
Our AoFs ARE our gimmicks- how do you compete when every other Codex out there has gimmicks and ours don’t even work?
Play a lot vs GK whose gimmik does not work either
So what were they playing that means they could not cope with SOB? Smells like deep deep Gunline players perhaps? - did they ban terrain as well so they always won. Can;t see Trynaid, Orks, genestealers being afraid of such an army. Or Kingts or in fact lots of armies.
Karol wrote: Well people at my store refused to play the SoB player, because he was running her and 30 seraphin and locking down armies in melee. No one liked it, so they stoped playing her. But that is just my store.
Wait, your store where everyone is an ultracompetitive git who refuse to tone down their lists for your Grey Knights? What a bunch of hypocritical wussies!
Am not sure I understand what you mean by that. What is a git, in the first place? As toning down goes, no one tones does stuff here for anyone. So it ain't something special, because of me or GK. Also what does me or GK have to do with people not wanting to play against SoB at my store in the first place. I am confused.
Git = asshat
The intention of his point was, that they ban the only competitive viable SOB build, but refuse to tone down their lists to make it possible for a GK player to even compete, ergo they are hypocrits, that only play for their wins, not for the general fun of all people involved.
(Basically your store is full of TFG)
He's insulting the other people who play at your store.
They're people who have no problem ROFLStomping GK regularly. That kinda person is either a highly competitive player tying to become The Best Evar, or an ultra doochy man-child who's primary drive in life is drinking the tears of those they stomp.
Most of us were hoping your meta was the first group. Those are decent people. But if they won't play against Sisters specifically because they get stomped, they're clearly the second group.
Am not sure I understand what you mean by that. What is a git, in the first place? As toning down goes, no one tones does stuff here for anyone. So it ain't something special, because of me or GK. Also what does me or GK have to do with people not wanting to play against SoB at my store in the first place. I am confused.
He is pointing out the cognitive dissonance in that statement. People refusing to play against SoB because they are perceived as too powerful and also refusing to tone down their army's when facing Grey Knights is inherently hypocritical. Logically they shouldn't have it both ways. Basically, ask them "why should the SoB player have to tone down her list to your level when you won't do the same for my army?" Either everybody needs to 'l2p' or they need to be adults and recognize that GW isn't great at balancing and maybe they need to work together to make enjoyable games.
Also a 'git' is an English insult basically meaning somebody is 'unpleasant, silly, incompetent, and childish'. Its popular in 40K circles both because of GW's English origin and the popular cockney hooligan portrayal of Orks- who often refer to their enemies (and other orks and grots) as "gits".
It actually is if the model isn't overpointed. Think about the current example of Sisters vs Marines. You basically compare, with 3 sisters being 27 and 2 Marines being 26...
1. 3 T3 wounds to 2 T4 wounds
2. Which is 3 3+ compared to 2 3+
3. 3 BS3+ Bolter shots instead of 2 BS3+ Bolter shots
4. 3 S3 attacks that hit on a 4+ to 2 S4 attacks that hit on a 3+
The melee is basically even (and both suck in melee anyway) but the durability and damage output is just better with the Sisters. Them being cheaper also means more easily fit in Special Weapons too. Who cares if they have limited access if they fit in everything easier?
Now include T4 vs T3 into your equation. So the sisters hit 2/3 (2) and wound 1. Space marines hit .67/2 (1.34) (.89) Seems rather close to even.
Celestine needed to be hit anyway, so nice try saying that was such a nerf.
Also saying you were only reliant on that singular strategy is silly. Like, do you actually PLAY Sisters? You have one of the single best transports in the game (Repressors), speed all over the map, and cheap units.
Also "sniping" characters is laughable. You can't even snipe Guard Commanders and they're WAY less durable!
1. Subjective.
2. At the competative level, yes that was it. In more casual environments you can get away with more, though it's still an uphill battle. As for those repressors, sure they're good. But to use them as you describe now requires you to give up all of the beta advantages.
3. Yes difficult, but not impossible.
1. Not subjective. Celestine needed to be hit.
2. No you don't give up anything using Repressors. I don't even know why you'd make that up.
3. Please tell me what can kill even a Guard Commander on the cheap that's a Sniper. I await your findings.
1. Yes Subjective. Just because YOU can't handle her doesn't make her broken, especially in the context of her own army.
2. Because I didn't make it up. If you're using Repressor's speed, you're not getting acts of faith for it, or the warlord buffs. Remember, the only model that can take buffs that actually help a repressor are all foot infantry.
3. Who said on the cheap? I said you had to work for it, not that it was impossible. Please read my comments next time.
1. She was allied into several armies outside Sistersjust for her power alone. Being able to catch anyone you want in melee, coming back after dying, and her bodyguards catching wounds and coming back too, were all over the top. This has been a thing since the edition started. Like, did you forget all this already?
2. I already included T3 into the equation. Didn't you read the post?
Also that doesn't make sense. The Repressor is all about doing what the Rhino used to do but better. You get to fire your good weapons but in safety. Do...you make this complaint about Rhinos too not supporting Acts Of Faith? This is a bad point and you're really just grasping at straws.
3. The fact you still didn't give me a single good unit for sniping one of the least durable HQ dudes means you concede this point anyway.
An intercessor should be like a space marine Ogran WS3 BS3 Str5 T5 3W A3 3+ and should have str 5 ap-1 bolters and ap-1 CC attacks for like 25 points. Instead they have shoehorned primaris into this garbage area that is barely tougher than a 1 wound marine at all. Like half the weapons in the game have d3 or flat 2 damage. Instead we pay that price fro the base statline on an agressor with -1s -1w and -1a. Very weak stuff.
Ogrins are 30/35 points (?) and your Hulk Intercessor seems better from a quick glance.
Organs would be pretty bad without their gear giving them tons of autocannon attacks in CC and 1+ save action going on with stratagems. Go ahead and put some geared out bulgrans against my hulk intercessors with stratagems and all available. My marines are going to get wooped.
for 25 points you COMPLETELY destroy Tyranid Warriors for 5 points more. Hell for 20 PPM on a 4+ unit with no access to invulns unlike new 2ppm stormshield marines (really?!) I think it's far too much. Marines can do a bit of everything and all they need are +1 shot to all non heavy bolter Bolt weapons (yes, even pistols) and that's it. 5 points more give you +1 str, toughness, and save. Also much better shooting capability and both are troops. True Tyranid Warriors get synapse and Shadow in the Warp but I'd HAPPILY give it all up for that juicy stat upgrade.
ATSKNF is fine, its an actual *choice* to use, not just a flat "oh I ignore this mechanic so yeah". Tyranids you can remove their fearless (synapse) by the age old motto, kill the big bugs first.
The game needs to reduce morale ignoring effects, or at least have more ways of actively removing it. Tyranid Synapse is a good thing for the most part, Army attributes like Lynden (The wraith heavy army) isn't. I expect some backlash from this comment but I honestly think marine durability is fine, the issue is the cost of units with special weapons. Plasma, melta and similar weapons are far too cheap and knights warp the meta far too much.
1. She was allied into several armies outside Sistersjust for her power alone. Being able to catch anyone you want in melee, coming back after dying, and her bodyguards catching wounds and coming back too, were all over the top. This has been a thing since the edition started. Like, did you forget all this already?
She was when you could combne factions in a detachment - does she still appear in armies?
She was perhaps too good but that was made the Index army playable - and they have taken it all away and given nothing back.
but she was about the only good that existed. Nerfing her is good, but it would've been nice if they actually balanced the army afterwards instead of saying "oh, well, we nerfed celestine! Job well done!" while the entire Adepta Sororitas "Beta Codex" is burning down around them, since Celestine was one of the only things holding them up.
I tried so hard to be hyped and enthusiastic for this codex, but the points drops to Baneblades in chapter approved have me more excited...
1. Yes Subjective. Just because YOU can't handle her doesn't make her broken, especially in the context of her own army.
2. Because I didn't make it up. If you're using Repressor's speed, you're not getting acts of faith for it, or the warlord buffs. Remember, the only model that can take buffs that actually help a repressor are all foot infantry.
3. Who said on the cheap? I said you had to work for it, not that it was impossible. Please read my comments next time.
1. She was allied into several armies outside Sistersjust for her power alone. Being able to catch anyone you want in melee, coming back after dying, and her bodyguards catching wounds and coming back too, were all over the top. This has been a thing since the edition started. Like, did you forget all this already?
2. I already included T3 into the equation. Didn't you read the post?
Also that doesn't make sense. The Repressor is all about doing what the Rhino used to do but better. You get to fire your good weapons but in safety. Do...you make this complaint about Rhinos too not supporting Acts Of Faith? This is a bad point and you're really just grasping at straws.
3. The fact you still didn't give me a single good unit for sniping one of the least durable HQ dudes means you concede this point anyway.
1. So are knights. And moving fast was the whole shtick of the Index sisters. Drop the attitude.
2. You mentioned it, but didn't calculate it. Sorry to have to correct your calculations.
3. I win.
1. Knights need to be hit too. What's your point?
2. I did calculate it. 3 wounds at t3 is better than the 2 wounds at t4
3. You still didn't provide a capable sniper. That's because there isn't one and anyone afraid of Snipers is a bad player.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Knights need to be hit too. What's your point?
2. I did calculate it. 3 wounds at t3 is better than the 2 wounds at t4
3. You still didn't provide a capable sniper. That's because there isn't one and anyone afraid of Snipers is a bad player.
1. *Whoosh
2. And I calculated it, and found only a minor difference. Which of us am I going to trust?
3. You're not an idiot, you already know what exists for snipers. Remove your head from your posterior.
Sisters have always had trouble in 40k. I don't think anyone would argue that at all.
They won't be viable for a long time.
But reading their rules....
They have on base.... a +3 save and ++6 invulernable. Which objectively makes them a bit more survivable than marines just based on the invulnerable save. And a deny the witch ability on every squad. (Which objectively makes them better than grey knights per a troop choice.)
Sisters are 9pts per while grey knights are 21pts per.... Grey knight strike squad has the exact same amount of attacks, same wounds, except +1 toughness, and +1 strength.... and a force weapon and a stormbolter. (6pts together)
Grey knights have no invulnerable save... thus making them less survivable.
You should actually read the rules for those then. Their DtW is only a d6, unless you take a relic (which I assure you will be in at least 90% of sisters lists), and a 6++ only helps you against AP:-4 or better. Stuff like plasma still gives you an armor save.
Granted the book's buffs help with this, at the cost of greatly slowing the army.
Mmmpi wrote: You should actually read the rules for those then. Their DtW is only a d6, unless you take a relic (which I assure you will be in at least 90% of sisters lists), and a 6++ only helps you against AP:-4 or better. Stuff like plasma still gives you an armor save.
Granted the book's buffs help with this, at the cost of greatly slowing the army.
So a +6 invulnerable save on base compared to what? Not having one? The acts of faith seem to boost their viability much more than grey knights as the only character useful from their codex is the dreadknight grandmaster.
Seems incredibly powerful, and this is only their 'beta codex'. Grey knights don't even have the deny the witch ability.
For 9pts per a model, they seem a steal compared to marines. Might give knights a run for their money too.
Brotherhood of Psykers: If your army is Battle-forged, all PSYKERS in Grey Knight Detachments gain this ability. You can add 1 to Psychic tests and Deny the Witch tests taken for such a unit. (Grey Knight Codex p96)
And a 6+ that gets used once every 12 games really isn't that useful.
Mmmpi wrote: Brotherhood of Psykers: If your army is Battle-forged, all PSYKERS in Grey Knight Detachments gain this ability. You can add 1 to Psychic tests and Deny the Witch tests taken for such a unit. (Grey Knight Codex p96)
And a 6+ that gets used once every 12 games really isn't that useful.
Grey knight strike squads do not have deny the witch abilities..... Read their actual profile. I am looking at it and it says nowhere they can...
A 6++ that can be used alot more often than you give it credit for. There are alot of ap-4 weapons that are put into play.
But what is a grey knight paying for exactly in its profile?
I play sisters regularly. It doesn't come up that often. Outside of Superheavies, you only really see it from Wraithguard weapons, and melta. And most armies don't use meltas.
Asherian Command wrote: Grey knights have no invulnerable save... thus making them less survivable.
You greatly overestimate the value of a 6++ save on a power armoured model. You have to be hit by a -4 weapon (-5 if in cover) for it to occur which pretty much means your opponent is shooting at your infantry with meltaguns and volcano cannons.
This unit can attempt to manifest one psychic power in each friendly Psychic phase, and attempt to deny one psychic power in each enemy Psychic phase. I can't say i'm particularly up to date with GKfaqs, but have they all suddenly become not psychic?
Mmmpi wrote: I play sisters regularly. It doesn't come up that often. Outside of Superheavies, you only really see it from Wraithguard weapons, and melta. And most armies don't use meltas.
Or just overcharged plasma which is ap-4
Or most knight weapons are ap-4...
Every model that we test or talk about has to have durability against knights.
Asherian Command wrote: Grey knights have no invulnerable save... thus making them less survivable.
You greatly overestimate the value of a 6++ save on a power armoured model. You have to be hit by a -4 weapon (-5 if in cover) for it to occur which pretty much means your opponent is shooting at your infantry with meltaguns and volcano cannons.
This unit can attempt to manifest one psychic power in each friendly Psychic phase, and attempt to deny one psychic power in each enemy Psychic phase. I can't say i'm particularly up to date with GKfaqs, but have they all suddenly become not psychic?
I did not see it in their rules! Thats what i am asking? Do they? I've only faced one grey knight player in the last year.
I am saying "++6 is still good, its better than having nothing."
I am not saying it makes them overpowered. I am saying it adds functionally more durability compared to a strike squad which is 21pts per a model and they don't have an invulnerable save.
Knights in general will have sheer weight of fire mixed with their ap-4 weaponry. Not many marines or grey knight players will have multi-wound vehicles, outside of Levithian dreadnoughts for marines, and grand master dreadknights for grey knights. But having access to an invulernable save is still very valuable to any army. Now its not a feel no pain for every single unit but its good for a 9pt model.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Knights need to be hit too. What's your point?
2. I did calculate it. 3 wounds at t3 is better than the 2 wounds at t4
3. You still didn't provide a capable sniper. That's because there isn't one and anyone afraid of Snipers is a bad player.
1. *Whoosh
2. And I calculated it, and found only a minor difference. Which of us am I going to trust?
3. You're not an idiot, you already know what exists for snipers. Remove your head from your posterior.
1. You're basically saying Celestine shouldn't be hit because Knights exist.
Both needed to be hit. Difference is only one did.
2. That's still a difference that leads to more offensive power on the Sisters end as they get more shots too. So that's more durable and more shots.
3. No, I don't know about any Snipers because I play Necrons who only have Deathmarks. They're clearly not suited for the job that you claim is easily done, so I'm awaiting you to present some findings for me about all these Sniper units that are easily capable of killing even a Guard Commander. Surely if this were such an easy task you'd have no problem helping me out?
Knight weapons that are AP: -4 or better Thermal Spear (melta weapon) Shield breaker missiles Melta guns Volcano Lance Thermal Cannon (melta weapon) ThunderStrike Gauntlet Las Impulsor (high intensity) Thundercoil harpoon (shoot it at my sisters, please!)
Their reaper chainswords are only AP: -3, and people use the stomp attacks against infantry instead.
That's about a 5th of the knight's arsenal, and most of them suck against infantry.
So, yeah...
So you're ignoring that soritoas vehicles also have shield of faith?
Which instantly makes their vehicles stronger than the entirety of all the vehicles in the space marine codex?
Please read this :
I am not saying it makes them overpowered. I am saying it adds functionally more durability compared to a strike squad which is 21pts per a model and they don't have an invulnerable save. Space Marines are 13pts per a model and do not have any protection against higher APs.
1. No I'm not.
2. No, They come out the same against one another. Against IG the sisters kill more GI. But the SM are nearly as tough, despite having one less wound.
3. But you claim to be an expert on all things 40K. Why have you suddenly lost all your abilities to complain and compare now? Have your super powers failled you? Are you just a jerk in a mask? Or is Mmmpi your kryptonite?
Asherian Command wrote: Which instantly makes their vehicles stronger than the entirety of all the vehicles in the space marine codex?
Incidentally, now that the goalposts have taken off running so far that we're talking about vehicles now, the Adepta Sororitas vehicles are a teeny bit more expensive than their Space Marine equivalents for precisely this reason, actually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Overcharged Plasma is AP-4. Hellblasters simply get AP-4 standard.
Overcharged plasma is AP-3. This is objectively wrong.
Knight weapons that are AP: -4 or better
Thermal Spear (melta weapon)
Shield breaker missiles
Melta guns
Volcano Lance
Thermal Cannon (melta weapon)
ThunderStrike Gauntlet
Las Impulsor (high intensity)
Thundercoil harpoon (shoot it at my sisters, please!)
Their reaper chainswords are only AP: -3, and people use the stomp attacks against infantry instead.
That's about a 5th of the knight's arsenal, and most of them suck against infantry.
So, yeah...
Overcharged Plasma is AP-4. Hellblasters simply get AP-4 standard.
My books all say it's AP: -3 for both plasma settings. And I'm looking in GW published materials. The Hellblasters plasma incinerators are -4 in both settings. Literally every other Plasma weapon is AP -3 (barring IG superheavies I may have forgotten).
Mmmpi wrote: 1. No I'm not.
2. No, They come out the same against one another. Against IG the sisters kill more GI. But the SM are nearly as tough, despite having one less wound.
3. But you claim to be an expert on all things 40K. Why have you suddenly lost all your abilities to complain and compare now? Have your super powers failled you? Are you just a jerk in a mask? Or is Mmmpi your kryptonite?
1. No, that is what you're saying because you went directly into complaining about Knights.
2. "Nearly as tough" is not the same as "as tough". So more bodies, more shots, more durability all around.
3. I have compared and I'm saying there's no such thing as a good Sniper in 40k. If you think snipers are a threat, it is up to you to present that said sniper.
Since it doesn't exist, I'm still expecting you to dodge the question.
Asherian Command wrote: I did not see it in their rules! Thats what i am asking? Do they? I've only faced one grey knight player in the last year.
Well...
Asherian Command wrote: Grey knight strike squads do not have deny the witch abilities..... Read their actual profile. I am looking at it and it says nowhere they can...
Which is odd as I copy/pasted that line out of the strike squad entry of my ebook copy - hence asking if it had been FAQed without my noticing since release. Looking over it - seems like just about everything has deny the witch +1, the librarian rolling with deny +2, a stratagem to roll it on 3 dice...
Asherian Command wrote: Which instantly makes their vehicles stronger than the entirety of all the vehicles in the space marine codex?
Incidentally, now that the goalposts have taken off running so far that we're talking about vehicles now, the Adepta Sororitas vehicles are a teeny bit more expensive than their Space Marine equivalents for precisely this reason, actually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Overcharged Plasma is AP-4. Hellblasters simply get AP-4 standard.
Overcharged plasma is AP-3. This is objectively wrong.
You might be correct. I'll have to check when I fly back home but I vaguely remember S7 AP-3 D1 to S8 AP-4 D2.
Asherian Command wrote: Which instantly makes their vehicles stronger than the entirety of all the vehicles in the space marine codex?
Incidentally, now that the goalposts have taken off running so far that we're talking about vehicles now, the Adepta Sororitas vehicles are a teeny bit more expensive than their Space Marine equivalents for precisely this reason, actually.
I am just saying they are more durable.... having an invulernable save on vehicles and troops is great. I am saying they aren't really paying as much as a grey knight squad would. They only differences are they don't do as well in close combat (okay whatever), -1 toughness (kinda sucks), -1 strength (again useless no one fights in close combat) and thats about it otherwise, 9pts per a +3 armor save and +6 invulnerable save is pretty decent. They aren't the worst codex, but they aren't as horrible as people say they are. They have a lot of promise much more promise that grey knights. But you could be literally anyone but a grey knight player to succeed.
Well their rhinos are only more expensive by 3pts. Not that expensive and completely negligible. Especially if you can take more sisters and rhinos that have invulnerable saves.
The only big thing they are missing is anti-tank. But no one plays mono armies sooo you just get a knight titan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Overcharged Plasma is AP-4. Hellblasters simply get AP-4 standard.
Overcharged plasma is AP-3. This is objectively wrong.
Thats wrong helllblasters do indeed have ap-4
A lot of new space marine plasma is ap-4.
Plasma Incinerator, Heavy Plasma Incinerator, Macro Plasma Incinerator, and Assault Plasma.
People do use hellblasters but they are 165 pts. For 5 of them.
1. No, knights was just the first thing I could think of that get's splashed in every Imperial army. I could also have said Imperial guard, or smash captains.
2. Nearly as tough is not the same as "as tough" but it's also close enough that it statistically doesn't matter.
3. But you already know, so you don't need me to tell you. I'd try reading more GW materials before posting again. You don't even know common basic weapon stats or math.
Asherian Command wrote: Which instantly makes their vehicles stronger than the entirety of all the vehicles in the space marine codex?
Incidentally, now that the goalposts have taken off running so far that we're talking about vehicles now, the Adepta Sororitas vehicles are a teeny bit more expensive than their Space Marine equivalents for precisely this reason, actually.
I am just saying they are more durable.... having an invulernable save on vehicles and troops is great. I am saying they aren't really paying as much as a grey knight squad would. They only differences are they don't do as well in close combat (okay whatever), -1 toughness (kinda sucks), -1 strength (again useless no one fights in close combat) and thats about it otherwise, 9pts per a +3 armor save and +6 invulnerable save is pretty decent. They aren't the worst codex, but they aren't as horrible as people say they are. They have a lot of promise much more promise that grey knights. But you could be literally anyone but a grey knight player to succeed.
Well their rhinos are only more expensive by 3pts. Not that expensive and completely negligible. Especially if you can take more sisters and rhinos that have invulnerable saves.
The only big thing they are missing is anti-tank. But no one plays mono armies sooo you just get a knight titan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Overcharged Plasma is AP-4. Hellblasters simply get AP-4 standard.
Overcharged plasma is AP-3. This is objectively wrong.
Thats wrong helllblasters do indeed have ap-4
A lot of new space marine plasma is ap-4.
Hellblasters are AP-4. Literally every other plasma weapon in the game is ap-3. Hellblasters are their own catagory of weapon that can be taken by one unit, while every imperial unit in the game, and most of chaos can take plasma.
Asherian Command wrote: Well their rhinos are only more expensive by 3pts. Not that expensive and completely negligible. Especially if you can take more sisters and rhinos that have invulnerable saves.
How many points do you think a 6++ is worth on a Rhino? Given 2 entries in your Grey Knights Codex, a Rhino and a "shielded" rhino, but the latter had a 6++ for 3 pts, which would you take?
If the answer is anything other than "the shielded rhino" then I'd argue they get what they pay for, or even worse.
Asherian Command wrote: Well their rhinos are only more expensive by 3pts. Not that expensive and completely negligible. Especially if you can take more sisters and rhinos that have invulnerable saves.
How many points do you think a 6++ is worth on a Rhino? Given 2 entries in your Grey Knights Codex, a Rhino and a "shielded" rhino, but the latter had a 6++ for 3 pts, which would you take?
If the answer is anything other than "the shielded rhino" then I'd argue they get what they pay for, or even worse.
Well the shield of faith increases in power though.
Plus you get really cheap units. 90pts for a squad of 10 sisters, similar to guardsmen, the only problem is "what else do they get?".
I am not arguing sisters are better than marines, but they do seem a hell of a lot more durable with their +6 invulnerable compared to grey knights who die in spades. (of course thats not the primary issue with grey knights)
Which is not really 'worse' its a vehicle that can save itself from a melta weapon which is not 'worse' meltas have always been the bane of most vehicles. Having protection against that is quite valuable. ignoring it completely is a terrible idea, its why Levi dreads are so valuable they have a ++4 invulnerable save. (Which you know is quite valuable for a model that takes 310 pts investment.
Asherian Command wrote: Well their rhinos are only more expensive by 3pts. Not that expensive and completely negligible. Especially if you can take more sisters and rhinos that have invulnerable saves.
How many points do you think a 6++ is worth on a Rhino? Given 2 entries in your Grey Knights Codex, a Rhino and a "shielded" rhino, but the latter had a 6++ for 3 pts, which would you take?
If the answer is anything other than "the shielded rhino" then I'd argue they get what they pay for, or even worse.
Well the shield of faith increases in power though. .
By buying things that you have to pay points for...? What's your point? Is the problem that the Rhino has a 6++? Or that the Rhino near Azrael Celestine and Canoness + Warlord Trait (something like 300 points) has a 4++ if it only moves 6" per turn?
Asherian Command wrote: Which is not really 'worse' its a vehicle that can save itself from a melta weapon which is not 'worse' meltas have always been the bane of most vehicles. Having protection against that is quite valuable. ignoring it completely is a terrible idea, its why Levi dreads are so valuable they have a ++4 invulnerable save. (Which you know is quite valuable for a model that takes 310 pts investment.
So... you would take a Sororitas Rhino to drive your GK around in? I don't see where you answered my question.
EDIT: A 6++ invulnerable means nothing to Power Armour. Literally nothing. If, tomorrow, you were in my Meta and said "Let's play a game with my entire Grey Knight army having a 6++" I'd absolutely consent, because the highest AP in my entire army of fething Baneblade tanks is AP -3.
Asherian Command wrote: Well their rhinos are only more expensive by 3pts. Not that expensive and completely negligible. Especially if you can take more sisters and rhinos that have invulnerable saves.
How many points do you think a 6++ is worth on a Rhino? Given 2 entries in your Grey Knights Codex, a Rhino and a "shielded" rhino, but the latter had a 6++ for 3 pts, which would you take?
If the answer is anything other than "the shielded rhino" then I'd argue they get what they pay for, or even worse.
You also need to look at how many armies get access to a Rhino in the first place. Let's pretend for whatever reason their Rhino is 95 points. Sounds insane, right?
Now pretend all Sisters got cut by like 5 points. Obviously this is hyperbole, but the objectively worse Rhino has a cheaper buy-in. The 4 points you save on Sisters goes a long way that an extra 3 points for a 6++ is worth it.
Mmmpi wrote: It's useful when it comes up, but the most commonly used AT weapons are Krak missiles (AP 2) plasma (ap 3) and Las cannons (ap3).
Most people don't even look at melta currently.
As for saves, a 4++ is far more powerful than a 6++. That should have gone without saying.
Except for like fire dragons but even then, not many people do indeed take melta cause its too expensive and its range is way too short.
So... you would take a Sororitas Rhino to drive your GK around in? I don't see where you answered my question.
Yes I would. Rhinos are oddly positioned at 72 points. But why would I take grey knights in rhinos that can be exploded by anything? It is a vehicle that has protection against high-end weaponry. If a land raider or a predator tank had access to an invulnerable save they would be a bit more valuable.
By buying things that you have to pay points for...? What's your point? Is the problem that the Rhino has a 6++? Or that the Rhino near Azrael Celestine and Canoness + Warlord Trait (something like 300 points) has a 4++ if it only moves 6" per turn?
Azrael is an interesting bit though now that you bring him up. I have no idea why those lists aren't used more often...
I would think so, but not many people play space marines anymore, hell I stopped playing them. Most people seem to use in tournaments guardsmen and not marines. Maybe its the prevalence of knights? (Which should be at this point only allowed in Apocalypse games)
Asherian Command wrote: Well their rhinos are only more expensive by 3pts. Not that expensive and completely negligible. Especially if you can take more sisters and rhinos that have invulnerable saves.
How many points do you think a 6++ is worth on a Rhino? Given 2 entries in your Grey Knights Codex, a Rhino and a "shielded" rhino, but the latter had a 6++ for 3 pts, which would you take?
If the answer is anything other than "the shielded rhino" then I'd argue they get what they pay for, or even worse.
You also need to look at how many armies get access to a Rhino in the first place. Let's pretend for whatever reason their Rhino is 95 points. Sounds insane, right?
Now pretend all Sisters got cut by like 5 points. Obviously this is hyperbole, but the objectively worse Rhino has a cheaper buy-in. The 4 points you save on Sisters goes a long way that an extra 3 points for a 6++ is worth it.
So... what exactly? Are 6++ Rhinos good now? You can have a 6++ on your Rhino for free in our next game if I ever play you; I don't have any AP in my usual army better than lascannons anyways. 6++ for everyone! I'm sure that will solve all of the durability problems of Space Marines in one fell swoop.
Asherian Command wrote: Yes I would. Rhinos are oddly positioned at 72 points. But why would I take grey knights in rhinos that can be exploded by anything? It is a vehicle that has protection against high-end weaponry. If a land raider or a predator tank had access to an invulnerable save they would be a bit more valuable.
If you think your Rhinos are more valuable against my Baneblade company with a 6++ than they otherwise wood be, then let me blow your mind:
What if I told you that my Baneblades let you have a 6+ anyways while they completely annihilated 3-4 Rhinos a turn?
Mmmpi wrote: It's useful when it comes up, but the most commonly used AT weapons are Krak missiles (AP 2) plasma (ap 3) and Las cannons (ap3).
Most people don't even look at melta currently.
As for saves, a 4++ is far more powerful than a 6++. That should have gone without saying.
Except for like fire dragons but even then, not many people do indeed take melta cause its too expensive and its range is way too short.
So you already see what I'm talking about.
No i'm agreeing with you. I'm saying a ++6 invulernable is a bit more valuable not ignorable. Its not great, but it makes them a bit more valuable compared to grey knights. (Which isn't that hard)
Well Vehicles this edition are really squishy. I wouldn't doubt it hell my wave serpent army slaughters vehicles. (Serpent Shield is a bit too powerful)
Mmmpi wrote: 1. No, knights was just the first thing I could think of that get's splashed in every Imperial army. I could also have said Imperial guard, or smash captains.
2. Nearly as tough is not the same as "as tough" but it's also close enough that it statistically doesn't matter.
3. But you already know, so you don't need me to tell you. I'd try reading more GW materials before posting again. You don't even know common basic weapon stats or math.
Asherian Command wrote: Which instantly makes their vehicles stronger than the entirety of all the vehicles in the space marine codex?
Incidentally, now that the goalposts have taken off running so far that we're talking about vehicles now, the Adepta Sororitas vehicles are a teeny bit more expensive than their Space Marine equivalents for precisely this reason, actually.
I am just saying they are more durable.... having an invulernable save on vehicles and troops is great. I am saying they aren't really paying as much as a grey knight squad would. They only differences are they don't do as well in close combat (okay whatever), -1 toughness (kinda sucks), -1 strength (again useless no one fights in close combat) and thats about it otherwise, 9pts per a +3 armor save and +6 invulnerable save is pretty decent. They aren't the worst codex, but they aren't as horrible as people say they are. They have a lot of promise much more promise that grey knights. But you could be literally anyone but a grey knight player to succeed.
Well their rhinos are only more expensive by 3pts. Not that expensive and completely negligible. Especially if you can take more sisters and rhinos that have invulnerable saves.
The only big thing they are missing is anti-tank. But no one plays mono armies sooo you just get a knight titan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Overcharged Plasma is AP-4. Hellblasters simply get AP-4 standard.
Overcharged plasma is AP-3. This is objectively wrong.
Thats wrong helllblasters do indeed have ap-4
A lot of new space marine plasma is ap-4.
Hellblasters are AP-4. Literally every other plasma weapon in the game is ap-3. Hellblasters are their own catagory of weapon that can be taken by one unit, while every imperial unit in the game, and most of chaos can take plasma.
1. Well Slamguinus was hit with the nerf to CP farming, so I don't foresee him being an issue anymore. It also isn't Imperial Guard being an issue, merely a few of their units.
2. So if they're equal in durability, one unit gets more shots and therefore is objectively better.
3. Oh I can name almost all the Sniper units. Scout Snipers, Deathmarks and the Mephrit Warlord Trait, Intercessors with Stalkers and a Strategem, Eldar Rangers and that HQ dude as well as there being a Warlord trait, Skitarii with TranArqs, Dark Angels with a particular Warlord trait, Tau Sniper Drones, Vindicare Assassins, Ratlings, Knights using the Missile Straegem, I could've missed a few.
So tell me which is really a threat.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So we're all in agreement then: A 6++ barely means anything, Deny the Witch on a single d6 barely means anything, and... yes?
Well I mean thats the crux of this argument is that "Knights are too powerful lets base everything around knights." Which is a proble
Sisters are cheaper because they have less toughness and strength and a worse weapon skill than a baseline marine. But they have a 6+ Invulnerable with deny the witch on base as well all below a +9pts per a model (if they were in a marine army I'd probably take sisters over tacticals, actually i would take anything over a tactical squad not really a preference more of an efficiency and as I need more CP to stay competitive). Which for some reason doesn't inflate their costs? I am trying to understand how the points work out for them cause hell if I know GW's internal pointing system seems random at this point considering a bolter is the same cost as a hotshot lasgun and a lasgun. (for some reason?)
1. Doesn't change the fact that they get included in practically every list.
2. And one gets better options at the squad and army level. Once you stop microing everything the picture changes again.
3. There, I knew you could do it. The one you build around to take advantage of that rule.
For all those saying that Sisters are more powerful and a better buy than Marines, why is it that in competitive matched play (which has become very popular and quadrupled in size) Space Marines consistently out rank Sisters in tournament play.
1. Yes Sisters Infantry May be cheaper and MAYBE more effective point for point, but when you only have a few options in your tool kit and Marines have options coming out their @ss, after the first 1000 points and Rule of 3, Sisters are pretty much stuck with replicating the same stale mono build over again.
2. Marines also have automatic buffs - what do Sisters have? A 6++ that in 6 editions I’ve rarely had to use / and a deny the witch that I cast on ONE DIE, so it only works less than 1 time in 50 ??
3. Our Guilliman in Celestine is now less powerful than a Smash Captain and costs the Same as a Custodes Shield Captain on a Jetbike with Hurricane Bolters- it’s not even close.
4. For those saying our REPRESSORS should be carrying Sisters to victory... I could buy an army full of Repressors at 109 points apiece and their offensive power is ONE heavy flamer and 2 Stormbolters. How does that win games?
1. If your squad is surrounded you can elect to take saves on the 6+++, killing your own models, so you can shoot the target. This is a big deal with Orks, GSC, and other stuff that wants to stay locked in.
2. A save is a save. Hemlock Wraithfighters exist, and until they don't, it's safe to assume you'll be taking a significant number of saves. In fact the sheer volume of -4 weaponry in this game is kind of out of hand. A Castellan can shoot into a squad of sisters and they can survive. That is weirdly valuable.
3. There are ways to buff that save. It's a 6++ until it's a 5++ or better. 8th edition has proven that an invulnerable save adds a layer of durability that is very valuable. A 5++ is not at all bad when the models are cheap enough.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So we're all in agreement then: A 6++ barely means anything, Deny the Witch on a single d6 barely means anything, and... yes?
Well I mean thats the crux of this argument is that "Knights are too powerful lets base everything around knights."
Sisters are cheaper because they have less toughness and strength and a worse weapon skill than a baseline mrine. But they have a 6+ Invulnerable with deny the witch on base. Which for some reason doesn't inflate their costs? I am trying to understand how the points work out for them cause hell if I know GW's internal pointing system seems random at this point considering a bolter is the same cost as a hotshot lasgun and a lasgun. (for some reason?)
No, that's not what anyone is saying.
SoF does inflate their cost. T4 is significantly more durable compared to T3, and S4, when it gets used is also better.
As for guns, a bolter's S4 is better than a Hotshot's S3. But the cost for 0 point weapons is already built into the models.
Asherian Command wrote: [Sisters are cheaper because they have less toughness and strength and a worse weapon skill than a baseline marine. But they have a 6+ Invulnerable with deny the witch on base as well all below a +9pts per a model (if they were in a marine army I'd probably take sisters over tacticals, actually i would take anything over a tactical squad not really a preference more of an efficiency and as I need more CP to stay competitive). Which for some reason doesn't inflate their costs? I am trying to understand how the points work out for them cause hell if I know GW's internal pointing system seems random at this point considering a bolter is the same cost as a hotshot lasgun and a lasgun. (for some reason?)
I have long since given up trying to understand GW's point system.
I'd take a Sororitas over a Marine. I'd take a Kabalite over a Sororitas. I'd take a Guardsman over a Kabalite. Sororitas might be better than Marines, but they are not actually very good. They're okay, and Marines need a buff to be equally okay. But the Sororitas beta codex doesn't actually do anything fun or engaging, and that's primarily my problem with it.
1. If your squad is surrounded you can elect to take saves on the 6+++, killing your own models, so you can shoot the target. This is a big deal with Orks, GSC, and other stuff that wants to stay locked in.
2. A save is a save. Hemlock Wraithfighters exist, and until they don't, it's safe to assume you'll be taking a significant number of saves. In fact the sheer volume of -4 weaponry in this game is kind of out of hand. A Castellan can shoot into a squad of sisters and they can survive. That is weirdly valuable.
3. There are ways to buff that save. It's a 6++ until it's a 5++ or better. 8th edition has proven that an invulnerable save adds a layer of durability that is very valuable. A 5++ is not at all bad when the models are cheap enough.
Let's stop trying to downplay stuff.
A 6++ is passingly useful.
Sister units don't last long enough to use your 1st point. They get charged, they die.
2. A save is a save, and it is useful, but not as common as you're saying.
3. There are, but there are downsides to buffing it. Such as having to bunch up together, where the whole army can get locked up by just a few units.
So, yeah. How about we actually look at how useful it is, rather than with rose colored glasses.
davidgr33n wrote: For all those saying that Sisters are more powerful and a better buy than Marines, why is it that in competitive matched play (which has become very popular and quadrupled in size) Space Marines consistently out rank Sisters in tournament play.
1. Yes Sisters Infantry May be cheaper and MAYBE more effective point for point, but when you only have a few options in your tool kit and Marines have options coming out their @ss, after the first 1000 points and Rule of 3, Sisters are pretty much stuck with replicating the same stale mono build over again. 2. Marines also have automatic buffs - what do Sisters have? A 6++ that in 6 editions I’ve rarely had to use / and a deny the witch that I cast on ONE DIE, so it only works less than 1 time in 50 ?? 3. Our Guilliman in Celestine is now less powerful than a Smash Captain and costs the Same as a Custodes Shield Captain on a Jetbike with Hurricane Bolters- it’s not even close. 4. For those saying our REPRESSORS should be carrying Sisters to victory... I could buy an army full of Repressors at 109 points apiece and their offensive power is ONE heavy flamer and 2 Stormbolters. How does that win games?
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed, but what buffs for marines? Explain?
3. Guilliman and Smash Captain are too powerful we both agree. And Shield Captains need a nerf mallet. (Even though I do run three of them they are far too effective for their PTS)
4. Not saying that but merely saying an invulnerable save is an invulnerable save. Its better than nothing. And that sisters aren't 'horrible' Grey knights are still objectively worse in every regard other than DreadKnights.
Asherian Command wrote: [Sisters are cheaper because they have less toughness and strength and a worse weapon skill than a baseline marine. But they have a 6+ Invulnerable with deny the witch on base as well all below a +9pts per a model (if they were in a marine army I'd probably take sisters over tacticals, actually i would take anything over a tactical squad not really a preference more of an efficiency and as I need more CP to stay competitive). Which for some reason doesn't inflate their costs? I am trying to understand how the points work out for them cause hell if I know GW's internal pointing system seems random at this point considering a bolter is the same cost as a hotshot lasgun and a lasgun. (for some reason?)
I have long since given up trying to understand GW's point system.
I'd take a Sororitas over a Marine. I'd take a Kabalite over a Sororitas. I'd take a Guardsman over a Kabalite. Sororitas might be better than Marines, but they are not actually very good. They're okay, and Marines need a buff to be equally okay. But the Sororitas beta codex doesn't actually do anything fun or engaging, and that's primarily my problem with it.
At this point I am surprised Soroitas don't have a new troop choice of roided up Sisters. But I agree it was a very boring edition of sisters. I think we need to see some groups being given more powerful units.... like maybe sisters of silence for Sororitas? (Give them a +2 save +4 invulnerable +1 toughness and +1 strength, 14pts per a model and equipment costs differently and bam solid sister unit)
1. If your squad is surrounded you can elect to take saves on the 6+++, killing your own models, so you can shoot the target. This is a big deal with Orks, GSC, and other stuff that wants to stay locked in.
2. A save is a save. Hemlock Wraithfighters exist, and until they don't, it's safe to assume you'll be taking a significant number of saves. In fact the sheer volume of -4 weaponry in this game is kind of out of hand. A Castellan can shoot into a squad of sisters and they can survive. That is weirdly valuable.
3. There are ways to buff that save. It's a 6++ until it's a 5++ or better. 8th edition has proven that an invulnerable save adds a layer of durability that is very valuable. A 5++ is not at all bad when the models are cheap enough.
Let's stop trying to downplay stuff.
A 6++ is passingly useful.
Sister units don't last long enough to use your 1st point. They get charged, they die. 2. A save is a save, and it is useful, but not as common as you're saying.
3. There are, but there are downsides to buffing it. Such as having to bunch up together, where the whole army can get locked up by just a few units.
So, yeah. How about we actually look at how useful it is, rather than with rose colored glasses.
People actually use close combat in this game
The only ones i know of that do are knights. Close combat is extremely underpowered this edition its why i said the strength stat is kind of useless, i've rarely been in games where close combat has at all been as useful as a gunline army.
1. Agreed
2. There are but you still can buff, which should be a mechanic that grey knights should also have. As they are literally useless currently.
Hemlock Wraith Fighters though and all these big units kind of ruin 40k in general, I would put a beta rule in that would prevent people from using any big models like Bobby G, the primarchs, titans, baneblades etc from being played in normal matched play. That would probably balance out most of this edition pretty well.
1. If your squad is surrounded you can elect to take saves on the 6+++, killing your own models, so you can shoot the target. This is a big deal with Orks, GSC, and other stuff that wants to stay locked in.
2. A save is a save. Hemlock Wraithfighters exist, and until they don't, it's safe to assume you'll be taking a significant number of saves. In fact the sheer volume of -4 weaponry in this game is kind of out of hand. A Castellan can shoot into a squad of sisters and they can survive. That is weirdly valuable.
3. There are ways to buff that save. It's a 6++ until it's a 5++ or better. 8th edition has proven that an invulnerable save adds a layer of durability that is very valuable. A 5++ is not at all bad when the models are cheap enough.
Let's stop trying to downplay stuff.
A 6++ is passingly useful.
Sister units don't last long enough to use your 1st point. They get charged, they die.
2. A save is a save, and it is useful, but not as common as you're saying.
3. There are, but there are downsides to buffing it. Such as having to bunch up together, where the whole army can get locked up by just a few units.
So, yeah. How about we actually look at how useful it is, rather than with rose colored glasses.
1. It does happen, it's not my fault you don't play good opponents that know how to minimize attacks to stay locked in combat. For example, Tyranid Genstealers desperately want to kill your squads on *your* turn. I play this army. If i can finagle it so a squad stays locked in, rather than killing a unit after i charge, especially against a gunline army like sisters, that's a huge win for me. But, I have to commit some attacks. I have no choice. You must attack if you're in range to do so. That means you can pull the squad on my turn as opposed to your turn, stopping me from overruning into your back line before I get my move, shoot, charge. Orks do this great as well, they want to stay locked in so they can pile in and lock everything up with gigantic blobs. And it all starts by charging your screening units or basic infantry. Stop being obtuse man.
2. A save is a save. Just remember next time you see a marine player pulling his 13 point guys off of the table saying "i don't get a save," remember that you will, and that's a big deal. You'll be rolling your 6++ as though you had a feel no pain that negates multiple damage against those -4 weapons that are actually pretty damn common - Rending Claws, Hemlocks, Wraithguards, Blasters, etc.
3. Absolutely clownish reply. There are downsides to buffing it? There are downsides potentially to EVERY choice you make in the game, except to bring the Loyal32 + possibly more if you can. I can't even with this nonsense. There are potential downsides to getting out of bed in the morning. The possibility of a downside doesn't mean having a choice to buff your units is bad, holy insert here, batman.
ATSKNF for all Marines, in addition to each Chapters’ Chapter Tactics buffs. Those are all automatic. Sisters get a very situational 6++ (I’d rather have ATSKNF) and Deny the Witch one 1 die. Our chapter Tactics are weak - maybe the +1attack / +1 strength that none of our units would be effective using (a 4 point ork boy would kill 3 9-point Sisters even with that Buff).
@Marmatag:
2. A save is a save. Just remember next time you see a marine player pulling his 13 point guys off of the table saying "i don't get a save," remember that you will, and that's a big deal. You'll be rolling your 6++ as though you had a feel no pain that negates multiple damage against those -4 weapons that are actually pretty damn common - Rending Claws, Hemlocks, Wraithguards, Blasters, etc.
In 6 editions with the same 6++ save and several hundred games I’ve maybe used that save on my Infantry models 10 times. Why? Because who is shooting at my sisters with meltaguns or railguns? And usually If I get into close combat my units have to make so many saves that even at 3+ my Sisters don’t stand a chance.
For that 6++ save give me something I can actually use, like ATSKNF or an option for a power fist on my Sisters.
Well, Shining Spears use CC, and wound SoB on a 2+ or 4+, and Marines on a 3+ or 5+. Not a huge difference, but it is a difference. Although SoB get a 6++, Marines get nothing (because it's AP-4).
I'm still confused as how this argument is still framed as defense being inadequate rather than offense being under costed.
No amount of cheaper armor is going to answer the fact you can spam special weapons that just so happen to kill things on a 3+ and ignore their armor for cheaper than the other guy can stock more bodies.
Well if SoB were 6-7pts, then the amount of armor would be enough for a 6++ to be a more deciding factor. If your saving one in six dudes when you have 60 dudes and the opposing army can kill 30 of them per turn, it ain't that good. But if have 200 people and rate of fire still only kills 40-50 dudes you still have 3/4 of your army to wreck stuff up.
Now if sisters really were 7pts, IG people would probably go insane.
Karol wrote: Well if SoB were 6-7pts, then the amount of armor would be enough for a 6++ to be a more deciding factor. If your saving one in six dudes when you have 60 dudes and the opposing army can kill 30 of them per turn, it ain't that good. But if have 200 people and rate of fire still only kills 40-50 dudes you still have 3/4 of your army to wreck stuff up.
Now if sisters really were 7pts, IG people would probably go insane.
Lets be honest if they were 8pts IG people would go insane and call foul.
If Sisters got a massive anti-tank arsenal or anti-titan weaponry, IG would go insane.
No amount of cheaper armor is going to answer the fact you can spam special weapons that just so happen to kill things on a 3+ and ignore their armor for cheaper than the other guy can stock more bodies.
I’d like to see some numbers to back up your statement. I’ve been playing Sisters for 20 years and have yet to run into this secret discovery of yours.
Karol wrote: Well if SoB were 6-7pts, then the amount of armor would be enough for a 6++ to be a more deciding factor. If your saving one in six dudes when you have 60 dudes and the opposing army can kill 30 of them per turn, it ain't that good. But if have 200 people and rate of fire still only kills 40-50 dudes you still have 3/4 of your army to wreck stuff up.
Now if sisters really were 7pts, IG people would probably go insane.
Lets be honest if they were 8pts IG people would go insane and call foul.
If Sisters got a massive anti-tank arsenal or anti-titan weaponry, IG would go insane.
w....why?
Aside from some of the fluff sillyness with some aspects, why would IG in particular (and not other factions) be upset about Sisters getting new stuff?
As for Sisters at 8pts, again, I dont see too many Guard players being upset by that. SoB's have usually been overcosted in most editions, usually being at, or just barely above, twice what a guardsmen cost. 8ppm slots well into that paradigm and looks good next to Stormtroopers (better save, longer range gun with better S, AoF, but no DS, no Orders, no AP-2, fewer special weapons) as well.
I'm not seeing any issues on the face of it personally.
Asherian Command wrote: They have a lot of promise much more promise that grey knights. But you could be literally anyone but a grey knight player to succeed.
From your comments you don't appear to be either a sororitas or a grey knight player, or to really know much about either faction.
You may find some value in borrowing the books and getting them on the table.
Asherian Command wrote: They have a lot of promise much more promise that grey knights. But you could be literally anyone but a grey knight player to succeed.
From your comments you don't appear to be either a sororitas or a grey knight player, or to really know much about either faction. You may find some value in borrowing the books and getting them on the table.
Mostly taking from comments i've read and just what general grey knight players have told me is that they are not a viable mono-army as of current.
Sisters on the otherhand I don't know its mostly guess work till their full codex and models come out. Till then its mostly me speculating.
Asherian Command wrote: They have a lot of promise much more promise that grey knights. But you could be literally anyone but a grey knight player to succeed.
From your comments you don't appear to be either a sororitas or a grey knight player, or to really know much about either faction.
You may find some value in borrowing the books and getting them on the table.
Mostly taking from comments i've read and just what general grey knight players have told me is that they are not a viable mono-army as of current.
Sisters on the otherhand I don't know its mostly guess work till their full codex and models come out. Till then its mostly me speculating.
Is any Imperial army really good enough to mono at this point? Lets be honest about it... No
Eihnlazer wrote: Mono-marines are fine, especially now with sniper scouts 13 points each.
Guilliman Sniper Squad is a legit thing atm due to CA and is absolutely terrifying.
They're certainly BETTER than they were, but it isn't scary as you're wanting to believe. You would need 8-10 Sniper Scouts next to Roboute to even kill a Guard Commander. That's a hefty investment.
1. It does happen, it's not my fault you don't play good opponents that know how to minimize attacks to stay locked in combat. For example, Tyranid Genstealers desperately want to kill your squads on *your* turn. I play this army. If i can finagle it so a squad stays locked in, rather than killing a unit after i charge, especially against a gunline army like sisters, that's a huge win for me. But, I have to commit some attacks. I have no choice. You must attack if you're in range to do so. That means you can pull the squad on my turn as opposed to your turn, stopping me from overruning into your back line before I get my move, shoot, charge. Orks do this great as well, they want to stay locked in so they can pile in and lock everything up with gigantic blobs. And it all starts by charging your screening units or basic infantry. Stop being obtuse man.
2. A save is a save. Just remember next time you see a marine player pulling his 13 point guys off of the table saying "i don't get a save," remember that you will, and that's a big deal. You'll be rolling your 6++ as though you had a feel no pain that negates multiple damage against those -4 weapons that are actually pretty damn common - Rending Claws, Hemlocks, Wraithguards, Blasters, etc.
3. Absolutely clownish reply. There are downsides to buffing it? There are downsides potentially to EVERY choice you make in the game, except to bring the Loyal32 + possibly more if you can. I can't even with this nonsense. There are potential downsides to getting out of bed in the morning. The possibility of a downside doesn't mean having a choice to buff your units is bad, holy insert here, batman.
1. Exact opposite actually. Five girl squads tend to just die entirely. So next time don't assume about my opponents.
2. A save is a save, and small arms, las cannons, and plasma are still far more common than melta and wraith weapons.
3. You claim to be a good player and you post this? Really? How about that has to stay in a 6" bubble? How about the part where it prevents use of mech? The part where it slows the army down? Get back to be when you L2P.
Eihnlazer wrote: Mono-marines are fine, especially now with sniper scouts 13 points each.
Guilliman Sniper Squad is a legit thing atm due to CA and is absolutely terrifying.
They're certainly BETTER than they were, but it isn't scary as you're wanting to believe. You would need 8-10 Sniper Scouts next to Roboute to even kill a Guard Commander. That's a hefty investment.
It's one squad, in an army that takes more than that. If sniping is the goal, then slightly higher cost over regular scouts is worth it.
3. You claim to be a good player and you post this? Really? How about that has to stay in a 6" bubble? How about the part where it prevents use of mech? The part where it slows the army down? Get back to be when you L2P.
Laughable reply.
"It's too hard to get a 6" bubble" -No one, because every army depends on them in some way or another.
3. You claim to be a good player and you post this? Really? How about that has to stay in a 6" bubble? How about the part where it prevents use of mech? The part where it slows the army down? Get back to be when you L2P.
Laughable reply.
"It's too hard to get a 6" bubble" -No one, because every army depends on them in some way or another.
I said downside. Not sure how you managed "too hard" out of that. At this point I'm questioning the capabilities of your local school system's English department.
Well it is one thing getting it on 3 units of hellblasters that want to hug an ancient and a grandmaster, which all have nice range on their weapons, and another on units that don't want to be next to each other. Maybe if AoF weren't changed or if hvy bolter sisters were really good, it would be different.
But in general the good sister stuff, will have it hard to be within 6" of an HQ for most of the game.
Plus, although this is not a sisters problem, bases can be a problem with 6" range. Can't fit 15 paladins, a ndk and draigo in to a 6" bubble.
3. You claim to be a good player and you post this? Really? How about that has to stay in a 6" bubble? How about the part where it prevents use of mech? The part where it slows the army down? Get back to be when you L2P.
Laughable reply.
"It's too hard to get a 6" bubble" -No one, because every army depends on them in some way or another.
That poster hasn't even replied with what Snipers were threats in the first place, so I listed what was I believe the comprehensive list of targeting characters rules and asked them to point out which was a threat to even a Guard Commander. Got no response.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That poster hasn't even replied with what Snipers were threats in the first place, so I listed what was I believe the comprehensive list of targeting characters rules and asked them to point out which was a threat to even a Guard Commander. Got no response.
You mentioned Deathmarks. 10 non-Meprhit Deathmarks in rapid fire range with no buffs kills a Cannoness in one go. If you stack up My Will Be Done, Mephrit dynastic code, Mephrit Stratagem and a Lord’s aura you can just about scrape her to death with four Deathmarks in rapid fire or 8 from 24” away. That’s actually not a bad points investment to take out the lynchpin of your opponent’s army. Snipers aren’t meant to be cost effective, they’re meant to mess up your opponent’s synergy.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That poster hasn't even replied with what Snipers were threats in the first place, so I listed what was I believe the comprehensive list of targeting characters rules and asked them to point out which was a threat to even a Guard Commander. Got no response.
You mentioned Deathmarks. 10 non-Meprhit Deathmarks in rapid fire range with no buffs kills a Cannoness in one go. If you stack up My Will Be Done, Mephrit dynastic code, Mephrit Stratagem and a Lord’s aura you can just about scrape her to death with four Deathmarks in rapid fire. That’s actually not a bad points investment to take out the lynchpin of your opponent’s army. Snipers aren’t meant to be cost effective, they’re meant to mess up your opponent’s synergy.
I DID list Deathmarks. I also listed the Mephrit Warlord trait with their special Staff weapon.
Your scenario also requires two separate HQ units and a CP to kill what's maybe a 50 point HQ.
ERJAK wrote: You could try running 120+ model blobs but you'll lose to any army that can quickly lock you into combat, can snipe your 5 wound Canoness, can out maneuver your incredibly slow infantry blob, or can simply outshoot your frankly pathetic offensive output.
Also "sniping" characters is laughable. You can't even snipe Guard Commanders and they're WAY less durable!
With a 170pt Deathmarks unit with zero stratagems, Dynastic Codes or support characters in Rapid Fire range you will kill a Cannoness. Which means ERJAK was right, a Cannoness can be sniped, and sniping characters is not laughable. It’s a steepish points investment (though a 3:1 investment to kill a target in one turn isn’t the worst), but snipers’ value isn’t in the character they kill, but the debuff of the units around the target caused my eliminating a lynchpin character.
Asherian Command wrote: Yes I would. Rhinos are oddly positioned at 72 points. But why would I take grey knights in rhinos that can be exploded by anything? It is a vehicle that has protection against high-end weaponry. If a land raider or a predator tank had access to an invulnerable save they would be a bit more valuable.
If you think your Rhinos are more valuable against my Baneblade company with a 6++ than they otherwise wood be, then let me blow your mind:
What if I told you that my Baneblades let you have a 6+ anyways while they completely annihilated 3-4 Rhinos a turn?
Your Baneblades are silly, cheesy undercosted units compared to Rhinos so your comment is not really fair. Or alternatively Baneblade is correctly priced and Rhinos are overcosted.
Rhinos pay 72 points for 10 T7 3+ Wounds with little firepower. That's 7 points per wound. Baneblade pays 390 points for 26 T8 3+ Wounds with Baneblade Battle Cannon.
Baneblade cannon being Heavy3D6 S9 AP -3 Dmg. 3 is roughly Lascannon equivalent (S9 AP -3 Dmg. 1D6), so it should cost roughly 3x3.5x25 ~ 262 points, but I'm going to be generous and give it 50 point discount because you can target only one unit so we arrive at 212 point cost for Baneblade Battle Cannon when scaled with Lascannons.
This way we end up Baneblade costing 178 points for 26 T8 3+ Wounds, so Baneblade ends up costing about 7 points per wound, which can't be locked in melee and is actually quite a beast also in melee, unlike the rhino. Also the T7-T8 breakpoint is important and increases durability significantly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: OMG. Just recost SMs at 15 pts per model as in 3E, and be done.
Might as well just remove them completely if this is your solution.
Am not sure what skill in w40k is, because most of the good list play more or less by themselfs. And only "tactics" are mild exploits, like the ITC uncharable buildings etc
40k skill is in list building, not on the tabletop, and a big component of list building is buying the new, expensive shiny.
To that end, SM exist as an army that is cheap to acquire and easy to play, forgiving of minor mistakes. That's why they're in the starter box. But they should never be competitive against an army that a player has to spend more money on. Hell, they shouldn't even be fun or good. Their entire point of existing is as a gateway to selling the players a better, more expensive army.
If anyone hasn't figured that out, they are kinda slow.
JohnHwangDD wrote: 40k skill is in list building, not on the tabletop, and a big component of list building is buying the new, expensive shiny.
To that end, SM exist as an army that is cheap to acquire and easy to play, forgiving of minor mistakes. That's why they're in the starter box. But they should never be competitive against an army that a player has to spend more money on. Hell, they shouldn't even be fun or good. Their entire point of existing is as a gateway to selling the players a better, more expensive army.
If anyone hasn't figured that out, they are kinda slow.
Would just be nice if something other then Eldar was the top choice. The flavour mat change edition to edition but it's still the same old eldar cheese.
