As I see it when Necrons became "Tomb Kings in Spaaace" the idea was that your generic Necron Warrior was basically a Skeleton Warrior, and so should be relatively spammable to facilitate Silver Tide*. If they were 20ish points each, bringing 80 plus some characters would basically be your entire list. Its not really a tide. Every edition they seem to go further into this archetype. Which is why we see arguments about say the new models - because them being half-repaired, half falling apart fits this sort of shambling horror but individually a bit crap idea, and not the "I'm basically an indestructible self-repairing Terminator, see me shiny and chrome." of earlier editions.
Creep meant Marines were going the same way, but GW decided they wanted to revert that.
*I think there's an interesting question to ask about which armies have an iconic "tide" and which don't. I just find it interesting that there's a view Orks for instance should be able to just spam Boyz and that's basically it (which has usually been a function of the rest of their codex being awful). I feel for example hordes of gaunts covering the table like confetti is iconic - but not convinced its ever been especially viable etc.
If however someone said spamming Guardians, or basic Sisters of Battle should be a viable archetype for those faction's lists, it would produce a collective "wot?" from all concerned. "That's not the fluff, or the game's history, or... something something something."
I think its a fair argument whether GW would have been better served creating "status" for certain unit types. I.E you'd have "Cheap chaff infantry", "Elite 1 wound infantry", "2 wound infantry", "3 wound infantry" "light tanks/monsters", "medium tanks/monsters" and finally Knight scale things - rather than trying to make almost every faction have its own special snowflake stat line. But equally it might be less fun if a grot, guardsman, termagaunt etc were literally identical with the same rules and points on the table.
Marines are heavy infantry, just like Tyranid Warriors, Grotesques, or Bullgrynes, and "basic" weapons shouldn't be efficient against heavy infantry. If you want to efficiently kill heavy infantry you should need something bigger than lasguns, bolters, or shurican catapults. Think autocannons, heavy bolters, plasma, and disintegrators. You shouldn't go hunting moose with a deer rifle.
Unit1126PLL wrote: --This also causes immersion-breaking incongruities with the background, where Marine or different-Marine units are shot with lasguns or even strangled to death by Guardsmen.
Ok, share. Where in the background do guardsmen strangle astartes to death?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Marines are heavy infantry, just like Tyranid Warriors, Grotesques, or Bullgrynes, and "basic" weapons shouldn't be efficient against heavy infantry.
If Marines are heavy infantry (despite their cost being half that of Bullgryns or Grotesques), what are Terminators and Centurions?
I would say Marines and Tyranid warriors would classify best as medium infantry. (One has more wounds the other better armour and they kinda balance each other)
Terminators, Gravis units, Lychguard, etc... are best described as heavy infantry.
Ogryns, Grotesques, Custodes, Tyrant Guard, are... are basically Monstruos Infantry.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Marines are heavy infantry, just like Tyranid Warriors, Grotesques, or Bullgrynes, and "basic" weapons shouldn't be efficient against heavy infantry.
If Marines are heavy infantry (despite their cost being half that of Bullgryns or Grotesques), what are Terminators and Centurions?
Also heavy infantry? It takes 20 boltgun shots from tactical marines to bring down a 17pt necron immortal and not have him pop back up. that's pretty inefficient for sure - 180pts of models to kill 17.
36 lasgun shots to bring down a marine (a 55pt guard squad plus a 20pt platoon commander to issue them a FRFSRF order) is slightly more efficient, but still highlights the same, intended consequence. Those weapons are inefficient against heavy infantry, heavy infantry is intended to be brought down by heavier weaponry that any army that uses light ifnantry as its backbone (guard, Admech, GSC, etc) has available to them on all their basic squads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: I would say Marines and Tyranid warriors would classify best as medium infantry. (One has more wounds the other better armour and they kinda balance each other)
Terminators, Gravis units, Lychguard, etc... are best described as heavy infantry.
Ogryns, Grotesques, Custodes, Tyrant Guard, are... are basically Monstruos Infantry.
The only real distinction is woundcount. W2 infantry is specifically vulnerable to d2 weaponry, which is 2/3 efficient against W3 infantry. If we're really going to have a third class of "Super-heavy infantry" between infantry and light vehicles, its just a distinction between W2 (or W1 in occasional circumstances like necron immortals) and W3/W4 where antitank weapons start being usable and D2 anti-elite weapons become a bit less efficient.
Ok, share. Where in the background do guardsmen strangle astartes to death?
Pre-bionics Straken strangles a Chaos Sorcerer Lord to death in the 5th edition IG codex Planetstrike battle book with a garotte.
Heh, I was expecting Sly Marbo.
vipoid wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Marines are heavy infantry, just like Tyranid Warriors, Grotesques, or Bullgrynes, and "basic" weapons shouldn't be efficient against heavy infantry.
If Marines are heavy infantry (despite their cost being half that of Bullgryns or Grotesques), what are Terminators and Centurions?
Heavier infantry? Super Heavy infantry? Do we need more categories? The point, as The_Scotsman points out, is those are units that can't be killed efficiently with "basic" weapons. They require something with more "oomph". But those "anti-heavy infantry" weapons are inefficient at killing lighter infantry, so you need some of both in a TAC list. And some decent AT as well. You shouldn't be able to just spam the "best weapon".
Spoletta wrote: Also, if you are bothered by that, can I ask you:
What is the role of lasguns against a knight army?
What is the role of lasguns against a Custodes army?
What is the role of lasguns against a parking lot of any kind?
What is the role of lasguns against a monster mash?
Knights and Custodes are two armies out of a couple dozen. Parking lots and monster mash are skew lists.
Marines are the most common defensive profile in the game by faction, and the most-played by a good margin.
There's a big difference between a game having some factions that are resistant to common weapons and shake up the paradigm, versus a game where a majority of factions including the overwhelmingly most popular ones are resistant to common weapons.
And, to be clear, the latter has always been the case. W1 Marines were point-for-point some of the worst things you could shoot at with lasguns. It just wasn't as extreme as rolling buckets of dice to remove a single model, or even the special and heavy weapons struggling to kill Marines.
As it stands you either load up on plasma and heavy bolters specifically to deal with Marines- because in a Marine-dominated game, that's what a TAC list does- or you're ineffective. An Infantry Squad at 18" with a grenade launcher and an autocannon averages 1.33 wounds against Marines. Doesn't even kill a single model. Even if you take the approach that eight members of the squad are just there to cheerlead for the two who do the real killing, it doesn't work unless you specifically tailor to fight Marines.
Bonus round: That same squad is more efficient shooting at a Knight Crusader than it is shooting at Tactical Marines. Does that really seem right?
Spoletta wrote: Also, if you are bothered by that, can I ask you:
What is the role of lasguns against a knight army?
What is the role of lasguns against a Custodes army?
What is the role of lasguns against a parking lot of any kind?
What is the role of lasguns against a monster mash?
Knights and Custodes are two armies out of a couple dozen. Parking lots and monster mash are skew lists.
Marines are the most common defensive profile in the game by faction, and the most-played by a good margin.
There's a big difference between a game having some factions that are resistant to common weapons and shake up the paradigm, versus a game where a majority of factions including the overwhelmingly most popular ones are resistant to common weapons.
And, to be clear, the latter has always been the case. W1 Marines were point-for-point some of the worst things you could shoot at with lasguns. It just wasn't as extreme as rolling buckets of dice to remove a single model, or even the special and heavy weapons struggling to kill Marines.
As it stands you either load up on plasma and heavy bolters specifically to deal with Marines- because in a Marine-dominated game, that's what a TAC list does- or you're ineffective. An Infantry Squad at 18" with a grenade launcher and an autocannon averages 1.33 wounds against Marines. Doesn't even kill a single model. Even if you take the approach that eight members of the squad are just there to cheerlead for the two who do the real killing, it doesn't work unless you specifically tailor to fight Marines.
I think it's pretty clear from...most of 8th, that heavy infantry lists arent always all the opponents that you'll face.
And also, 40k is at the end of the day a game about holding objectives first, and killing your opponent's army second. There has always been a role for units that are cheap and may not fight particularly efficiently but do hold objectives.
And if opponents do spam anti-elite weaponry, you see these light infantry skew lists showing up and winning tournaments.
For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.
I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.
I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.
I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)
fraser1191 wrote: For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.
I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.
I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.
I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)
Exchange Lasguns for Hormagaunts. Hormagaunts cannot give their Sergeant a Powerfist, or purchase a Plasms gun. How many Hormagaunts should it take to down a Marine? How many Shuriken Catapult shots?
fraser1191 wrote: For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.
I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.
I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.
I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)
Exchange Lasguns for Hormagaunts. Hormagaunts cannot give their Sergeant a Powerfist, or purchase a Plasms gun. How many Hormagaunts should it take to down a Marine? How many Shuriken Catapult shots?
fraser1191 wrote: For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.
I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.
I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.
I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)
Exchange Lasguns for Hormagaunts. Hormagaunts cannot give their Sergeant a Powerfist, or purchase a Plasms gun. How many Hormagaunts should it take to down a Marine? How many Shuriken Catapult shots?
How many should it take? Then balance the points by the extra movement of Hormagaunts, the cheapness for screening, the ignoring morale when in synapse range, and effectiveness against non-MEQ... And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!
Spoletta wrote: Or pull marines into close range where they can actually hurt them quite well (2 squads in FRFSRF have a 54% return on intercessors. Yes, I'm considering the cost of the orders).
74 Lasgun shots (Rapid Fire, FRFSRF, and the two Pistols from Sergeants) kills two Marines. That's 40 points of Intercessors.
Two squads without orders costs 110 points. How on earth are you getting a 54% return in a shooting phase?
brainpsyk wrote: And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!
Yes, I suppose it probably is difficult to balance Hormagaunts to be effective against Marines when Marines are now so tough that low-S D1 weapons are more efficient against Knights. For the record: 30 Hormagaunts (180pts) kill 1.93 Tacticals (35pts), or inflict 1.93 wounds to a Crusader (38.5pts).
So now we're in a state where we have units that despite being reasonably good at combat in prior editions are outright inefficient against the most common defensive profile in the game, and if made efficient against Marines will then also be efficient anti-LoW units.
I would hope, though, that your takeaway would be that this is a problem for design, rather than a 'not so simple!' handwave non-answer.
brainpsyk wrote: And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!
Yes, I suppose it probably is difficult to balance Hormagaunts to be effective against Marines when Marines are now so tough that low-S D1 weapons are more efficient against Knights. For the record: 30 Hormagaunts (180pts) kill 1.93 Tacticals (35pts), or inflict 1.93 wounds to a Crusader (38.5pts).
So now we're in a state where we have units that despite being reasonably good at combat in prior editions are outright inefficient against the most common defensive profile in the game, and if made efficient against Marines will then also be efficient anti-LoW units.
I would hope, though, that your takeaway would be that this is a problem for design, rather than a 'not so simple!' handwave non-answer.
hey cmere I'll let you in on a little secret.
1 - you could increase their strength to 4 if you wanted and that would not increase their effectiveness vs knights
2 - removing "38.5" points of one knight from the board...is doing nothing. The knight remains, unscathed and unaffected in damage output. It can even fall back and just act as if your hormagants were not there.
removing 40pts of marines removes 2 marines, and then those that remain may no longer target any of the rest of your stuff.
Yes, Hormagants and Eldar Guardians absolutely need to have some more TAC capabilities built into them since they dont really have weapon options available. with Eldar, I fully suspect there will be a balance pass of their weapon options and, hopefully, some boosts to the core eldar statlines. I think Sv4+ is a pretty solid place to start personally, with 2+ heavy aspect and 3+ aspect armor, though since Incubi stayed at 3+ I would also accept across-the-board 3+ for aspects and just remove the distinction between heavy and light aspect armor.
Also, I generally agree that vehicles should basically be across the board tougher than they are. If damage output is to stay the same, id prefer to see vehicles gain access to all types of cover and gain some extra wounds. Ideally all at once, in a game-wide pass. As all good changes to the game should be done.
I do not agree that marines should be made artificially weaker just to appease the desire for everything in the game to feel like it is equally made of paper.
Holy gak every time I leave this thread it gets sillier. Whole ARMIES unable to kill marines? Oh those poor necron warriors, how will they possibly down the big stwong space marines with their only...strength 5 AP-2 gun? What weapon could they POSSIBLY TAKE?? O woe betide the blootletter, so weak and pathetic in comparison to the unstoppable space marine, why 240pts of them barely manages to muster the strength to kill...284pts of primaris marines in one round of melee combat? What are they to doooo?
Talk about disingenuous argumentation.
It's not the points, yo. That should be made real clear. Would you be making the same "points argument" if Marines were competetive at 6ppm but T3 W1 and Sv6+? No you wouldn't.
Here's the deal, 240 points of Bloodletters is 30 Bloodletters. You're saying it takes 30 Bloodletters to kill 14 Marines . . . Well guess what? There was a time when that took HALF the amount of Bloodletters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: I do not agree that marines should be made artificially weaker just to appease the desire for everything in the game to feel like it is equally made of paper.
When it took 20 lasgun shots to kill a Marine, and only 6 to kill a Guardsman, that's not "equally made of paper".
brainpsyk wrote: And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!
Yes, I suppose it probably is difficult to balance Hormagaunts to be effective against Marines when Marines are now so tough that low-S D1 weapons are more efficient against Knights. For the record: 30 Hormagaunts (180pts) kill 1.93 Tacticals (35pts), or inflict 1.93 wounds to a Crusader (38.5pts).
So now we're in a state where we have units that despite being reasonably good at combat in prior editions are outright inefficient against the most common defensive profile in the game, and if made efficient against Marines will then also be efficient anti-LoW units.
I would hope, though, that your takeaway would be that this is a problem for design, rather than a 'not so simple!' handwave non-answer.
And I hope your takeaway is that it's not just a matter of how many marines you can kill (a handwaving of "but X! but X! but !"), and that there are other aspects of the game that marines just don't do well. Marines can't screen like my guard can, marines aren't as fast as hormugaunts, and they aren't as numerous as Guardians. So the argument that "X can't kill 5 marines" really isn't a valid argument, because it's only 1 piece of a much larges puzzle.
I play guard, and they are lagging quite a ways behind, mostly because they still have an 8th edition codex, same for hormugaunts and guardians, even knights! Since they haven't been updated to the lethality of 9th yet, the answer isn't rolling back marines (a C-tier codex) to 8th edition standards, to make it a valid comparision, we need to bring those other codexes forward to 9th, and then we can make a comparison.
To make this a valid 9th comparison using your standard, let's ask how many Incubi should it take to kill 5 marines? 5 Incubi kill 6.9 marines. I'd argue that with baseline marines being a C-Tier codex, and people tailor their armies to fight marines, that marines aren't durable enough (remember, i play guard).
I think the 2W statline represents the novel background for space marine novels pretty well. It's just weird that people don't want the imperial guard rules to match their background, for example in the Gaunt's Ghosts series, where one squad of guard vets can take out an entire squad of marines with no casualties.
brainpsyk wrote: And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!
Yes, I suppose it probably is difficult to balance Hormagaunts to be effective against Marines when Marines are now so tough that low-S D1 weapons are more efficient against Knights. For the record: 30 Hormagaunts (180pts) kill 1.93 Tacticals (35pts), or inflict 1.93 wounds to a Crusader (38.5pts).
So now we're in a state where we have units that despite being reasonably good at combat in prior editions are outright inefficient against the most common defensive profile in the game, and if made efficient against Marines will then also be efficient anti-LoW units.
I would hope, though, that your takeaway would be that this is a problem for design, rather than a 'not so simple!' handwave non-answer.
And I hope your takeaway is that it's not just a matter of how many marines you can kill (a handwaving of "but X! but X! but !"), and that there are other aspects of the game that marines just don't do well. Marines can't screen like my guard can, marines aren't as fast as hormugaunts, and they aren't as numerous as Guardians. So the argument that "X can't kill 5 marines" really isn't a valid argument, because it's only 1 piece of a much larges puzzle.
I play guard, and they are lagging quite a ways behind, mostly because they still have an 8th edition codex, same for hormugaunts and guardians, even knights! Since they haven't been updated to the lethality of 9th yet, the answer isn't rolling back marines (a C-tier codex) to 8th edition standards, to make it a valid comparision, we need to bring those other codexes forward to 9th, and then we can make a comparison.
To make this a valid 9th comparison using your standard, let's ask how many Incubi should it take to kill 5 marines? 5 Incubi kill 6.9 marines. I'd argue that with baseline marines being a C-Tier codex, and people tailor their armies to fight marines, that marines aren't durable enough (remember, i play guard).
Lol, I wasn't agreeing with you but I got your position in the first half. Then you used a hyper optimized unit designed to kill Marines from a very overtuned codex to claim Marines aren't durable enough. A much larger puzzle, indeed.
Well, lets see. . .
In 2nd edition Hormagaunts had a WS4 and 2S4 attacks. For translation, they had the same WS as a Marine, the same S as a Marine, but twice the attacks. It's a little tricky to calculate CC results for 2nd ed, but the Hormagaunts had a slight advantage with the 2 attacks. The Space Marine had nice armor though, so I'd estimate 2-3 Hormagaunts to really take a Space Marine down.
By 4th edition, Hormagaunts had dropped to S3, but still had WS4+ (equal to a Space Marine). On the charge they got a bonus attack, for 3 total. It took about 6 Hormagaunts on a charge.
By 8th edition, Hormagaunts WS has dropped to less than a Space Marine, but CC works differently. No extra attacks are awarded for charging anymore. It took 9 Hormagaunts to kill a Marine in CC.
9th ediiton, Space Marines are 2W. It takes 18 Hormagaunts to kill a Space Marine.
So we've gone from 2-3, all the way to 18 Hormagaunts to kill a Marine, and people are just cheering it on.
the_scotsman wrote: 1 - you could increase their strength to 4 if you wanted and that would not increase their effectiveness vs knights
Yes, at this point a boost to S4 is pretty much the only lever for increasing effectiveness versus Marines without also increasing effectiveness versus Knights... But simultaneously doubles their effectiveness against T6 and T7, making them better at killing Predators than killing Marines. There's collateral no matter what approach you take, and in part it's because the delta between a Marine's multi-wound/3+ defensive profile and a tank's multi-wound/3+ defensive profile isn't that big. More wounds on tanks would certainly help.
In any case, Hormagaunts needing to move to S4 to effectively combat Marines would be a perfect example of how W2 Marines has contributed to the lethality escalation of the game.
the_scotsman wrote: 2 - removing "38.5" points of one knight from the board...is doing nothing. The knight remains, unscathed and unaffected in damage output. It can even fall back and just act as if your hormagants were not there.
removing 40pts of marines removes 2 marines, and then those that remain may no longer target any of the rest of your stuff.
That's a nonsensical objection. If we're concocting scenarios, maybe those are the last two wounds on the Knight and it goes from still functional to kaput. I could just as easily say that the last two Marines in a squad aren't likely to accomplish much, but any whittling down of a Knight so my Hive Guard and Exocrines can finish the job is helpful. Damage is damage and it all adds up; no list plans to kill a Knight with a single shot from a single weapon.
the_scotsman wrote: I do not agree that marines should be made artificially weaker just to appease the desire for everything in the game to feel like it is equally made of paper.
I never said Marines should 'be made artificially weaker'. I'm saying it's a design issue for the most common defensive profile in the game to be essentially a hard skew that devalues the basic infantry of every other faction. I would rather see Marines be a little more vulnerable to small arms, but less hard-countered by D2 high-volume modest-AP weapons. The issue as it stands is that W2 makes for a key breakpoint where D1 weapons underperform, but multishot D2 weapons blow away 20pt models in one hit (for reference: currently, a heavy bolter does 80% more damage to Tacticals than it did in 4th), and then balancing weapons to be effective against T4/W2/3+ Marines without also being prime anti-vehicle weapons is clearly difficult.
If you're Marines and I'm Guard, a game where I'm playing fluffy light infantry is going to be frustrating for me, and a game where I'm cramming in as many heavy bolters, battle cannons, and plasma guns as I can is going to be frustrating for you. I'd rather meet in the middle. W1 Marines with the old AP system did that better, but with that AP system dead and buried I'm open to alternatives. I agree entirely about rebalancing vehicles, but there's a core optimization issue here with the Marine statline that will continue to produce unsatisfying outcomes until it is addressed.
To be honest hormagaunts have been laughably weak for a while.
GW has tried many times to power them up (BA gave them so many conditional buffs that they can get to AP -5!). It never really worked, but I guess that we can safely assume that GW does not consider the current Hgaunts to be correctly represented. I mean, they punch you as hard as a normal human...
They are one model that I'm 100% sure that will be heavily buffed when the moment arrives.
I have to say the problem of stuff being more efficient at killing vehicles than infantry is because infantry has been upgrade to 2W and 3W or T5 or other stuff in multiple codices but vehicles are still with 10-12 wounds profiles from 8th index. The same goes for 24 wound knights.
But I'll say that 400 points of an imperial knight accomplish much more than 20 intercessors.
Spoletta wrote: To be honest hormagaunts have been laughably weak for a while.
GW has tried many times to power them up (BA gave them so many conditional buffs that they can get to AP -5!). It never really worked, but I guess that we can safely assume that GW does not consider the current Hgaunts to be correctly represented. I mean, they punch you as hard as a normal human...
They are one model that I'm 100% sure that will be heavily buffed when the moment arrives.
Fair enough, but would you like to hazard a guess as to how many Hormagaunts it'll take to kill a Space Marine once the codex comes out? I'd love it if it dropped back to something like 6, which I think is reasonable. But let's see, that would take something like. .
WS 3+, S4, 3 Attacks. A buff to three stats. I'm not going to hold my breath for that. . .
Honestly, I'm just not particularly interested in seeing more updates to marines now that we're so near the end of the tunnel on this two year seemingly endless parade of marines taking up release slots.
Eldar, Guard, Tau, Nids, so many armies are sitting around on what are very nearly unaltered Index 8th statlines. Heck, every codex 'nids monster is still walking around with a statline from when you used to be able to randomly one-shot a vehicle, so a big monster having like 3 WS4+ attacks at like Strength 16 was a quasi-viable setup.
The obsession with re-litigating statlines and core abilities for factions that JUST got updates is getting a little bit frustrating. I get it, GW is now willing to re-look at things in a way that they never were before, its great, but itd be great if it didnt mean we had to sit around for fething 14 marine codex release slots because gw goes "you know what, you're right, W1 2+ IS a better idea after all! Yeah!!"
Meanwhile, Wraithlords can still swing gigantic swords at targets and roll a fething '1' for damage, every nid monster is the same profile, eldar guardians are still nearly identical to guardsmen, tau are clinging desperately to an old mechanic from last edition to be usable, genestealers in the goddamn genestealer army dont get subfaction traits like GW is tryign to discourage you from using them like cultists in the CSM dex.
W1 marines obviously feel like crap. Ask any CSM player. Any of them.
Spoletta wrote: To be honest hormagaunts have been laughably weak for a while.
GW has tried many times to power them up (BA gave them so many conditional buffs that they can get to AP -5!). It never really worked, but I guess that we can safely assume that GW does not consider the current Hgaunts to be correctly represented. I mean, they punch you as hard as a normal human...
They are one model that I'm 100% sure that will be heavily buffed when the moment arrives.
Fair enough, but would you like to hazard a guess as to how many Hormagaunts it'll take to kill a Space Marine once the codex comes out? I'd love it if it dropped back to something like 6, which I think is reasonable. But let's see, that would take something like. .
WS 3+, S4, 3 Attacks. A buff to three stats. I'm not going to hold my breath for that. . .
Nah, just making the scytal +1S -1AP will bring that number to 8, which is reasonable.
the_scotsman wrote: W1 marines obviously feel like crap. Ask any CSM player. Any of them.
There are larger issues at play. I know you know this because you're also one of the voices on the "game is too lethal" subject. 1w Marines worked a lot better when the game was less lethal. More lethality comes from all sorts of places, like weapon proliferation, LOS and cover rules, etc. 1w Marines "feeling like crap" is a symptom of other issues, and just moving Marines to 2w is I nice way to provide excuses for increasing lethality in other areas even more.
Also I played 1W Marines all through 8th and rather enjoyed it.
the_scotsman wrote: Honestly, I'm just not particularly interested in seeing more updates to marines now that we're so near the end of the tunnel on this two year seemingly endless parade of marines taking up release slots.
Indeed. Now that Marines are done, I can't wait to see what new models Dark Eldar get for their new codex after a mere 11 years of waiting.
And Termagants without Talons? 40 to take down a Marine in cc? Still pretty silly imo.
And they also take down 5 marines in shooting with Devourers, while 280 points of marines, while in rapid fire range kill 12 termagants. That's 100 points of dead marines, and only 87 points of dead termagants. Sounds like marines need a buff.
And Termagants without Talons? 40 to take down a Marine in cc? Still pretty silly imo.
And they also take down 5 marines in shooting with Devourers, while 280 points of marines, while in rapid fire range kill 12 termagants. That's 100 points of dead marines, and only 87 points of dead termagants. Sounds like marines need a buff.
When you don't cherry-pick the one Termagant weapon option that was recently and inexplicably reduced in cost, the advantage is back with the Marines. 40 Termagants with Fleshborers kill 3.89 Intercessors for 38.9 points. 10 Intercessors (same cost) in Rapid Fire range kill 8.89 Termagants for 44.5 points. If it's Tacticals, the Termagants kill 35pts and the Tacticals kill 41.1pts without Doctrines, 49.4pts in Tactical Doctrine.
So shooting capability at close range is about a wash, depending on how much you take advantage of weird points changes or not (looking forward to all those Devilgants on eBay), but Termagants get absolutely stomped in melee, and also need Synapse to avoid morale casualties. But most importantly, Marines have a 6"-18" range advantage plus Bolter Discipline, and become twice as hard to kill in cover, so even all-Devourers 'gants get significantly out-shot by Marines. If you do play Guard, you already know how irrelevant a comparison in the open and within Rapid Fire range is.
I mean, this is all kind of a dumb comparison because the purpose of Termagants, unlike Hormagaunts, is not to act as direct combatants, but needing 40 basic troops models to inflict a single casualty is outright ridiculous. That's an average of just under 70 dice rolled to remove a single model from the tabletop.
fraser1191 wrote: For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.
I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.
I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.
I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)
Exchange Lasguns for Hormagaunts. Hormagaunts cannot give their Sergeant a Powerfist, or purchase a Plasms gun. How many Hormagaunts should it take to down a Marine? How many Shuriken Catapult shots?
How many should it take? Then balance the points by the extra movement of Hormagaunts, the cheapness for screening, the ignoring morale when in synapse range, and effectiveness against non-MEQ... And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!
He's right, it's not easy there's a lot of variables.
I don't think the game can be truly balanced under the current system but I do think it can be closer.
I don't think a hormagaunt should 1v1 a marine (I do think it should probably be S4 at least on the charge). But I do think that they should swarm one and take it out, how many is up for debate.
Shuriken catapult or the avenger? The avenger should be better hands down and I think people just want DAs to be better too and I don't blame them for it
And Termagants without Talons? 40 to take down a Marine in cc? Still pretty silly imo.
And they also take down 5 marines in shooting with Devourers, while 280 points of marines, while in rapid fire range kill 12 termagants. That's 100 points of dead marines, and only 87 points of dead termagants. Sounds like marines need a buff.
Points have nothing to do with my perspective here. My question is, regardless of points, does it feel right to require 40 S3 attacks from a variety of sources? Guardsman, Termagants, whatever. It feels crazy to me, especially considering the balance between the same units in earlier editions.
If a player maneuvers a particular unit to attack Marines in the most favorable way, are they rewarded with some kills or just a big FU?
the_scotsman wrote: W1 marines obviously feel like crap. Ask any CSM player. Any of them.
There are larger issues at play. I know you know this because you're also one of the voices on the "game is too lethal" subject. 1w Marines worked a lot better when the game was less lethal. More lethality comes from all sorts of places, like weapon proliferation, LOS and cover rules, etc. 1w Marines "feeling like crap" is a symptom of other issues, and just moving Marines to 2w is I nice way to provide excuses for increasing lethality in other areas even more.
Also I played 1W Marines all through 8th and rather enjoyed it.
Chaos has been doing everything it can to avoid using Marines to the point where GW had to keep nerfing cultists. You can say all you like about enjoying it, but it's obvious how things work.
Even before 8th edition CSM has been trying to use anything but CSM with cult troops or otherwise.
the_scotsman wrote: W1 marines obviously feel like crap. Ask any CSM player. Any of them.
There are larger issues at play. I know you know this because you're also one of the voices on the "game is too lethal" subject. 1w Marines worked a lot better when the game was less lethal. More lethality comes from all sorts of places, like weapon proliferation, LOS and cover rules, etc. 1w Marines "feeling like crap" is a symptom of other issues, and just moving Marines to 2w is I nice way to provide excuses for increasing lethality in other areas even more.
Also I played 1W Marines all through 8th and rather enjoyed it.
Chaos has been doing everything it can to avoid using Marines to the point where GW had to keep nerfing cultists. You can say all you like about enjoying it, but it's obvious how things work.
Even before 8th edition CSM has been trying to use anything but CSM with cult troops or otherwise.
Yeah yeah, and in many editions people have avoided using Tacticals, I get that too. But I dont fault 1W Marines. Imo the blame lies elsewhere (such as the ballooning of lethality, particularly ranged lethality). But moving Marines to 2W A: doesn't solve the other problems, and B: causes some new ones.
When you don't cherry-pick the one Termagant weapon option that was recently and inexplicably reduced in cost, the advantage is back with the Marines. 40 Termagants with Fleshborers kill 3.89 Intercessors for 38.9 points. 10 Intercessors (same cost) in Rapid Fire range kill 8.89 Termagants for 44.5 points. If it's Tacticals, the Termagants kill 35pts and the Tacticals kill 41.1pts without Doctrines, 49.4pts in Tactical Doctrine.
Funny thing is that's exactly what you're argument is. You're taking a shooting unit (termagants), and complaining that their melee isn't up to par.
For example, 40 Termagants with Fleshborers kill 3.89 Assault Intercessors for 38.9 points. 10 Assault Intercessors with a PF (same cost) in shooting kill ~4.5 Termagants for ~22.5 points. That would lead to the conclusion that marines need a serious buff.
But the reality is doing what a unit is not designed to do makes it highly inefficient, and thus an invalid comparison. So I'd argue that we'd have to ignore Guard, termagants, hormugants, guardians, etc. in the comparison unless they are armed for their particular targets.
So, using shooting termagants with devourers against shooting intercessors, that's a valid comparision, and turns out to be quite balanced. But even using hormugants against assault intercessors isn't really a valid comparision, because we'd have to factor in the utility and speed of hormugants.
When you don't cherry-pick the one Termagant weapon option that was recently and inexplicably reduced in cost, the advantage is back with the Marines. 40 Termagants with Fleshborers kill 3.89 Intercessors for 38.9 points. 10 Intercessors (same cost) in Rapid Fire range kill 8.89 Termagants for 44.5 points. If it's Tacticals, the Termagants kill 35pts and the Tacticals kill 41.1pts without Doctrines, 49.4pts in Tactical Doctrine.
Funny thing is that's exactly what you're argument is. You're taking a shooting unit (termagants), and complaining that their melee isn't up to par.
For example, 40 Termagants with Fleshborers kill 3.89 Assault Intercessors for 38.9 points. 10 Assault Intercessors with a PF (same cost) in shooting kill ~4.5 Termagants for ~22.5 points. That would lead to the conclusion that marines need a serious buff.
But the reality is doing what a unit is not designed to do makes it highly inefficient, and thus an invalid comparison. So I'd argue that we'd have to ignore Guard, termagants, hormugants, guardians, etc. in the comparison unless they are armed for their particular targets.
That's the wrong tack to take.
Assault is a critical part of the game. It's one of the basic actions that all units are able to take. It's also something that we can understand from an emotional perspective. The heroic Guardsmen fixing bayonets to assault a couple Marines in a key position, who are taking cover out of line of sight to avoid the heavy weapons aimed at their position. The Guardsmen know it's going to be grim, they're facing Marines after all, but they've got to drive them out of that building and they have no other choice. . .
But if it takes 40 friggin Guardsmen to kill a Marine in CC, you've just taken the option of Assault right off the table for that unit, really. You're just removing tactical choices for the player at that point. In the past, because Guardsmen (and everybody) gained an extra attack on the charge, Guardsmen had 4X the killing power on the charge against Marines, making Assault at least an option in some circumstances. In 8th that dropped to 2X, since there's no longer a bonus attack for charging. With 2W Marines, this Guardsmen assault against a fortified position just doesn't even look like a valuable or play-rewarding option anymore, only useful for aggressively blobbing Objectives, and possibly just having those Marines slowly kill you.
Heck Marines assaulting Marines starts to look like an extended slap-fest. 10 Marines charging only kills a single Marine.
Edit: Not to mention the former editions including more tension around who charges first. If the Marines are the ones who initiated Assault in pre-8th, the Guardsmen could have a really bad day.
brainpsyk wrote: So, using shooting termagants with devourers against shooting intercessors, that's a valid comparision, and turns out to be quite balanced. But even using hormugants against assault intercessors isn't really a valid comparision, because we'd have to factor in the utility and speed of hormugants.
You might want to factor in the utility of. . . oh you know, the Intercessors guns and grenades too?
When you don't cherry-pick the one Termagant weapon option that was recently and inexplicably reduced in cost, the advantage is back with the Marines. 40 Termagants with Fleshborers kill 3.89 Intercessors for 38.9 points. 10 Intercessors (same cost) in Rapid Fire range kill 8.89 Termagants for 44.5 points. If it's Tacticals, the Termagants kill 35pts and the Tacticals kill 41.1pts without Doctrines, 49.4pts in Tactical Doctrine.
Funny thing is that's exactly what you're argument is. You're taking a shooting unit (termagants), and complaining that their melee isn't up to par.
Except that the Marines also outshoot the termagants (especially when you factor in that they'll get at least one full round of shooting before the gaunts are even within range).
the_scotsman wrote: W1 marines obviously feel like crap. Ask any CSM player. Any of them.
There are larger issues at play. I know you know this because you're also one of the voices on the "game is too lethal" subject. 1w Marines worked a lot better when the game was less lethal. More lethality comes from all sorts of places, like weapon proliferation, LOS and cover rules, etc. 1w Marines "feeling like crap" is a symptom of other issues, and just moving Marines to 2w is I nice way to provide excuses for increasing lethality in other areas even more.
Also I played 1W Marines all through 8th and rather enjoyed it.
Chaos has been doing everything it can to avoid using Marines to the point where GW had to keep nerfing cultists. You can say all you like about enjoying it, but it's obvious how things work.
Even before 8th edition CSM has been trying to use anything but CSM with cult troops or otherwise.
Yeah yeah, and in many editions people have avoided using Tacticals, I get that too. But I dont fault 1W Marines. Imo the blame lies elsewhere (such as the ballooning of lethality, particularly ranged lethality). But moving Marines to 2W A: doesn't solve the other problems, and B: causes some new ones.
I mentioned before 8th as well. In 4th and 5th they took Plague Marines instead. In 3.5 they had a different kettle of fish due to how CSM worked at the time with marking. You can deny all you want but it's something to note.
Erm, at this point, the ship has sailed. Two very practical reasons this won't happen.
1) They will need to reprint tons of marine supplements and stuff to reflect the 1W change. They are not going to do that short of a new edition.
2) Players always hate nerfs and love buffs. Space marines are the most common played faction. They do Not want to piss off such a big percentage of their player base by doing this.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Erm, at this point, the ship has sailed. Two very practical reasons this won't happen.
1) They will need to reprint tons of marine supplements and stuff to reflect the 1W change. They are not going to do that short of a new edition.
2) Players always hate nerfs and love buffs. Space marines are the most common played faction. They do Not want to piss off such a big percentage of their player base by doing this.
I feel like most people wouldn't be mad if it was done right.....
the_scotsman wrote: W1 marines obviously feel like crap. Ask any CSM player. Any of them.
There are larger issues at play. I know you know this because you're also one of the voices on the "game is too lethal" subject. 1w Marines worked a lot better when the game was less lethal. More lethality comes from all sorts of places, like weapon proliferation, LOS and cover rules, etc. 1w Marines "feeling like crap" is a symptom of other issues, and just moving Marines to 2w is I nice way to provide excuses for increasing lethality in other areas even more.
Also I played 1W Marines all through 8th and rather enjoyed it.
I did as well and I hated it.
My friend played DE and made questionable list building choices such as blast pistols on all his sybarites including the one in the 15 man blob he kept at the back field doing nothing the entire match plus a splinter cannon also doing nothing.
He could table me without even trying. He could just bring a random Mish mash of units and gear and generally trounce me.
This made me rely on Primaris for marine games but even that wasn't that good either. Admech has been a good shoulder to cry on though.
My friend played DE and made questionable list building choices such as blast pistols on all his sybarites including the one in the 15 man blob he kept at the back field doing nothing the entire match plus a splinter cannon also doing nothing.
He could table me without even trying. He could just bring a random Mish mash of units and gear and generally trounce me.
This made me rely on Primaris for marine games but even that wasn't that good either. Admech has been a good shoulder to cry on though.
If 2W Primaris wasn't fixing the issues you were having, maybe the problems lay somewhere else? That's part of my overall push. There are greater issues at play and 2W SM isn't going to solve them. It may in fact just make it worse as units compensate for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I mentioned before 8th as well. In 4th and 5th they took Plague Marines instead. In 3.5 they had a different kettle of fish due to how CSM worked at the time with marking. You can deny all you want but it's something to note.
I'm pretty sure most chaos players haven't liked any codex since 3.5, lol.
For editions 5-8 I blame crappy LOS rules and high-AP weapon proliferation for 1w marine problems.
In addition, for editions 5-7 I blame the increased uselesness of weapons like Lascannons. For chaos in particular, since loyalists got Grav Cannons which helped prop them up.
As a chaos player I sort of liked the legions supplement that came at the end of 7th edition... does that count as a codex? I feel like it’s a rough equivalent of the latest loyalist update. It didn’t have grav or anything but... free marks of chaos and interesting formations! Including decurions that made larger scale games more even.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yeah Khorne daemonkin looked pretty fun actually.
macluvin wrote: As a chaos player I sort of liked the legions supplement that came at the end of 7th edition... does that count as a codex? I feel like it’s a rough equivalent of the latest loyalist update. It didn’t have grav or anything but... free marks of chaos and interesting formations! Including decurions that made larger scale games more even.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yeah Khorne daemonkin looked pretty fun actually.
Yeah I played Black Legion out of that one I think. It's a bit of a blur as to what formations I used though.
I think a lot of the Formations across 7th were really neat at least in theory. Just occasionally horrid execution, and combined with 7ths other offences I've sorta culled much of it from memory.
When you don't cherry-pick the one Termagant weapon option that was recently and inexplicably reduced in cost, the advantage is back with the Marines. 40 Termagants with Fleshborers kill 3.89 Intercessors for 38.9 points. 10 Intercessors (same cost) in Rapid Fire range kill 8.89 Termagants for 44.5 points. If it's Tacticals, the Termagants kill 35pts and the Tacticals kill 41.1pts without Doctrines, 49.4pts in Tactical Doctrine.
Funny thing is that's exactly what you're argument is. You're taking a shooting unit (termagants), and complaining that their melee isn't up to par.
Except that the Marines also outshoot the termagants (especially when you factor in that they'll get at least one full round of shooting before the gaunts are even within range).
The termagants seem to be running out of options.
uhhh.... what? Do you even play bugs? I'm going to take back what I said about not including termagants, as I forgot to include their recent buffs in Warzone Octarius to an S-Tier army (or at least A+)
30 termagaunts with Fleshborers is 150 points. For 1 CP you can do Bio-adapted borer grubs which is MWs on 6s, then for 2CP do "Single minded Annihilation" (shoot twice), that's 60 shots, 6 MWs (because of the cap), then they do 5 normal wounds from shooting. That's 11 wounds and 5.5 (110 points) of dead marines. 150 points of Intercessors only kills 37.5 points of termagants, with 2CP they can shoot twice for that's 75 points, so basic Intercessor shooting needs a SERIOUS buff, or a buff to durability
And I can discount melee for a shooting unit, just like I can discount psychic and shooting for a melee unit, and shooting for a melee unit as that's not the phase the unit is designed to be effective in. Not everything is going to be as effective as everything else in every phase of the game. Otherwise my LRBTs are gonna need some psychic powers, and some swords for all the incubi, bladeguard & genestealers they're going to be dueling with in HtH!
^Intercessors also have access to Strats. But Strats aren't native abilities to a unit, require additional resources, and can only affect one unit at a tim. They're really best left out of the discussion, imo.
When you don't cherry-pick the one Termagant weapon option that was recently and inexplicably reduced in cost, the advantage is back with the Marines. 40 Termagants with Fleshborers kill 3.89 Intercessors for 38.9 points. 10 Intercessors (same cost) in Rapid Fire range kill 8.89 Termagants for 44.5 points. If it's Tacticals, the Termagants kill 35pts and the Tacticals kill 41.1pts without Doctrines, 49.4pts in Tactical Doctrine.
Funny thing is that's exactly what you're argument is. You're taking a shooting unit (termagants), and complaining that their melee isn't up to par.
Except that the Marines also outshoot the termagants (especially when you factor in that they'll get at least one full round of shooting before the gaunts are even within range).
The termagants seem to be running out of options.
uhhh.... what? Do you even play bugs? I'm going to take back what I said about not including termagants, as I forgot to include their recent buffs in Warzone Octarius to an S-Tier army (or at least A+)
30 termagaunts with Fleshborers is 150 points. For 1 CP you can do Bio-adapted borer grubs which is MWs on 6s, then for 2CP do "Single minded Annihilation" (shoot twice), that's 60 shots, 6 MWs (because of the cap), then they do 5 normal wounds from shooting. That's 11 wounds and 5.5 (110 points) of dead marines. 150 points of Intercessors only kills 37.5 points of termagants, with 2CP they can shoot twice for that's 75 points, so basic Intercessor shooting needs a SERIOUS buff, or a buff to durability
And I can discount melee for a shooting unit, just like I can discount psychic and shooting for a melee unit, and shooting for a melee unit as that's not the phase the unit is designed to be effective in. Not everything is going to be as effective as everything else in every phase of the game. Otherwise my LRBTs are gonna need some psychic powers, and some swords for all the incubi, bladeguard & genestealers they're going to be dueling with in HtH!
Lol, do you play Nids? Look at this joker, burning SMA on Fleshborer Termagants. And guess what, Intercessors can shoot twice too!
Lol, do you play Nids? Look at this joker, burning SMA on Fleshborer Termagants. And guess what, Intercessors can shoot twice too!
If you'll notice, I included the strat on the intercessors...
Furthermore, the players who aren't burning strats when it's tactically advantageous shouldn't be crying about needing to nerf a C-Tier army (marines) with an S-tier army (Nids). There's an entire skill factor that needs to be addressed by those not-using-strats-in-a-S-tier-faction players first.
But let me upskill those players for a sec. They spend the 3 CP to wipe the MSU unit of marines that is the backup to the unit sitting on the objective. Then you charge the 5 marines on the objective, wrap them so they can't go anywhere with those 30 gaunts so the marines can't escape, now the bugs just camp the objective, pretty much immune to return fire (due to being in melee) & morale (synapse) since the marines can't kill them off fast enough, or have to commit serious units to clearing the objective, leaving the marines with a lot exposed to Hive Guard and other bug shooting. That 30-gaunt squad just punched waaaayyyyyy above it's weight class with shooting, screening, camping and morale.
That's not even an optimal scenario, that's just mid-board control. Those 30 gaunts can also move block the opponent (not just marines) in their backfield with advance & shoot, and bubble wrap an objective with a TON of ObSec bodies that's really hard to shift. That's a LOT for 150 points.
brainpsyk wrote: . . . a TON of ObSec bodies that's really hard to shift. That's a LOT for 150 points.
10 Intercessors with Assault Bolters then charging averages 22 Gant kills without any buffs. 10 Assault Intercessors does the same. A Chapter master buff requiring no CP brings it to 30.
Im not even calculating for any Doctrines, btw.
Sternguard with Storm Bolters kill 30 just using the passive Captain buff.
brainpsyk wrote: . . . a TON of ObSec bodies that's really hard to shift. That's a LOT for 150 points.
10 Intercessors with Assault Bolters then charging averages 22 Gant kills without any buffs. 10 Assault Intercessors does the same. A Chapter master buff requiring no CP brings it to 30.
Im not even calculating for any Doctrines, btw.
Sternguard with Storm Bolters kill 30 just using the passive Captain buff.
Yep, and those 10 intercessors are 200 points, plus another ~100 for the Captain you're including, while the gaunts are still 150, and there is still 8 ObSec bodies on the point after the Intercessors are done. So it's 300+ points of marines to kill 150 points of gaunts, while its 150 points of gaunts to kill 110 points of marines. The gaunts are getting 67% efficiency, while the marines are only getting 50%.
Assault Bolters we can exclude becuase A-some have argued to exclude Devourers, and B-Bolt Rifles are better with the -1 AP, so doctrines against Gaunts doesn't even matter.
Also sternguard comparatively suck, and the termagants will wipe that 115 point unit off the board as fast as they will wipe out the intercessors, so that's an even more expensive unit the gaunts just killed, not to mention the cost of the captain, and the gaunt's greater mobility, move blocking and ObSec. But if you want to include Sternguard, let's include Hive Guard (one of the best units in the game) to compare Elites to Elites.
Yep, Marines need a buff, and your data even backs that up.
brainpsyk wrote: . . . a TON of ObSec bodies that's really hard to shift. That's a LOT for 150 points.
10 Intercessors with Assault Bolters then charging averages 22 Gant kills without any buffs. 10 Assault Intercessors does the same. A Chapter master buff requiring no CP brings it to 30.
Im not even calculating for any Doctrines, btw.
Sternguard with Storm Bolters kill 30 just using the passive Captain buff.
Yep, and those 10 intercessors are 200 points, plus another ~100 for the Captain you're including, while the gaunts are still 150, and there is still 8 ObSec bodies on the point after the Intercessors are done. So it's 300+ points of marines to kill 150 points of gaunts, while its 150 points of gaunts to kill 110 points of marines. The gaunts are getting 67% efficiency, while the marines are only getting 50%.
Assault Bolters we can exclude becuase A-some have argued to exclude Devourers, and B-Bolt Rifles are better with the -1 AP, so doctrines against Gaunts doesn't even matter.
Also sternguard comparatively suck, and the termagants will wipe that 115 point unit off the board as fast as they will wipe out the intercessors, so that's an even more expensive unit the gaunts just killed, not to mention the cost of the captain, and the gaunt's greater mobility, move blocking and ObSec. But if you want to include Sternguard, let's include Hive Guard (one of the best units in the game) to compare Elites to Elites.
Yep, Marines need a buff, and your data even backs that up.
So your argument is unit A is more point efficient than unit B when you spend a bunch of CP on unit A. Okaaay. . .
After assaulting, the Intercessors (without Captain bonus) now outnumber the Termagants, so objective goes to Marines.
Unbuffed, Fleshborer gants kill a whopping 2 Marines if they both fire and charge, for 40 points if we're talking Intercessors.
Unbuffed, Intercessors (Assault or with Assault Bolter) kill 22 Gants for 110 points doing the same.
Sternguard are bad how? They're basically Intercessors with an even better gun that can ride in cheaper transports.
Your post makes no sense.
Edit-Bonus: The same Assault Intercessor Squad does 10.7 wounds to another Intercessor squad on the charge, unbuffed, pre-doctrines. More than twice what the Termagants muster.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I mentioned before 8th as well. In 4th and 5th they took Plague Marines instead. In 3.5 they had a different kettle of fish due to how CSM worked at the time with marking. You can deny all you want but it's something to note.
I'm pretty sure most chaos players haven't liked any codex since 3.5, lol.
Nope. At least those of us that played with 3.5. Everything afterwards has been a pale reflection.
Starting with the 4th edition CSM codex CSM went from an army that could be, if you spent the points, made up of nothing but veteran marines, basically "Marines +1", to "Marines -1" in the 4th edition CSM codex and every other codex afterwards. You want to talk about units that have been devalued compared to their loyalist counterparts? In 3.5, Raptors were 29 PPM bare (with Veteran Skills mine were typically 34 PPM), Assault Marines were 22 PPM in the loyalist 4th edition codex. Now? Assault Marines: 20 PPM, Raptors: 15 PPM.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I mentioned before 8th as well. In 4th and 5th they took Plague Marines instead. In 3.5 they had a different kettle of fish due to how CSM worked at the time with marking. You can deny all you want but it's something to note.
I'm pretty sure most chaos players haven't liked any codex since 3.5, lol.
Nope. At least those of us that played with 3.5. Everything afterwards has been a pale reflection.
Starting with the 4th edition CSM codex CSM went from an army that could be, if you spent the points, made up of nothing but veteran marines, basically "Marines +1", to "Marines -1" in the 4th edition CSM codex and every other codex afterwards. You want to talk about units that have been devalued compared to their loyalist counterparts? In 3.5, Raptors were 29 PPM bare (with Veteran Skills mine were typically 34 PPM), Assault Marines were 22 PPM in the loyalist 4th edition codex. Now? Assault Marines: 20 PPM, Raptors: 15 PPM.
Was that late 4th codex also the point when the daemons were stripped out into their own book?
I think the only good thing about that era of codex was the re-giving all Marines (CSM and Loyalists) Bolt Pistols, Frag and Krak as standard equipment. Loyalists regained Combat Squads, which was great, but not Chaos obviously.
^^^^Yup. Also no more Veteran Skills, Daemonic Gifts, Raptors lost Hit and Run, etc, etc. And CSM haven't gotten any of that back. We don't even get +1 Ld compared to loyalists anymore.
brainpsyk wrote: Funny thing is that's exactly what you're argument is. You're taking a shooting unit (termagants), and complaining that their melee isn't up to par.
No, I'm not. They're not a shooting unit. They're a utility unit that is supposed to be slightly more weighted towards shooting than melee.
brainpsyk wrote: So, using shooting termagants with devourers against shooting intercessors, that's a valid comparision, and turns out to be quite balanced.
Did you completely miss where they're at rough parity in ranged raw damage against Intercessors, but have a 12" range deficit, get stomped in melee, and lose at shooting when cover is involved?
You don't play 'Nids so maybe you don't know, but even Devilgants lose outright in any realistic scenario against Marines. They get out-ranged to start with, Bolter Discipline takes a toll, and if any cover is involved it's a totally one-sided fight. You take Devilgants en masse to abuse stratagems and deep strike, and you otherwise take Termagants solely to hold objectives and screen out deep strike. As combatants, they're not great.
brainpsyk wrote: But even using hormugants against assault intercessors isn't really a valid comparision, because we'd have to factor in the utility and speed of hormugants.
You know Hormagaunts only get an 8" move, right? That 'utility and speed' largely boils down to their 6" pile-in and consolidate, which isn't useful if that just makes you lose the ensuing melee faster. Don't take my word for it; look at how many Tyranid lists actually take Hormagaunts in any number.
There was a time when Hormagaunts were a credible melee threat, but in a reality where most lists you face will lose only a model or two to a full-size squad of Hormagaunts, it just doesn't pan out. Their lethality hasn't kept up with Marine resilience and their 'utility and speed' plus a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ^^^^Yup. Also no more Veteran Skills, Daemonic Gifts, Raptors lost Hit and Run, etc, etc. And CSM haven't gotten any of that back. We don't even get +1 Ld compared to loyalists anymore.
My question is, could GW learn anything about making marines unique and scale back their encroachment upon other faction design space, from the Horus heresy? Could we use Horus heresy units like special weapons squads and highly customizeable veteran squads as inspiration for 40k loyalist and traitor units? Clearly, we’ve crossed the point of no return there, but would being able to take dirt cheap bolter boys or paying a premium for the privilege of loading the whole squad with plasma or flamers be beneficial?
No, I'm not. They're not a shooting unit. They're a utility unit that is supposed to be slightly more weighted towards shooting than melee.
Did you completely miss where they're at rough parity in ranged raw damage against Intercessors, but have a 12" range deficit, get stomped in melee, and lose at shooting when cover is involved?
You don't play 'Nids so maybe you don't know, but even Devilgants lose outright in any realistic scenario against Marines. They get out-ranged to start with, Bolter Discipline takes a toll, and if any cover is involved it's a totally one-sided fight. You take Devilgants en masse to abuse stratagems and deep strike, and you otherwise take Termagants solely to hold objectives and screen out deep strike. As combatants, they're not great.
You know Hormagaunts only get an 8" move, right? That 'utility and speed' largely boils down to their 6" pile-in and consolidate, which isn't useful if that just makes you lose the ensuing melee faster. Don't take my word for it; look at how many Tyranid lists actually take Hormagaunts in any number.
1 - If termagants are purely a utility unit, then the comparison of Termagants to Intercessors is a mute point, as they serve different purposes
2 - However, A unit with an Assault 3 weapon isn't a shooting unit? In that case, what are intercessors? They only have a rapid fire 1 weapon... And Termagants can advance and shoot, marines can't. So a non-shooting unit is out-shooting a shooting unit? Marines need a buff.
"As combatants, they're not great." Ding! Ding! Yep, they're a shooting & screening unit & utility & deep striking unit. So let's drop the whole argument that termagants suck because they don't melee.
You do know that marines only have a 6" move, right? 8" is 33% faster...
Insectum7 wrote: So your argument is unit A is more point efficient than unit B when you spend a bunch of CP on unit A. Okaaay. . .
After assaulting, the Intercessors (without Captain bonus) now outnumber the Termagants, so objective goes to Marines.
Unbuffed, Fleshborer gants kill a whopping 2 Marines if they both fire and charge, for 40 points if we're talking Intercessors.
Unbuffed, Intercessors (Assault or with Assault Bolter) kill 22 Gants for 110 points doing the same.
Sternguard are bad how? They're basically Intercessors with an even better gun that can ride in cheaper transports.
Your post makes no sense.
Edit-Bonus: The same Assault Intercessor Squad does 10.7 wounds to another Intercessor squad on the charge, unbuffed, pre-doctrines. More than twice what the Termagants muster.
Uhhh... you're going off 10 intercessors, which is 33% more points than the Termagants,
Yes I include strats, because they are a core mechanic of the game (your words!) After spending 3 CP on the termagants you think there are 5 intercessors left? 150 points is 30 termagants or 7 Intercessors. After shooting and the charge, there is ONE intercessor left, 30 > 1. Now 7 intercessors using assault bolters shooting twice kills 18.5 termagants. 11.5 termagants > 7 intercessors, termangants hold the objective marker in both cases
And I said Sternguard COMPARATIVELY suck (do you even read bro?) Sternguard take an elite slot, which is better served with Aggressors, Bladeguard, a Judiciar, Dreadnoughts and Vanguard Vets.
So let's start over @140 points - that's 20 gaunts with Devourers & 7 Intercessors. 20 gaunts kill 3 marines in shooting and hth, for about 50 points of damage. The intercessors do 10.7 wounds to the gaunts, for about 75 points, so the marines have the advantage in kills, but in both cases the gaunts still hold the point, the gaunts have better movement with their assault weapons, the gaunts can still screen, and are a better utility pick. So in raw killing power, Intercessors have the advantage, but as catbarf says about termagants:
So the worst case scenario for termangants is they out-perform marines in utility (since termagants aren't a shooting unit, but will still hold the objective over the marines), but in the best-case scenario termagants, who aren't a shooting unit, out-shoot marines!
@brainpsyk, go back to the beginning where I first responded. (do you even read bro?)
brainpsyk wrote: . . . bubble wrap an objective with a TON of ObSec bodies that's really hard to shift.
I provided a basic Marine unit that took the objective back without any buffs. 10 Assault Intercessors clear enough Gants to hold the objective without any buffs, CP, doctrines, etc. Just shoot and charge.
As for 150 points of Marines vs. 150 points of Fleshborer Gants, you have the Gants spending 3 CP and knocking the Intercessors down to 1 model. Okay. . .
The 7 Assault Intercessors throw one Frag Grenade, shoot with 6 pistols, charge, then spend 2 CP to fight again and wipe out the Gants. Win - Intercessors, and there are more buffs yet to give from Doctrines or Auras if required.
7 Intercessors with Assault Bolters Firing twice and charging does 23.5 kills , although that's pre-doctrine so lets say 26.7. In fact I'll put another Strat (to match your 3CP) for Scions of Guilliman, and that clears the squad at 29.8 kills.
. . .
brainpsyk wrote: So let's start over @140 points - that's 20 gaunts with Devourers & 7 Intercessors. 20 gaunts kill 3 marines in shooting and hth, for about 50 points of damage. The intercessors do 10.7 wounds to the gaunts, for about 75 points,
Intercessors with Assault Bolters kill 15.8 after shooting and charging. With doctrine it's 17.4. Bolt rifle Intercessors do 14.3.
Assault Intercessors do 16.9, shooting and charging.
The Gants don't even do half damage to the Intercessors, while the Intercessors knock the Termagants to down to 15-25% depending on loadout.
And I said Sternguard COMPARATIVELY suck (do you even read bro?) Sternguard take an elite slot, which is better served with Aggressors, Bladeguard, a Judiciar, Dreadnoughts and Vanguard Vets.
I'll bring the units I want to bring. Sternguard cost the same an Intercessors, have the same stats, start with a better gun and have more squad and transport options.
2W marines are a bonehead move by GW. Nothing else was to be expected from the sales team. So no big surprise.
Better solution:
Print universal perks attributed to power armour and terminator armour in the next rulebook. This would mean everybody wearing such an armour or an equivalent (e.g: aspect warriors, meganobs, etc.) would gain the advantage.
Just giving SM 2W leaves a bad taste in the mouth but poster boys apparently need every imaginable boost or else Little Timmy won´t buy any UM anymore and GeeDubbs goes banktrupt as a result of that.
2W marines are a bonehead move by GW. Nothing else was to be expected from the sales team. So no big surprise.
Better solution:
Print universal perks attributed to power armour and terminator armour in the next rulebook. This would mean everybody wearing such an armour or an equivalent (e.g: aspect warriors, meganobs, etc.) would gain the advantage.
Just giving SM 2W leaves a bad taste in the mouth but poster boys apparently need every imaginable boost or else Little Timmy won´t buy any UM anymore and GeeDubbs goes banktrupt as a result of that.
Battle sisters gaining their 2nd wound just because they wear a power armour would feel way more wrong than 2W marines. Heavy armour equivalents already provide +1W, pretty much for everyone, including meganobz.
2W is an not an imaginable boost, SM are not dominating because of that. It reminds me of orks getting +1T, which can be considered a massive armywide buff, while in practise most of the top ork lists bring very little T5 bodies, some even none at all.
7 Intercessors with Assault Bolters Firing twice and charging does 23.5 kills , although that's pre-doctrine so lets say 26.7. In fact I'll put another Strat (to match your 3CP) for Scions of Guilliman, and that clears the squad at 29.8 kills.
Oh look, they're still about even! Sounds like Marines still need a buff since Bugs are an S-tier faction and Marines a C-Tier faction, and a C-Tier faction does not need not a drop in durability, especially since one of the weakest units in that S-Tier faction keeps up with a main-line faction in a C-Tier codex.
Insectum7 wrote: I'll bring the units I want to bring. Sternguard cost the same an Intercessors, have the same stats, start with a better gun and have more squad and transport options.
Yep, players should bring the units they want to bring. They just need to stop complaining about the units they choose to bring, and especially stop complaining about how a unit doesn't perform in a role it's not designed to do!
2W is an not an imaginable boost, SM are not dominating because of that. It reminds me of orks getting +1T, which can be considered a massive armywide buff, while in practise most of the top ork lists bring very little T5 bodies, some even none at all.
Totally agree here. One of the biggest things (IMHO) holding back prior editions was that everything had 1W, so durability had to be ridiculous to have any effect at all. IIRC back in 3rd edition, a 1W marine was barely better than a regular guardsman, despite being 50% higher cost. I think going to 2W marines is the start, as it opens the door to 3W terminators, but also (in 10th and beyond), 3W marines, T5 2W Orks and leaving the weakest units, like Conscripts, at 1W, but also allows 1W T4 gaunts, T3 2W Incubi, etc. It literally opens up a whole new design space to take the game. GW tends to dip their toe in an idea, and if it works then go all-in with the next edition.
The funny thing is, as GW plays with varied T and W, lethality of the game will get toned down, and there will be greater difference between units.
7 Intercessors with Assault Bolters Firing twice and charging does 23.5 kills , although that's pre-doctrine so lets say 26.7. In fact I'll put another Strat (to match your 3CP) for Scions of Guilliman, and that clears the squad at 29.8 kills.
Oh look, they're still about even! Sounds like Marines still need a buff since Bugs are an S-tier faction and Marines a C-Tier faction, and a C-Tier faction does not need not a drop in durability, especially since one of the weakest units in that S-Tier faction keeps up with a main-line faction in a C-Tier codex.
I don't know what this "C-tier" blabber is all about, but it sounds like gobledygook.
Unbuffed, no strats, 150 points of Fleshborer gants kills 2 Marines for a 40 point return. Shoot and Assault.
Unbuffed, Assault Intercessors manage 17 kills for an 85 point return. Against other Intercessors, they manage 7.5 wounds for a 75 point return. In Assault Doctrine it's 9.5 for a 95 point return.
If you're trying to make an argument that marines should be further buffed you're deranged.
Insectum7 wrote: I'll bring the units I want to bring. Sternguard cost the same an Intercessors, have the same stats, start with a better gun and have more squad and transport options.
Yep, players should bring the units they want to bring. They just need to stop complaining about the units they choose to bring, and especially stop complaining about how a unit doesn't perform in a role it's not designed to do!
I do believe you're missing a vital component.
Actual point-for-point balance doesn't illustrate the issue. My problem is that on an individual level, numerous models have dropped in value in comparison to Marines, continuously. In prior editions it would only take x number of models to kill a marine, and now it's quite a bit more. Many non-marine units have instead undergone a degradation. See Hormagaunts (up the thread) for a very clear example. It once took 3 Hormagaunts to kill a Marine. Now its about 18.
Rolling back would be a nice move.
On the one hand, GW gave us smaller board size for speeding up the game.
On the other hand, the game is protracted by Marines with 2W.
Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
T3 with 2 wounds? They are just humans with extra organs after all.
I reckon if they're going to go for a paradigm of using wounds to differentiate between different units, they'd be well served reducing the game size down to a couple of squads, a couple of heroes and a vehicle or two. The sort of size Warmachine used to be played at during Mk2. That was a game that used damage well, but it got unwieldy at bigger game sizes tracking all the damage on your units and so on.
Warhammer has taken a lot of stuff from Warmachine over the past while, having a similar game size would make sense. It would also help with the shrunken battlefields.
As for "marines have extra organs", I dunno I just don't find that a compelling argument. There are lots of things in the setting you could start making that argument for. It's interesting to follow this thread and see how the perspective has shifted though. It's pretty clear that most people currently playing the game prefer the 2W paradigm and so it definitely shouldn't be shifted back in my view. Like if they shifted that change it wouldn't draw in that many older players who've drifted away, because it seems to me most of them have bigger problems with the whole strategem paradigm and so on.
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
T3 with 2 wounds? They are just humans with extra organs after all.
They are no longer "just humans" they are much bigger and tougher all around than a normal human. They even have a special exosuit under the armor.
So you are telling me the local guy name Joe that is 5'10" weighs 165lbs is going to be as tough as a 6'10' 360lb jacked up man with super exosuit that is basically their skin? yeah ok lol.
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
Using fluff as a tool to measure out how tough a unit should be is....useless. In fluff an ork can survive having its head cut off and sewn back on. Does that mean orkz need 3 wounds each? In fluff orkz put out more dakka then any other faction in the game, does that mean our basic shoota should have 6 shots? (Honestly it could and shoota boyz still wouldn't be good )
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
T3 with 2 wounds? They are just humans with extra organs after all.
They are no longer "just humans" they are much bigger and tougher all around than a normal human. They even have a special exosuit under the armor.
So you are telling me the local guy name Joe that is 5'10" weighs 165lbs is going to be as tough as a 6'10' 360lb jacked up man with super exosuit that is basically their skin? yeah ok lol.
A 5' Guardsmen with 100 lbs of skin and bones is T3 W1. So is a 6'10" Guardsmen with 300 lbs of pure muscle.
Also, as mentioned above, Orks can survive way more than Marines can. Marines don't survive with their heads gone. Orks do, if they get a Dok in the hour or so.
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
T3 with 2 wounds? They are just humans with extra organs after all.
They are no longer "just humans" they are much bigger and tougher all around than a normal human. They even have a special exosuit under the armor.
So you are telling me the local guy name Joe that is 5'10" weighs 165lbs is going to be as tough as a 6'10' 360lb jacked up man with super exosuit that is basically their skin? yeah ok lol.
A 5' Guardsmen with 100 lbs of skin and bones is T3 W1. So is a 6'10" Guardsmen with 300 lbs of pure muscle.
Also, as mentioned above, Orks can survive way more than Marines can. Marines don't survive with their heads gone. Orks do, if they get a Dok in the hour or so.
So you are saying.. Make Orks 2w T5? Ok I can get behind that.
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
I can do better than that. Why does an Imp have the same W score as a grot/ratling? If you increase W score of poster boys than you have to update Imps too or just don´t bother.
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
I can do better than that. Why does an Imp have the same W score as a grot/ratling? If you increase W score of poster boys than you have to update Imps too or just don´t bother.
I can do you even better, why are Grots not swarms?
PS: Also 1w is the lowest amount, you can't go to 1/2 wounds lol.
Da Boss wrote: I reckon if they're going to go for a paradigm of using wounds to differentiate between different units, they'd be well served reducing the game size down to a couple of squads, a couple of heroes and a vehicle or two. The sort of size Warmachine used to be played at during Mk2. That was a game that used damage well, but it got unwieldy at bigger game sizes tracking all the damage on your units and so on.
Warhammer has taken a lot of stuff from Warmachine over the past while, having a similar game size would make sense. It would also help with the shrunken battlefields.
Look at 2E battle reports. That's basically what the game used to be. 1K in 9th is a comparable number of models to 2K in 2nd.
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
Because it's completely arbitrary either way. Why should a Marine have more Wounds than a super-advanced Necron Warrior construct with near-indestructible alloy structure, or an Ork with no vital organs and ability to survive decapitation? It's just gameplay effect.
Once upon a time it was a given that any human-sized model was W1, and Toughness was used to represent durability. You've got multiple extra organs and are massively tougher than a normal human? Cool, you're T4. This is the 41st millennium and a mass-reactive bolt isn't going to leave much of your torso either way; being a normal human or a Big Human doesn't make that much difference.
Marines at W2 throw off that paradigm, and there isn't any clear distinction between Wounds and Toughness as a means of representing, well, toughness. Throw in Gravis armor adding Wounds and basically all pretense to a logical system goes out the window.
Amishprn86 wrote: Why would a Marine have the same Wounds as a Guardsman? Its fine they are 2 wounds. I mean ffs they have multiple extra organs lol. Yes let them have 2w.
Because it's completely arbitrary either way. Why should a Marine have more Wounds than a super-advanced Necron Warrior construct with near-indestructible alloy structure, or an Ork with no vital organs and ability to survive decapitation? It's just gameplay effect.
Once upon a time it was a given that any human-sized model was W1, and Toughness was used to represent durability. You've got multiple extra organs and are massively tougher than a normal human? Cool, you're T4. This is the 41st millennium and a mass-reactive bolt isn't going to leave much of your torso either way; being a normal human or a Big Human doesn't make that much difference.
Marines at W2 throw off that paradigm, and there isn't any clear distinction between Wounds and Toughness as a means of representing, well, toughness. Throw in Gravis armor adding Wounds and basically all pretense to a logical system goes out the window.
And back then, usually the only things with multiple wounds were characters, big monsters and (later) vehicles, and even then things rarely had more than 3 wounds.
The paradigm already shifted at the start of 8th, when characters went up to having 5 (or 3/4 for minor characters that had a single wound before) wounds each and monsters and vehicles went up to having wounds in the double digits.
Using fluff as a tool to measure out how tough a unit should be is....useless. In fluff an ork can survive having its head cut off and sewn back on. Does that mean orkz need 3 wounds each?
No, because in literally every bit of fluff where Orks fight everything that isn't Tyranids, Daemons, or maybe Imperial Guard ork boyz are fodder and die in far greater numbers to whatever it is they are fighting. There are bordering on zero battles in the 40k universe involving the Orks where they don't massively outnumber whoever they are fighting that isn't one of the three factions I named, and sometimes (probably most of the time tbh) they lose those battles.
Consider also that it is only Space Marines in power armour that gain the extra wound. Scouts have just the one wound, and less toughness than the ork. Presumably this is meant to represent the life support functions that Astartes power armour has that can keep a Marine fighting when normally they would no longer be able to. By comparison once you hit an ork boy with something hard enough to take it out of the fight it is out of the fight barring outside interference.
In fluff orkz put out more dakka then any other faction in the game, does that mean our basic shoota should have 6 shots? (Honestly it could and shoota boyz still wouldn't be good )
Sure, lol. I have no problem with Ork shooting units that need buffs getting them.
I read some stories where Imperial Guardsmen took space marines out in melee without taking a single casualty. I look forward to that being represented in the rules.
Marines having higher BS and WS, S, T, W makes sense. It's how they should be. Everything else can be debated, such as the prevalence of D2 weapons, or their point cost or anything else, but the now base stats of marines makes perfect sense and power armour should not give that buff to anything but marines.
There are many many many issues with the game, 2W marines is not one of them, in fact marines are becoming more and more less important as the edition evolves with new factions.
Prediction, Tau will absolutely spank marines with shooting, absolutely no issue at all.
Da Boss wrote: I read some stories where Imperial Guardsmen took space marines out in melee without taking a single casualty. I look forward to that being represented in the rules.
It is, in the sense that it is entirely possible for a squad of ten or so guardsmen to take out five marines or so on the charge. It's just not very likely.
Now, let me ask you this, can you say, in all sincerity, that those stories come anywhere close to the number where marines getting into close combat with guardsmen doesn't result in the entire squad getting mulched? Can you claim that the majority of times you've read about marines fighting random un-augmented humans, guardsmen or whatever, the marines weren't able to literally decapitate the humans with punches?
Also, I assume you're talking about Black Library, but I'm really not. There are bordering on if not literally zero stories where the Orkz don't massively outnumber their opponent as long as they aren't fighting another horde faction like Tyranids. Do you dispute that Space Marine kill ratios towards Ork Boyz tend to skew very hard in the favor of the Marines, even when they ultimately lose to the Orkz?
Orkz are a horde faction at the troop level. Made of tougher stuff than other horde troops, but they still tend to die in droves in firefights with more elite factions. Does anyone have a compelling reason why it shouldn't be this way? I don't understand this obsession some people have with making whatever their horde unit of choice on par with or better than marines. I'm primarily a daemons player. Not only do I not mind Bloodletters being much more fragile and less elite than Space Marines, I prefer it this way, because Chaos Daemons tend to attack as a horde of monsters that pour into realspace. It would be stupid for a Bloodletter to be on par with or better than a marine overall, which isn't to say that they can't seriously threaten or kill marines in their specialty, which in their case would be melee combat.
I'm curious to know what stories other than black library have this amount of super powerful space marine stuff in them. To me it seems that the number of stories of Space Marines winning comes down to the sheer number of publications they are in.
Orkz are a horde faction at the troop level. Made of tougher stuff than other horde troops, but they still tend to die in droves in firefights with more elite factions. Does anyone have a compelling reason why it shouldn't be this way? I don't understand this obsession some people have with making whatever their horde unit of choice on par with or better than marines. I'm primarily a daemons player. Not only do I not mind Bloodletters being much more fragile and less elite than Space Marines, I prefer it this way, because Chaos Daemons tend to attack as a horde of monsters that pour into realspace. It would be stupid for a Bloodletter to be on par with or better than a marine overall, which isn't to say that they can't seriously threaten or kill marines in their specialty, which in their case would be melee combat.
Honestly, I would be perfectly fine with the current relationship where generally my horde units get mowed down by marines because I understand that much like was obviously demonstrated by all of 8th, horde units have an inherent advantage in moveblocking, objective controlling and table footprint so if theyre ever on par with or better than elites in a head to head fight, the elites always win. What I would want in return however is more of a normalization of unit recycling/resurrecting mechanics like we see in age of sigmar, where light infantry tends to cost even more per model but factored in to that cost is the fact that endless hordes actually act somewhat endless in AOS - units youve sacrificed as chaff can be recycled back in, summoned, "rallied" etc.
that would also help people actually get into the horde factions as opposed to now where you need to spend 3x-4x as much money to have a horde faction.
There used to be some great short stories in white dwarf 20-25 years ago. Marines used to get pasted in them, a specific one was the scythes of the emporer drop podding during a tyranid invasion, they briefly turned the tide then started to fall...
Exactly as you would expect, powerful force that can make a difference as long as they can operate quickly and avoid attrition. I think the guardsmen who's POV the story was written with committed suicide once the marines started toppling to avoid being torn apart by rippers.
Orkz are a horde faction at the troop level. Made of tougher stuff than other horde troops, but they still tend to die in droves in firefights with more elite factions. Does anyone have a compelling reason why it shouldn't be this way? I don't understand this obsession some people have with making whatever their horde unit of choice on par with or better than marines. I'm primarily a daemons player. Not only do I not mind Bloodletters being much more fragile and less elite than Space Marines, I prefer it this way, because Chaos Daemons tend to attack as a horde of monsters that pour into realspace. It would be stupid for a Bloodletter to be on par with or better than a marine overall, which isn't to say that they can't seriously threaten or kill marines in their specialty, which in their case would be melee combat.
Honestly, I would be perfectly fine with the current relationship where generally my horde units get mowed down by marines because I understand that much like was obviously demonstrated by all of 8th, horde units have an inherent advantage in moveblocking, objective controlling and table footprint so if theyre ever on par with or better than elites in a head to head fight, the elites always win. What I would want in return however is more of a normalization of unit recycling/resurrecting mechanics like we see in age of sigmar, where light infantry tends to cost even more per model but factored in to that cost is the fact that endless hordes actually act somewhat endless in AOS - units youve sacrificed as chaff can be recycled back in, summoned, "rallied" etc.
that would also help people actually get into the horde factions as opposed to now where you need to spend 3x-4x as much money to have a horde faction.
I don't play AoS so forgive the ignorance, but how does that interact with objectives, specifically in the opponents deployment zone? As taking them, and holding them could be a challenge even for tough units if they are guaranteed to have 30 guardsmen with orders bearing down on them.
I like the idea of the mechanic, and it's good that a recycling cost is already baked in, but even S3 0AP weapons can be a problem if you have access to 100's of shots of them a turn. It just needs to be considered in regards to implementation as opposed to just doing it if you know what I mean.
Same with any horde factions... As someone who prefers a more narrative game, maybe I shouldn't be able to take and hold objectives in an Ork line if there are thousands more presumably behind that front line.
That, or well... you don't have objectives in deployment zones.
Marines at W2 throw off that paradigm, and there isn't any clear distinction between Wounds and Toughness as a means of representing, well, toughness. Throw in Gravis armor adding Wounds and basically all pretense to a logical system goes out the window.
You forgot, Gravis armor grants an extra wound AND T5. Just to further back up your point that there is no logical system in this game design.
Using fluff as a tool to measure out how tough a unit should be is....useless. In fluff an ork can survive having its head cut off and sewn back on. Does that mean orkz need 3 wounds each?
No, because in literally every bit of fluff where Orks fight everything that isn't Tyranids, Daemons, or maybe Imperial Guard ork boyz are fodder and die in far greater numbers to whatever it is they are fighting. There are bordering on zero battles in the 40k universe involving the Orks where they don't massively outnumber whoever they are fighting that isn't one of the three factions I named, and sometimes (probably most of the time tbh) they lose those battles.
Ok, lets expand upon this. Fluff means Marines should be better than Ork boyz because some fluff says a Marine can cut down dozens of them with ease. Some fluff says a Marine is LESS durable than a Boy because the boy can literally survive decapitation while the Marine absolutely can not. Orkz also have been seen to heal literally on the battlefield due to waaagh energy and the enticement of combat. So What you are in effect saying is that you want the fluff where Marines are gods of war, capable of slaying millions to be the official canon of the genre, and any other fluff that says other factions are better should be retconned. To further add to that, if 1 Marine is better than dozens of boyz, than since a Marine is 18ppm I need at least 0.5ppm ork boyz because otherwise how would my orkz ever have a chance to win? So i'll look forwad to .5ppm Ork boyz, so you can live out your fantasy of Marines being better than everyone else at everything.
Conversely, if we want to get away from nonsensical arguments, you could just go with my original comment which was "Using fluff as a tool to measure out how tough a unit should be is ....useless." Because...ITS USELESS.
Void__Dragon wrote: Consider also that it is only Space Marines in power armour that gain the extra wound. Scouts have just the one wound, and less toughness than the ork. Presumably this is meant to represent the life support functions that Astartes power armour has that can keep a Marine fighting when normally they would no longer be able to. By comparison once you hit an ork boy with something hard enough to take it out of the fight it is out of the fight barring outside interference.
Except as i pointed out, we have fluff where an Ork on the battlefield has his head re-attached to his body and continues to fight. There is fluff where orkz literally have a PK grafted onto the still bleeding stump of their blown off arm and can immediately return to battle even stronger than before. So why should a Marine be better durability wise? Oh, because we are selectively choosing which fluff to use to justify our positions.
Why should a Marine have more Wounds than a super-advanced Necron Warrior construct with near-indestructible alloy structure
Necron warriors are the mass-produced dogshit of the Necrons.
If you're talking about immortals then immortals should indeed be two wounds.
Once again, you come up with this nonsensical argument. Since you want to justify everything with fluff. During the War in Heaven, the Necrons BEAT the old ones and the Krork. The Krork outnumbered the necrons by a huge amount and the average Krork boy was as big as Ghazghkuul is now. So a massive horde of Ghazghkuuls, wearing armor more advanced than Space Marine armor, led by Primarch level Nobz and God emperor level Warbosses. They beat them with Necron Warriors predominantly. So saying they are "mass produced dogshit" isn't even fluff accurate in the slightest. They are so far advanced that the average necron warrior should be more than a match for a single Marine. But again, you are picking and choosing which fluff to have accurately portrayed on the tabletop.
Orkz are a horde faction at the troop level. Made of tougher stuff than other horde troops, but they still tend to die in droves in firefights with more elite factions. Does anyone have a compelling reason why it shouldn't be this way? I don't understand this obsession some people have with making whatever their horde unit of choice on par with or better than marines. I'm primarily a daemons player. Not only do I not mind Bloodletters being much more fragile and less elite than Space Marines, I prefer it this way, because Chaos Daemons tend to attack as a horde of monsters that pour into realspace. It would be stupid for a Bloodletter to be on par with or better than a marine overall, which isn't to say that they can't seriously threaten or kill marines in their specialty, which in their case would be melee combat.
Reason: Game balance.
As to "On par with or better than Marines". Because you don't understand the points being made. Nobody is saying X unit should be better than Y unit. The points being made is GAME BALANCE. Sure 1 Marine should be better than an Ork boy at range. But point for point those Orkz should mulch that Marine in CC. Sure, Marines should destroy Tau in a close combat fight, but point for point they should LOSE to Tau firewarriors in a gunfight. But that isn't/wasn't what was happening on the tabletop.
A unit of 20 firewarriors is 180pts, a unit of 9 Intercessors is 180pts.
20 firewarriors at max range get 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.6 wounds and 2.2dmg. So 180pts of ranged troops kill...24ish points of Marines.
9 Intercessors at max range get 18 shots, 12 hits, 8 wounds and 5.33 dead Tau. So 180pts of generalist troops kill 48pts of ranged troops.
20 Ork choppa boyz on the charge get 60 attacks, 40 hits, 20 wounds and 10dmg to a Marine unit. So 180pts of CC troops kill 100 points of Marines.
9 Intercessors on the charge get 27 attacks, 18 hits, 6 wounds and 5 dead Orkz. So a GENERALIST unit kills 45pts of CC Oriented troops. Add in the morale and the Orkz lose another 1 to morale and another 2.3 to attrition. So the Marines effectively kill about 75pts of Orkz.
So a generalist unit is better than a Ranged specialist troop unit point for point at ranged combat and is 75% as good as a CC specialist Troop unit. For game balance there shouldn't be a scenario where a generalist unit can BEAT a specialist unit at its designed role if it gets to go first.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Marines having higher BS and WS, S, T, W makes sense. It's how they should be. Everything else can be debated, such as the prevalence of D2 weapons, or their point cost or anything else, but the now base stats of marines makes perfect sense and power armour should not give that buff to anything but marines.
Agreed, it just feels right.
There are many many many issues with the game, 2W marines is not one of them, in fact marines are becoming more and more less important as the edition evolves with new factions.
Which is a good thing, compared to the last year of 8th ed and first 6 months of 9th when 40K felt more like HH 2.0 with marines vs marines and little to nothing else.
Prediction, Tau will absolutely spank marines with shooting, absolutely no issue at all.
Again, as it should be. It would be worrying if Tau spanked anyone else in melee, but since shooting is the only way to go for them it would be worrying if they didn't. Right now they don't and the faction is basically unplayable.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Marines having higher BS and WS, S, T, W makes sense. It's how they should be. Everything else can be debated, such as the prevalence of D2 weapons, or their point cost or anything else, but the now base stats of marines makes perfect sense and power armour should not give that buff to anything but marines.
Agreed, it just feels right.
There are many many many issues with the game, 2W marines is not one of them, in fact marines are becoming more and more less important as the edition evolves with new factions.
Which is a good thing, compared to the last year of 8th ed and first 6 months of 9th when 40K felt more like HH 2.0 with marines vs marines and little to nothing else.
Prediction, Tau will absolutely spank marines with shooting, absolutely no issue at all.
Again, as it should be. It would be worrying if Tau spanked anyone else in melee, but since shooting is the only way to go for them it would be worrying if they didn't. Right now they don't and the faction is basically unplayable.
What I meant was, they will do it, in just one turn... Which they shouldn't do, they should hurt, but I think they will 1 turn steam roll, which ruins the game.
If I might approach this from a slightly different angle, for those saying Marines should have 2 wounds, what problem is this change intended to solve?
One lasgun shot dropping a marine. That shouldn't happen unless it has some gnarly rend ability that simulates a pin point shot going through the helmet lens. That should happen once in a thousand. Basically, that is the problem it is meant to solve.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: One lasgun shot dropping a marine. That shouldn't happen unless it has some gnarly rend ability that simulates a pin point shot going through the helmet lens. That should happen once in a thousand. Basically, that is the problem it is meant to solve.
What is the abstraction of an Armor Save meant to represent? What is a failed armor save?
If a shot hitting the lense/joints is related to rend then should AP0 weapons not harm marines meaningfully?
In the lore, there are plenty of times lasguns drop Marines (usually CSM). Perhaps that's the REAL reason why CSM have one wound still...
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Marines having higher BS and WS, S, T, W makes sense. It's how they should be. Everything else can be debated, such as the prevalence of D2 weapons, or their point cost or anything else, but the now base stats of marines makes perfect sense and power armour should not give that buff to anything but marines.
Agreed, it just feels right.
Does it feel right when it takes 40 Guardsmen to take a single Marine down in CC? It sure doesn't feel right to me.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: One lasgun shot dropping a marine. That shouldn't happen unless it has some gnarly rend ability that simulates a pin point shot going through the helmet lens. That should happen once in a thousand. Basically, that is the problem it is meant to solve.
Okay, but this is a tabletop game. Not a porn magazine for Marine players.
Hence, it seems strange to increase Marine durability specifically against weapons that are already garbage at killing Marines and also among the least useful and flexible in the entire game. In contrast, every D2 weapon (including stuff like Heavy Bolters) won't even notice the increased durability of Marines.
From a game perspective, it seems like a very poor solution to a problem that wasn't much of an issue in the first place.
endlesswaltz123 wrote:What I meant was, they will do it, in just one turn... Which they shouldn't do, they should hurt, but I think they will 1 turn steam roll, which ruins the game.
In one turn it would be broken, I hope not. But in general (i.e: Tau being better at shooting than Marines, and more generally everyone else) that's how it should be supposed to work imho.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Marines having higher BS and WS, S, T, W makes sense. It's how they should be. Everything else can be debated, such as the prevalence of D2 weapons, or their point cost or anything else, but the now base stats of marines makes perfect sense and power armour should not give that buff to anything but marines.
Agreed, it just feels right.
Does it feel right when it takes 40 Guardsmen to take a single Marine down in CC? It sure doesn't feel right to me.
That's an issue that lies in the Guardsmen camp, so in the IG codex.
Then again, if it takes 40 Guardsmen in cc to kill a Marine one could also argue that it's not that crazy (lore, ...) and you should try to kill him in a different, more efficient way (shooting, psychic, ...).
endlesswaltz123 wrote: One lasgun shot dropping a marine. That shouldn't happen unless it has some gnarly rend ability that simulates a pin point shot going through the helmet lens. That should happen once in a thousand. Basically, that is the problem it is meant to solve.
I suspect that, if anything, it's more to do with the stuff putting out gobs of shots and modifying armor than Lasguns. Space Marines dying to Lasguns isn't a huge issue, especially seeing as how you needed an entire squad unloading in doubletap range to average a single kill, they weren't doing a whole lot of killing to begin with. The dice also aren't representing literal single shots, guardsmen doubletapping are doing things like burst firing and dumping on full auto hoping to find a weapon spot, not sniping lenses. If you're just looking to mission kill a marine (remove them as a battlefield combatant, not necessarily actually kill them), that's probably much easier. As an analogy, one can look at a modern tank, most weapons aren't going to penetrate the armor and destroy the tank or kill the crew, but almost any meaningful impact by anything above small arms scale can destroy tracks, the gun barrel, optics, running gear or wheels, etc. A Marine failing a save and taking a round may not necessarily have taken a magic lasgun bolt through the lense, but instead may have had their optics or weapon destroyed or a leg servo critically jammed or maybe the powerpack got hit and damaged, resulting in that Marine having to be left behind for the moment.
Likewise, Let's not forget, when 40k was originally created, Marines were wounded by lasguns on 4's and only saved on 5's against them. Getting buffed to being wounded on 5's and saving on 3's (literally trippling their resistance to Lasguns) was the answer to them being particularly weak against such weapons. W2 just makes weapons like lasguns ultimately a waste of everyone's time to bother even rolling for much of the time.
Against something like a Heavy Bolter however, that makes a much greater impact on the tabletop, that's where you really see the W2 shine.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: One lasgun shot dropping a marine. That shouldn't happen unless it has some gnarly rend ability that simulates a pin point shot going through the helmet lens. That should happen once in a thousand. Basically, that is the problem it is meant to solve.
What is the abstraction of an Armor Save meant to represent? What is a failed armor save?
If a shot hitting the lense/joints is related to rend then should AP0 weapons not harm marines meaningfully?
In the lore, there are plenty of times lasguns drop Marines (usually CSM). Perhaps that's the REAL reason why CSM have one wound still...
An unarmoured marine shouldn't be killed by a lasgun shot unless it was a headshot or hit multiple key organs with one shot, they should just keep on coming, so armour save shouldn't have 'that' huge of an impact.
Also, I know people don't want to let lore impact tabletop too much, but it does in the way other factions work... Imagine Orks or tyranids being awful in combat because it was 'for the good of the game'. Marines should be tough, and should have multiple wounds. As I said previously, everything should be balanced around that.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: One lasgun shot dropping a marine. That shouldn't happen unless it has some gnarly rend ability that simulates a pin point shot going through the helmet lens. That should happen once in a thousand. Basically, that is the problem it is meant to solve.
What is the abstraction of an Armor Save meant to represent? What is a failed armor save?
If a shot hitting the lense/joints is related to rend then should AP0 weapons not harm marines meaningfully?
In the lore, there are plenty of times lasguns drop Marines (usually CSM). Perhaps that's the REAL reason why CSM have one wound still...
An unarmoured marine shouldn't be killed by a lasgun shot unless it was a headshot or hit multiple key organs with one shot, they should just keep on coming, so armour save shouldn't have 'that' huge of an impact.
Also, I know people don't want to let lore impact tabletop too much, but it does in the way other factions work... Imagine Orks or tyranids being awful in combat because it was 'for the good of the game'. Marines should be tough, and should have multiple wounds. As I said previously, everything should be balanced around that.
Good news! Only one in three hits of a Lasgun actually wounds a Marine-and that doesn't even mean dead. It just means combat inoperative for the fight.
I do think it is important to remember that these, most definitely, aren't single shots. An AK-47 has a Rounds Per Minute of 600. We don't know how long a round is in 40k, but for this, let's assume a minute. We can also assume they won't fire full auto the entire time. Even if we cut this down to 50 rounds fired per minute at the marine, it would end up being 900 rounds from a lasgun to take out a Marine, and only if you count what hits.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I do think it is important to remember that these, most definitely, aren't single shots. An AK-47 has a Rounds Per Minute of 600. We don't know how long a round is in 40k, but for this, let's assume a minute. We can also assume they won't fire full auto the entire time. Even if we cut this down to 50 rounds fired per minute at the marine, it would end up being 900 rounds from a lasgun to take out a Marine, and only if you count what hits.
A DKoK lasgun is specifically not semi-automatic, I bet a fair few lasgun types are the same. So no, this doesn't work specifically for a lasgun. Shurikan catapults etc are up for debate, lasgun is not, and the few that can go full auto do not last long ammo wise.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: One lasgun shot dropping a marine. That shouldn't happen unless it has some gnarly rend ability that simulates a pin point shot going through the helmet lens. That should happen once in a thousand. Basically, that is the problem it is meant to solve.
Something like a sniper rifle lasgun which can cause a 6 to wound to deal a mortal wound and then the marine also fails its armor save. You know, something like that would be how you'd probably want to model that mechanically.
Insectum7 wrote: Does it feel right when it takes 40 Guardsmen to take a single Marine down in CC? It sure doesn't feel right to me.
This is only a problem because the guard codex hasn't been updated to 9th yet. The lethality of every army has been jacked waaay up, not just marines, so the guard are just lagging behind. If we nerf marines, then we need to nerf DE, AdMech, DG, Bugs, Orks, and every codex since the start of 9th.
I don't know what this "C-tier" blabber is all about, but it sounds like gobledygook.
/snip
If you're trying to make an argument that marines should be further buffed you're deranged.
Art of War (Richard Siegler & Nick Nanavati) on current faction rankings, specifically where they start talking about tyranids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkMF9BHVAs. Your local meta might be different, but that's not an army problem, that's the players not being able to maximize the potential of the Army. And in case you don't know, Richard and Nick are a couple of the best players in the world (probaby not *the* top 2, but probably in the top 20)
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Marines having higher BS and WS, S, T, W makes sense. It's how they should be. Everything else can be debated, such as the prevalence of D2 weapons, or their point cost or anything else, but the now base stats of marines makes perfect sense and power armour should not give that buff to anything but marines.
Agreed, it just feels right.
Does it feel right when it takes 40 Guardsmen to take a single Marine down in CC? It sure doesn't feel right to me.
Baseline, sure? Take a big, hulking, mutated plague marine, trundling forward inexorably, a large number of the terrified guardsmen refusing even to swing, unable to even penetrate through the noxious stench surrounding him...
But then add in a fanatical priest, chanting hymns of how they are the soldiers of the emperor, none can stand before their will, the glory of the imperium commands them to take up the fight...now that's 20 guardsmen.
Add in a grizzled veteran sergeant unsheathing his power saber - now 14 can get the job done.
An officer calls on the vox, and the comms trooper trembles for a moment but then his relayed command shouts loud and clear: "FIX BAYONETS, MEN! CHARGE!" and now the 10-man squad brings down 1 and wounds another plague marine.
this is the gameplay fantasy that is what the Imperial Guard is about: Normal humans, who on their own would be overwhelmed and destroyed, defeating super-human beings threats through discipline and fanaticism.
Now, is this modeled perfectly in game?
No, sergeant upgrades are much too expensive, honestly I think if GW really wants to make 'upgrades only at 5pts or more' then you'd have to have all the basic sgt upgrades maintain the bonus attack of the chainsword, or you'd need to up veteran sergeants to WS3+ or something. Also, the "Fix Bayonets" order is wonky, and doesnt work on the charge for some reason? Despite being called "Fix Bayonets"?
The solution to make this work better is: How about we update the faction "Imperial Guard" and not go back, and once again un-update the faction "Space Marines, all of them, all 16 god damn codexes of them."
Automatically Appended Next Post: This example always seems to ignore the fact that 'crappy troops whose capability is multiplied by supporting characters/officers/etc" IS what guard are kind of about. That's been their shtick. It's like demonstrating the Drukhari are underpowered by showing how they can get carved to gak by people if they attack them first. Having a speed advantage and getting to get the first slap in is the drukhari thing.
Or GSC - evalute any of our gak and ignore the fact that we get various ambush bonuses, and we'll look even MORE pathetic, lol.
An unarmoured marine shouldn't be killed by a lasgun shot unless it was a headshot or hit multiple key organs with one shot, they should just keep on coming, so armour save shouldn't have 'that' huge of an impact.
Well, here's where you're wrong.
A Kantrael-pattern lasgun (Cadians use this pattern) pews 19 megajoules of energy per the 3rd edition guard codex (that has not since been retconned afaik). The kinetic energy of a Barnes 700 grain .50 BMG round (you know, the types of rounds a .50 caliber machine gun puts out that are basically one step down from a modern autocannon) is 18,942 joules.
In other words, whilst the delivery and therefore nature of the damage is different, the amount of energy dumped into a Space Marine by a single lasbolt is roughly equivalent to shooting him with a .50 caliber sniper rifle.
It is also worth noting that the Armageddon Steel Legion uses a higher-powered Lasgun that is only semi-automatic to punch through orks at very close range (given that they disembark from Chimeras typically). So... yeah.
man I am never disappointed when I unhide a unit post. This is the most glorious um ackhshually I have seen posted on this forum in months. Thank you for lighting up my afternoon.
the_scotsman wrote: man I am never disappointed when I unhide a unit post. This is the most glorious um ackhshually I have seen posted on this forum in months. Thank you for lighting up my afternoon.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Marines having higher BS and WS, S, T, W makes sense. It's how they should be. Everything else can be debated, such as the prevalence of D2 weapons, or their point cost or anything else, but the now base stats of marines makes perfect sense and power armour should not give that buff to anything but marines.
Agreed, it just feels right.
Does it feel right when it takes 40 Guardsmen to take a single Marine down in CC? It sure doesn't feel right to me.
Baseline, sure? Take a big, hulking, mutated plague marine, trundling forward inexorably, a large number of the terrified guardsmen refusing even to swing, unable to even penetrate through the noxious stench surrounding him...
But then add in a fanatical priest, chanting hymns of how they are the soldiers of the emperor, none can stand before their will, the glory of the imperium commands them to take up the fight...now that's 20 guardsmen.
Add in a grizzled veteran sergeant unsheathing his power saber - now 14 can get the job done.
An officer calls on the vox, and the comms trooper trembles for a moment but then his relayed command shouts loud and clear: "FIX BAYONETS, MEN! CHARGE!" and now the 10-man squad brings down 1 and wounds another plague marine.
this is the gameplay fantasy that is what the Imperial Guard is about: Normal humans, who on their own would be overwhelmed and destroyed, defeating super-human beings threats through discipline and fanaticism.
Now, is this modeled perfectly in game?
No, sergeant upgrades are much too expensive, honestly I think if GW really wants to make 'upgrades only at 5pts or more' then you'd have to have all the basic sgt upgrades maintain the bonus attack of the chainsword, or you'd need to up veteran sergeants to WS3+ or something. Also, the "Fix Bayonets" order is wonky, and doesnt work on the charge for some reason? Despite being called "Fix Bayonets"?
The solution to make this work better is: How about we update the faction "Imperial Guard" and not go back, and once again un-update the faction "Space Marines, all of them, all 16 god damn codexes of them."
Nice speech. So my takeaway is that you're comfortable with a paradigm where you can spend a whole bunch of extra effort and points on a Guardsman squad. . . and the result will reward the attacking Guard player with ONE kill. Great job! I'm sure Guard players will really appreciate the flavor you bring to their army.
This example always seems to ignore the fact that 'crappy troops whose capability is multiplied by supporting characters/officers/etc" IS what guard are kind of about. That's been their shtick. It's like demonstrating the Drukhari are underpowered by showing how they can get carved to gak by people if they attack them first. Having a speed advantage and getting to get the first slap in is the drukhari thing.
Or GSC - evalute any of our gak and ignore the fact that we get various ambush bonuses, and we'll look even MORE pathetic, lol.
Unaided or aided, these same units sure used to be able to do a lot more damage than they appear to do now.
And how about Marines themselves? It currently takes 9 Tactical Marines to drop a single Marine in CC. I mean, they just got their codex, right? These hyper-elite marines resorting to a slow can-on-can pummeling that goes basically nowhere?
An unarmoured marine shouldn't be killed by a lasgun shot unless it was a headshot or hit multiple key organs with one shot, they should just keep on coming, so armour save shouldn't have 'that' huge of an impact.
Well, here's where you're wrong.
A Kantrael-pattern lasgun (Cadians use this pattern) pews 19 megajoules of energy per the 3rd edition guard codex (that has not since been retconned afaik). The kinetic energy of a Barnes 700 grain .50 BMG round (you know, the types of rounds a .50 caliber machine gun puts out that are basically one step down from a modern autocannon) is 18,942 joules.
In other words, whilst the delivery and therefore nature of the damage is different, the amount of energy dumped into a Space Marine by a single lasbolt is roughly equivalent to shooting him with a .50 caliber sniper rifle.
It is also worth noting that the Armageddon Steel Legion uses a higher-powered Lasgun that is only semi-automatic to punch through orks at very close range (given that they disembark from Chimeras typically). So... yeah.
Not to "Um ackshually" the um ackshually, but wouldn't 19 MJ be ~1000x the energy of a 19kJ shot? (Also, wasn't there something about Thules as a unit in the 3e dex? Or am I remembering the old MFM/Primer?)
An unarmoured marine shouldn't be killed by a lasgun shot unless it was a headshot or hit multiple key organs with one shot, they should just keep on coming, so armour save shouldn't have 'that' huge of an impact.
Well, here's where you're wrong.
A Kantrael-pattern lasgun (Cadians use this pattern) pews 19 megajoules of energy per the 3rd edition guard codex (that has not since been retconned afaik). The kinetic energy of a Barnes 700 grain .50 BMG round (you know, the types of rounds a .50 caliber machine gun puts out that are basically one step down from a modern autocannon) is 18,942 joules.
In other words, whilst the delivery and therefore nature of the damage is different, the amount of energy dumped into a Space Marine by a single lasbolt is roughly equivalent to shooting him with a .50 caliber sniper rifle.
It is also worth noting that the Armageddon Steel Legion uses a higher-powered Lasgun that is only semi-automatic to punch through orks at very close range (given that they disembark from Chimeras typically). So... yeah.
Not to "Um ackshually" the um ackshually, but wouldn't 19 MJ be ~1000x the energy of a 19kJ shot? (Also, wasn't there something about Thules as a unit in the 3e dex? Or am I remembering the old MFM/Primer?)
I don't remember it that well, but good point. I just remember rehashing this same argument on an old, different forum (where the .50 and the lasgun were equated by people far smarter than me). Nothing like regurgitating the same arguments time and time again because 40k's lore writers can't be consistent, but what else will ya do with your time, eh?
Well, we could always complain about that time the FW writers gave the Leman Russ worse armor than some WW2 tanks...
Spoiler:
I actually don't care about that, handwavium superspacesteel RHA and all that, but it's always kind of funny watching some of the more anal treadheads get upset over that XD
waefre_1 wrote: Well, we could always complain about that time the FW writers gave the Leman Russ worse armor than some WW2 tanks...
Spoiler:
I actually don't care about that, handwavium superspacesteel RHA and all that, but it's always kind of funny watching some of the more anal treadheads get upset over that XD
I think the bigger issue is the cutaway illustrations that show it would be impossible to enter through or occupy the turret hatch because the gun breach fills the whole thing.
waefre_1 wrote: Well, we could always complain about that time the FW writers gave the Leman Russ worse armor than some WW2 tanks...
Spoiler:
I actually don't care about that, handwavium superspacesteel RHA and all that, but it's always kind of funny watching some of the more anal treadheads get upset over that XD
I always said "just imagine how gakky Space Marine Land Raiders must be to have the same armor as a KV-1"
waefre_1 wrote: Well, we could always complain about that time the FW writers gave the Leman Russ worse armor than some WW2 tanks...
Spoiler:
I actually don't care about that, handwavium superspacesteel RHA and all that, but it's always kind of funny watching some of the more anal treadheads get upset over that XD
I think the bigger issue is the cutaway illustrations that show it would be impossible to enter through or occupy the turret hatch because the gun breach fills the whole thing.
Now we know why that Commissar protruding from the Leman Russ hatch needed his driver to get him within a sword's length of the enemy - clearly the poor man had no legs of his own!
Insectum7 wrote: ^What? He just sits bowlegged astride the Battlecannon, of course!
Then I really don't wanna know what that battle cannon is firing... If the lasgun is firing 90 megajoules, Then that commissar must have tactical nukes for gonads...
Insectum7 wrote: ^What? He just sits bowlegged astride the Battlecannon, of course!
One of my first ork conversions was some boyz, a set of goff rokkaz, and a Vindicator. I've got Ozzy Orkbourne sitting astride the cannon, which of course thanks to "The 40k Standing While Pooping Stance" looks perfect with no alteration to the metal mini!
"Tell me you've got someone on ignore without telling me you've got someone on ignore."
He mentioned he ignored me in the very thread he did it in because he didn't like that I preferred 4th instead of 5th or something after I asked him his opinion on how something was in 4th.
"Tell me you've got someone on ignore without telling me you've got someone on ignore."
He mentioned he ignored me in the very thread he did it in because he didn't like that I preferred 4th instead of 5th or something after I asked him his opinion on how something was in 4th.
I forget the details
Don't feel bad, I think by now I'm on almost everyone's ignore list or one reason or other.
2W Marines, T5 Orks and other defensive changes are a direct response to the lethality creep of the core rules that started in 6th edition and culminated in 8th.
6th edition increased the weight of fire of many weapons with the changes to twin-linked from being reroll misses to double shots. Even with this weight of fire creep that began, the average tactical or terminator still felt reasonably durable with 1 wound and that is largely to do with armor.
8th edition completely changed the way armor works, many weapons that the marine would normally shrug off due to the 3+ save or terminator 2+ save now modifies their armor save roll. The importance of an invulnerable save has never been higher due to this change. -1 AP turned marine armor into Tempestus armor, and -2 turned them into guardsman. Gone were the days of 3+ vs all but plasma, melta, or other deticated anti-tank firepower.
If you want to revert back to 1w marines, then we need to revert back to all or nothing armor saves. Right now we're getting more and more ways to "ignore invul saves" which functionally works the same as the old AP system, its sad.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: 2W Marines, T5 Orks and other defensive changes are a direct response to the lethality creep of the core rules that started in 6th edition and culminated in 8th.
6th edition increased the weight of fire of many weapons with the changes to twin-linked from being reroll misses to double shots. Even with this weight of fire creep that began, the average tactical or terminator still felt reasonably durable with 1 wound and that is largely to do with armor.
8th edition completely changed the way armor works, many weapons that the marine would normally shrug off due to the 3+ save or terminator 2+ save now modifies their armor save roll. The importance of an invulnerable save has never been higher due to this change. -1 AP turned marine armor into Tempestus armor, and -2 turned them into guardsman. Gone were the days of 3+ vs all but plasma, melta, or other deticated anti-tank firepower.
If you want to revert back to 1w marines, then we need to revert back to all or nothing armor saves. Right now we're getting more and more ways to "ignore invul saves" which functionally works the same as the old AP system, its sad.
No, we neither need to roll back to all-or-nothing AP nor should we want to. That was a bad system and good riddance to it. We can reduce lethality by reducing save modifiers, average shots per round, opportunities to fire, buffing terrain boni, removing or reducing strats that can buff damage output, or a whole host of other tweaks that maintain the current save system.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: 2W Marines, T5 Orks and other defensive changes are a direct response to the lethality creep of the core rules that started in 6th edition and culminated in 8th.
6th edition increased the weight of fire of many weapons with the changes to twin-linked from being reroll misses to double shots. Even with this weight of fire creep that began, the average tactical or terminator still felt reasonably durable with 1 wound and that is largely to do with armor.
8th edition completely changed the way armor works, many weapons that the marine would normally shrug off due to the 3+ save or terminator 2+ save now modifies their armor save roll. The importance of an invulnerable save has never been higher due to this change. -1 AP turned marine armor into Tempestus armor, and -2 turned them into guardsman. Gone were the days of 3+ vs all but plasma, melta, or other deticated anti-tank firepower.
If you want to revert back to 1w marines, then we need to revert back to all or nothing armor saves. Right now we're getting more and more ways to "ignore invul saves" which functionally works the same as the old AP system, its sad.
Or they could just address the other factions which now have little to no chance to kill those Marines with their weapons. T5 is a good buff in and of itself, the problem was, unlike Marines, Orkz got about 6 nerfs to go along with it which reduced our infamous Ork Boyz from being highly relevant and prevalent in almost every army, to being never taken except as 1 of MSU Troops tax.
In 8th edition, pre-2W shenanigans, it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 9. A boy was 7ppm, so 63pts to kill 15ish of Marine. It wasn't a good return on investment but it wasn't horrendous either. Today? Those same shoota boyz need 18 to kill 1 Marine and they now cost 9ppm. So its 162pts of Shoota boy to kill 1 18pt Marine. To earn their points back would take 9 full turns of shooting. You could reduce that by about 50% if you manage to get within 9 inches of your target and increase your ROF but thats it. Those same 9 boyz back in 8th killed 2.6 guardsmen a turn.
But, as previously mentioned, if you increase my shoota boyz ROF or dmg vs Marines, you are going to increase it vs everything else. 18 shoota boyz currently KILL 5.3 to 8 Guardsmen a turn. Not a good return on investment. But, if you buff Shoota boyz so that 9 of them go back to being able to kill 1 Marine, IE give them 3 shots base and -1AP 27 shots, 9 hits, 4.5 wounds and 2.25dmg for 1 dead Marine. thats 81pts killing 18pts of Marine, then against those same guardsmen they now kill 5 guardsmen thats 81pts of Ork killing 27.5pts of Guardsmen, or basically twice as good as they currently are.
Flip the targets around, pre 2 wound Marines it took 18 shots or 18 guardsmen to kill 1 Marine, or half that in half range. it currently takes 36 guardsmen or 18 in half range. If you buffed Lasguns to the point where it takes 18 lasguns to kill a Marine again then they also double their effectiveness against other targets. It used to take 7.2 Lasgun shots to kill an ork, 7.2 shots, 3.6 hits, 1.2 wounds 6+ save = 1 dead Ork. Thats not a bad return on investment, but if you double their ROF to deal with Marines it goes down to 3.6 lasguns, so now orkz are HALF as durable vs Lasguns,all because Marines have a 2nd wound and now entire weapon types are functionally useless at targeting them.
I agree that it wasn't a bad idea in and of itself to give Marines 2 wounds. The granularity room increased dramatically. The problem is that GW is rolling out these changes piecemeal and isn't adjusting other things either in terms of points or buffs to deal with the changes. Orkz got T5 which sounds great but turned out to be mostly irrelevant. They also got a 3rd wound on things like warbikes instead of buffing those bikes to T6, apparently warbikes, unlike every other bike in the entire game, give +2 wounds now instead of +1 wound/toughness.
Maybe in 10th we will see more balance to the meta in terms of durability/lethality.
You could also let a guard infantry squad do MWs to infantry/bikes on 6's (capped at 1-2) to represent "insert reason". Then 2 guard squads (110 points), would do ~6 wounds or 3 marines. Now their effectiveness vs most other armies stays about the same, but the flashlights start to do work with weight of fire like it's supposed to.
Again, this is a problem because the guard codex hasn't been updated. A lagging codex is not a reason to nerf everything in the game.
If you're worried about marines now, IMHO wait until you see the GSC codex. I think they're going to get the DE treatment, so we'll see a DE & GSC meta for 6+ months after their codex release.
alextroy wrote: You do realize that it taking twice as many Boyz or Guardsmen to kill a marine is the entire point of giving them 2 wounds?
Which is strange as Marines weren't being mowed down by Lasguns or Boys. If you wanted to kill Marines, you'd use stuff like overcharged Plasma . . . which still works just fine.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: 2W Marines, T5 Orks and other defensive changes are a direct response to the lethality creep of the core rules that started in 6th edition and culminated in 8th.
6th edition increased the weight of fire of many weapons with the changes to twin-linked from being reroll misses to double shots. Even with this weight of fire creep that began, the average tactical or terminator still felt reasonably durable with 1 wound and that is largely to do with armor.
8th edition completely changed the way armor works, many weapons that the marine would normally shrug off due to the 3+ save or terminator 2+ save now modifies their armor save roll. The importance of an invulnerable save has never been higher due to this change. -1 AP turned marine armor into Tempestus armor, and -2 turned them into guardsman. Gone were the days of 3+ vs all but plasma, melta, or other deticated anti-tank firepower.
If you want to revert back to 1w marines, then we need to revert back to all or nothing armor saves. Right now we're getting more and more ways to "ignore invul saves" which functionally works the same as the old AP system, its sad.
I agree with your premise but not your conclusion.
I don't think we need to revert to the old AP system to fix issues of durability. Instead, we should look towards scaling back other aspects of the game. e.g.:
- Reduce the rate of fire of many weapons. In the past, weapons like Assault Cannons with 4 shots used to represent the pinnacle of high-volume firepower weapons. Now it's not uncommon for weapons to have twice as many shots, sometimes even with good AP and multiple damage.
- Similarly, units should not be able to double-fire - either by not moving very far (Leman Russ) or with a Stratagem.
- Oh, and while we're at it, make twin-linked a reroll again - not double shots.
- Reduce the range of various weapons and go back to using full tables. There's a reason other skirmish games tend to have average ranges of about 12" for their weapons - because doing otherwise means armies are often largely or wholly in range of the enemy on turn 1.
- Impose heavier penalties for moving and firing Heavy weapons - even for vehicles. Sorry but tanks *should* suffer penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons. Especially if they're going to be absolutely bristling with firepower. Or, hell, at least impose some sort of penalty for firing massive, anti-vehicle weapons at Infantry.
- Similarly, if an enemy has -1 to hit, it shouldn't equate to a free Advance move for a unit with an Assault weapon, or a free normal move for a unit with a Heavy weapon. Some modifiers really should stack.
- Either ditch morale or make it something other than a lose-more mechanic.
etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that while the new AP system might have hurt Marines, it's far from the only issue. There have been compounding problems with increasing range and effectiveness of weapons, with the penalties and restrictions becoming fewer and fewer. Further, Marines are certainly not the only unit that seems to die very easily and some more universal fixes could go a long way to improving the game as a whole.
alextroy wrote: You do realize that it taking twice as many Boyz or Guardsmen to kill a marine is the entire point of giving them 2 wounds?
So...the reason Marine players were complaining for several editions is because Shoota boyz and Imperial Guardsmen were too good at killing their Marines? Just to summarize, that means that A Marine player thought "Its totally unfair that 54pts of Ork shoota boyz can kill 15pts of Marine!" and "This is ridiculous, 90pts of Guardsmen shouldnt be able to kill 1 15pt Marine, this is BS!"
If that is the real reason behind the 2 Wound mechanic than 1: Marine players are a bunch of whiny babies and 2: done, go back to 1W per Marine.
The supreme irony is that so many Marines did complain that their power fantasy wasn't coming true that they got a 2nd wound, 2nd charge attack, 2nd bolter shot all for 3ppm. And what happened almost immediately? People stopped taking mass S4 no AP 1dmg weapons and started taking -AP 2dmg weapons. When Gravis became their go to choice players started taking 3Dmg+ weapons.
Something Marine players really need to realize, they are the de facto measuring stick. So anytime they get some kind of change the meta adjusts around them because they are without a shadow of a doubt the most prevalent faction in the game.
fraser1191 wrote: So because marines are the baseline we are doomed to just suck it up and be not a "good" faction?
Good being relative of course
Yes, because prior to going to 2 wounds Marines never dominated the meta....except for all those times they did.
The point I made was that your Marines will never feel durable/elite when every tournament list you face is list tailoring to face off against at least 1 Marine player out of 3. Statistically you are more likely than not to face off against a Power armored opponent, usually with 2+ wounds. So yeah, with that in mind I try to bring 2dmg weapons or a lot of 1dmg weapons with AP.
fraser1191 wrote: So because marines are the baseline we are doomed to just suck it up and be not a "good" faction?
Good being relative of course
Yes, because prior to going to 2 wounds Marines never dominated the meta....except for all those times they did.
The point I made was that your Marines will never feel durable/elite when every tournament list you face is list tailoring to face off against at least 1 Marine player out of 3. Statistically you are more likely than not to face off against a Power armored opponent, usually with 2+ wounds. So yeah, with that in mind I try to bring 2dmg weapons or a lot of 1dmg weapons with AP.
Changing marines to 1W would not fix list tailoring either. You can't fix list tailoring without removing player agency.
If you put marines down to 1W people are just going to go back to 1D weapons with high rof and mid ap like we've seen before
SemperMortis wrote: ...If that is the real reason behind the 2 Wound mechanic than 1: Marine players are a bunch of whiny babies and 2: done, go back to 1W per Marine...
Marines were too squishy in 6e/7e because of AP3 template weapons with Ignores Cover (things like Heldrakes and Riptide ion cannons). If you can easily hit the whole squad, and you're wounding them on 3+ or 2+, and you ignore any save they might have, it was pretty trivial for one big weapon to remove whole squads of Marines all at once. 2W Marines are a case of classic GW overcompensation; they changed the to-wound table to buff T4 (S6-7 used to wound them on 2+), and changed blast weapons to both roll to hit and have random shots rather than hitting however many models the blast template touched (so a battle cannon's now hitting 3 or 4 models instead of 7 or 8), and changed AP/cover so it's much harder to ignore saves entirely, and added extra defensive buffs to some Chapter Tactics, and then changed Marines to 2W, so they've swung pretty hard in the other direction to too durable. Unfortunately they then decided they'd messed up in the 8e Indexes and dumped a lot of buffs onto a lot of Marine-killing weapons over the course of 8e, so Marines are still kind of squishy against dedicated anti-Marine weapons while still being way too resilient against small arms, and then they decided they'd overcompensated again in 9th which is where we're getting things like flat DR on Death Guard and the "can't wound on better than 4+" mechanic.
This is the history of 40k for the last ten years. The design team has a bunch of really cool ideas, throws them all into a blender because they can't decide which to use, some of them break the game, they have a bunch of really cool ideas about how to fix it, some of those break the game, rinse, repeat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fraser1191 wrote: ...You can't fix list tailoring without removing player agency...
You can absolutely fix list-tailoring without removing player agency, you just have to stop making skew armies. Defining a design space where stuff falls into neat categories, where you have some set of defensive profiles and some set of weapons that are more efficient against some of those defensive profiles than others, is pretty much basic game design. Then saying "yeah, let's just cross off chunks of the design space for each army, this army has no heavy armor, this army has no light infantry, this army is just superheavies..." creates degenerate situations like people defaulting to spamming anti-Marine weapons because too many people play Marines.
Either that, or stop releasing three times as much content for Marines than everyone else, and stop making sure they always have an up-to-date Codex while leaving other people to languish for years with a Codex an edition behind, and then maybe people will play other armies now and again.
SemperMortis wrote: ...If that is the real reason behind the 2 Wound mechanic than 1: Marine players are a bunch of whiny babies and 2: done, go back to 1W per Marine...
Marines were too squishy in 6e/7e because of AP3 template weapons with Ignores Cover (things like Heldrakes and Riptide ion cannons). If you can easily hit the whole squad, and you're wounding them on 3+ or 2+, and you ignore any save they might have, it was pretty trivial for one big weapon to remove whole squads of Marines all at once. 2W Marines are a case of classic GW overcompensation; they changed the to-wound table to buff T4 (S6-7 used to wound them on 2+), and changed blast weapons to both roll to hit and have random shots rather than hitting however many models the blast template touched (so a battle cannon's now hitting 3 or 4 models instead of 7 or 8), and changed AP/cover so it's much harder to ignore saves entirely, and added extra defensive buffs to some Chapter Tactics, and then changed Marines to 2W, so they've swung pretty hard in the other direction to too durable. Unfortunately they then decided they'd messed up in the 8e Indexes and dumped a lot of buffs onto a lot of Marine-killing weapons over the course of 8e, so Marines are still kind of squishy against dedicated anti-Marine weapons while still being way too resilient against small arms, and then they decided they'd overcompensated again in 9th which is where we're getting things like flat DR on Death Guard and the "can't wound on better than 4+" mechanic.
This is the history of 40k for the last ten years. The design team has a bunch of really cool ideas, throws them all into a blender because they can't decide which to use, some of them break the game, they have a bunch of really cool ideas about how to fix it, some of those break the game, rinse, repeat.
And that is the hammer hitting the nail on the head. Marines weren't squishy to 90% of weapons in the game, they were squishy to a very select few weapons, and because of that and the prevalence of Marines in the meta, a lot of people took those kind of weapons en masse. As an Ork player, we used to spam Rokkitz on everything from Trukkz, battlewagons to boyz mobz because they were AP3 which meant they ignored Marine armor saves. 5pts to take a rokkit which hits 1/3rd of the time, wounds 5/6th the time and no armor save for instant dead Marine Vs 5pts for a Big shoota which had 3 shots, 1 hit at S5, 0.66 wounds and 0.22 chance to kill 1 Marine. So in 3 turns you likely kill 1 Marine with a rokkit, where as the big shoota is just rocking a 66% chance to kill a Marine. Didn't matter that the big shoota was vastly better against badly armored targets, because orkz had a plethora of guns/choppas to deal with those threats.
So we changed the meta drastically to favor those Marines. Look at the cover rules and how they have adapted. Those aforementioned flamers ignored cover so the Marine just died. Now, they don't ignore cover for the most part AND instead of getting a 4+ cover save that Marine is rocking a 2+ cover save. MY orks went from a 4+ cover save to a 5+ save.
GW has done literally everything they can to make Marines more durable, and what did the meta do? Swapped out their weapon loadouts to favor high AP multi-dmg weapons. And here we are back to square 1. So buffing Marines to 2-3 or even 4 wounds won't change much except the load outs people are taking. And since GW hasn't addressed the massive lack of dmg output from everyone else's basic weapons, we now have a problem where those units that have to take those weapons are rotting on the shelf. Why in hell would I take a 9ppm Shoota boy who averages 0.11dmg to a Marine a turn when I can instead take a choppa boy who when he finally gets into combat averages 0.5dmg a turn, even more so if goff or during a WAAAAAGH.
fraser1191 wrote: So because marines are the baseline we are doomed to just suck it up and be not a "good" faction?
It's not that Marines can't be good, that's just being disingenuous and ignoring all the times when Marines have been good.
It's that Marine players want to have their cake and eat it. They want their Marines to feel like these super-rare, impossibly-elite units, because that's how they're depicted in all the bolter-born books. However, they're also playing the most ubiquitous army in the entire game. It just doesn't work.
The popularity of Marines means that they are - and will always be - the baseline for infantry. If you make them W2, it doesn't make them more elite, it just makes W2 the baseline for troops and forces any anti-infantry weapons/units unable to deal with W2 infantry out of the meta entirely.
If you really want Marines to feel elite, then you need to convince a lot of other people to stop playing them. If, say, Imperial Guard became the default army, then people would instead start tailoring for massed T3 5+ infantry. In this scenario, even 1-wound T4 3+ infantry would feel elite by comparison, as they would be dealing with a lot of basic flamers, bolters, grenade launchers and other such weapons with little to no AP. However, when the majority of the player base is playing a flavour of Marines, all you're going to see is Plasma, Disintegrators and other such weapons that excel at slaying Marines.
fraser1191 wrote: So because marines are the baseline we are doomed to just suck it up and be not a "good" faction?
It's not that Marines can't be good, that's just being disingenuous and ignoring all the times when Marines have been good.
It's that Marine players want to have their cake and eat it. They want their Marines to feel like these super-rare, impossibly-elite units, because that's how they're depicted in all the bolter-born books. However, they're also playing the most ubiquitous army in the entire game. It just doesn't work.
The popularity of Marines means that they are - and will always be - the baseline for infantry. If you make them W2, it doesn't make them more elite, it just makes W2 the baseline for troops and forces any anti-infantry weapons/units unable to deal with W2 infantry out of the meta entirely.
If you really want Marines to feel elite, then you need to convince a lot of other people to stop playing them. If, say, Imperial Guard became the default army, then people would instead start tailoring for massed T3 5+ infantry. In this scenario, even 1-wound T4 3+ infantry would feel elite by comparison, as they would be dealing with a lot of basic flamers, bolters, grenade launchers and other such weapons with little to no AP. However, when the majority of the player base is playing a flavour of Marines, all you're going to see is Plasma, Disintegrators and other such weapons that excel at slaying Marines.
Exactly this.
I've squeezed every ounce of competitiveness out of the old smelly potato that is the Tau codex and my go-to list for matched play pick up games is simply packed with anti-MEQ weapons. Once considered the constraints given by my collection of models, I feel that I have a better chance of playing a decent game if I bring massed Dd3 weapons like missile pods and D2 heavy burst cannons on at least a Riptide. I usually bring literally zero flamers or other anti-GEQ weapons as they would be basically useless against T4 W2 3+ statlines that more or less represent half of the possible opposing armies.
fraser1191 wrote: So because marines are the baseline we are doomed to just suck it up and be not a "good" faction?
It's not that Marines can't be good, that's just being disingenuous and ignoring all the times when Marines have been good.
It's that Marine players want to have their cake and eat it. They want their Marines to feel like these super-rare, impossibly-elite units, because that's how they're depicted in all the bolter-born books. However, they're also playing the most ubiquitous army in the entire game. It just doesn't work.
The popularity of Marines means that they are - and will always be - the baseline for infantry. If you make them W2, it doesn't make them more elite, it just makes W2 the baseline for troops and forces any anti-infantry weapons/units unable to deal with W2 infantry out of the meta entirely.
If you really want Marines to feel elite, then you need to convince a lot of other people to stop playing them. If, say, Imperial Guard became the default army, then people would instead start tailoring for massed T3 5+ infantry. In this scenario, even 1-wound T4 3+ infantry would feel elite by comparison, as they would be dealing with a lot of basic flamers, bolters, grenade launchers and other such weapons with little to no AP. However, when the majority of the player base is playing a flavour of Marines, all you're going to see is Plasma, Disintegrators and other such weapons that excel at slaying Marines.
What changes when marines go to W1? I'd wager nothing. As for me, they'd go back on the shelves because they'd most likely be unplayable unless you take some skew list that doesn't have a hint of fluff behind it.
The prevalence of high ap weapons won't just disappear, as you yourself say marines are the most popular faction. So why would they change tactics? Nothing would change unless everything changes from grot to knight.
I can't speak for all marine players, but all I want to do is line up my 30 odd marines mixed with vehicles and have a fair game against my opponent. W1 marines didn't give me that.
fraser1191 wrote: So because marines are the baseline we are doomed to just suck it up and be not a "good" faction?
It's not that Marines can't be good, that's just being disingenuous and ignoring all the times when Marines have been good.
It's that Marine players want to have their cake and eat it. They want their Marines to feel like these super-rare, impossibly-elite units, because that's how they're depicted in all the bolter-born books. However, they're also playing the most ubiquitous army in the entire game. It just doesn't work.
The popularity of Marines means that they are - and will always be - the baseline for infantry. If you make them W2, it doesn't make them more elite, it just makes W2 the baseline for troops and forces any anti-infantry weapons/units unable to deal with W2 infantry out of the meta entirely.
If you really want Marines to feel elite, then you need to convince a lot of other people to stop playing them. If, say, Imperial Guard became the default army, then people would instead start tailoring for massed T3 5+ infantry. In this scenario, even 1-wound T4 3+ infantry would feel elite by comparison, as they would be dealing with a lot of basic flamers, bolters, grenade launchers and other such weapons with little to no AP. However, when the majority of the player base is playing a flavour of Marines, all you're going to see is Plasma, Disintegrators and other such weapons that excel at slaying Marines.
Exactly this.
I've squeezed every ounce of competitiveness out of the old smelly potato that is the Tau codex and my go-to list for matched play pick up games is simply packed with anti-MEQ weapons. Once considered the constraints given by my collection of models, I feel that I have a better chance of playing a decent game if I bring massed Dd3 weapons like missile pods and D2 heavy burst cannons on at least a Riptide. I usually bring literally zero flamers or other anti-GEQ weapons as they would be basically useless against T4 W2 3+ statlines that more or less represent half of the possible opposing armies.
and as someone also piloting an old, janky, neglected potato of a codex that is GSC, this fact for me is FANTASTIC.
fraser1191 wrote: So because marines are the baseline we are doomed to just suck it up and be not a "good" faction?
It's not that Marines can't be good, that's just being disingenuous and ignoring all the times when Marines have been good.
It's that Marine players want to have their cake and eat it. They want their Marines to feel like these super-rare, impossibly-elite units, because that's how they're depicted in all the bolter-born books. However, they're also playing the most ubiquitous army in the entire game. It just doesn't work.
The popularity of Marines means that they are - and will always be - the baseline for infantry. If you make them W2, it doesn't make them more elite, it just makes W2 the baseline for troops and forces any anti-infantry weapons/units unable to deal with W2 infantry out of the meta entirely.
If you really want Marines to feel elite, then you need to convince a lot of other people to stop playing them. If, say, Imperial Guard became the default army, then people would instead start tailoring for massed T3 5+ infantry. In this scenario, even 1-wound T4 3+ infantry would feel elite by comparison, as they would be dealing with a lot of basic flamers, bolters, grenade launchers and other such weapons with little to no AP. However, when the majority of the player base is playing a flavour of Marines, all you're going to see is Plasma, Disintegrators and other such weapons that excel at slaying Marines.
What changes when marines go to W1? I'd wager nothing. As for me, they'd go back on the shelves because they'd most likely be unplayable unless you take some skew list that doesn't have a hint of fluff behind it.
The prevalence of high ap weapons won't just disappear, as you yourself say marines are the most popular faction. So why would they change tactics? Nothing would change unless everything changes from grot to knight.
I can't speak for all marine players, but all I want to do is line up my 30 odd marines mixed with vehicles and have a fair game against my opponent. W1 marines didn't give me that.
*looks at my 1w chaos space marines* yeah that’s fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I remember when all my chaos space marines did was explode and run away... good times 7th edition were.
The prevalence of high ap weapons won't just disappear, as you yourself say marines are the most popular faction. So why would they change tactics? Nothing would change unless everything changes from grot to knight.
As long as they are the most popular faction, TAC list will always be somehow tailored against them.
I can't speak for all marine players, but all I want to do is line up my 30 odd marines mixed with vehicles and have a fair game against my opponent. W1 marines didn't give me that.
My 30-40 1W space wolves infantries, backed with some vehicles, did great in every edition I played (3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th). My regular SM opponents, also fielding 30-40 infantries and some vehicles, did great in every editions I played as well.
Having a few anti MEQ weapons in your list isn't skewing or tailoring.
The medium/heavy infantry profile is everywhere in the game, not only on SM. If you don't prepare for them, then it is like making a list without any form of AT.
Spoletta wrote: Having a few anti MEQ weapons in your list isn't skewing or tailoring.
The medium/heavy infantry profile is everywhere in the game, not only on SM. If you don't prepare for them, then it is like making a list without any form of AT.
True, but bringing lots of anti meq weapons and little anti cheap chaff and little anti tank surely is. Most of the SM armies just run footslogging/jump pack/biker multi-wound models.
As far as I see though, lists are not skewing toward anti MEQ.
I'll use examples of pre nerf because I still don't have a clear picture of the post data slate meta.
Freebooterz: Anti MEQ in in the form of squigbuggies and that's it. Whazbomma and scrapjects are anti tank. Dakkajets are anti chaff.
Greyknights: All those stormbolters are anti chaff. Dknights are played both with psilancers which are anti chaff and psycanons which are anti MEQ. Infantry melee attacks are anti MEQ.
Admech: Stratoraptors are anti tank. Rangers are anti chaff. Sicarans are a general purpose antichaff/anti MEQ. Chickens are played only as AT and never seen in the anti MEQ configuration.
Sisters: Repentia are anti MEQ. Zehprim are again a general purpose anti chaff/anti MEQ. All the melta girls are AT. Have you ever seen a sister with an heavy bolter for anti MEQ role? Me neither.
Tyranids: HG are anti MEQ. Stealers are anti chaff. Big FW bugs are anti tank
Drukhari: Whytches are anti chaff. Disintegrators are nowhere to be seen, and instead they load all possible dark lances for AT. The only real anti MEQ they have are Incubi and one Succubus build.
Now obviously, many of the anti chaff or anti AT I listed, will work decently against MEQs too. That's normal, they are a profile which stands between chaff and tanks, so they get caught in the crossfire. The actual amount of dedicated anti MEQ units in lists, is actually fairly reasonable.
There also a few stratagems and buffs which can turn anti chaff weapons into decent anti MEQ weapons. But again, that's not a skew in list building, that's just how the game is made.
If you look at lists, the real profile which gets spammed above everything else, is the single damage high AP weapon, since it is currently a good weapon against chaff and MEQ, and a very good weapon against the -1D profiles. But again, that is not an anti MEQ weapon. It is a good general purpose weapon.
Greyknights: All those stormbolters are anti chaff. Dknights are played both with psilancers which are anti chaff and psycanons which are anti MEQ. Infantry melee attacks are anti MEQ.
I agree that stormbolters are anti-chaff, but unless I'm mistaken you can't just replace them all with other, better weapons.
So if you're tailoring against MEQ, your options are 'take some anti-chaff anyway because it's literally standard on all your units' or 'play a different army'.
What's more, you give the example of Dreadknights taking Psilencers as well as Psycannons, yet ignore the fact that Dreadknights can only take a single Psycannon each. So if they want an extra ranged weapon, it's that or a flamer (which doesn't seem to be any better against MEQ).
Spoletta wrote: Tyranids: HG are anti MEQ. Stealers are anti chaff. Big FW bugs are anti tank
Calling stealers anti-chaff seems disingenuous. They've got S4 AP-1 attacks that are AP-4 on a 6 to wound.
Yes, they're not the absolute best at killing Marines, but what are we comparing them to? Do you think the Tyranid player would have an easier time killing MEQ if he instead took termagants, homogants or rippers for his troops?
Drukhari: Whytches are anti chaff. Disintegrators are nowhere to be seen, and instead they load all possible dark lances for AT. The only real anti MEQ they have are Incubi and one Succubus build.
Again, you call Wyches anti-chaff and ignore that DE players have all but abandoned Warriors - which are the *actual* anti-chaff units as, unlike Wyches, they get no AP on their weapons.
As with Genestealers, Wyches aren't ideal against Marines, but they're still a damn sight better than Warriors.
Further, D2 factors heavily into DE lists and you see this not just with Incubi and Succubi but also with units like Hellions, Talos and Grotesques (not to mention Liquifier Guns before DT was nerfed).
Incidentally, yes, Dark Lances are currently used instead of Disintegrators, and that's because other DE anti-tank weapons have not kept pace (Blasters, Blast Pistols etc. are still D1d6, rather than the Dark Lance's D3+3). Also, with stuff like -1D Dreadnoughts to watch out for, Disintegrators can't be relied upon to double as anti-vehicle firepower anymore.
My point is, not every army has perfect anti-MEQ options in every single slot. So especially when it comes to essentials like troops, you can't expect every single unit to be wielding Plasma-equivalent weapons as the benchmark for whether a army is tailored against MEQ or not.
What changes when marines go to W1? I'd wager nothing. As for me, they'd go back on the shelves because they'd most likely be unplayable unless you take some skew list that doesn't have a hint of fluff behind it.
The prevalence of high ap weapons won't just disappear, as you yourself say marines are the most popular faction. So why would they change tactics? Nothing would change unless everything changes from grot to knight.
I can't speak for all marine players, but all I want to do is line up my 30 odd marines mixed with vehicles and have a fair game against my opponent. W1 marines didn't give me that.
What changes? More models in a host of armies become relevant and useful/playable. Why take a shoota boy which takes 18 turns to kill 1 Marine at 2wounds when I can take a choppa boy who kills a Marine in CC every 2 turns(4 phases). Why take big shootas on anything which take 9 turns to kill 1 Marine (at normal range) when I can instead take a Rokkit which kills a Marine every 2.7 turns, and can also be useful against Tanks.
You are a victim of your armies success, and in that I mean Popularity. I will ALWAYS list tailor at tournaments to play against Marines because its a rare event where Marines don't make up at least 1/3rd of the player base, and if you lump in similar profiled armies like Grey Knights, Custodes, Sisters of Battle, Chaos Marines, Death Guard, Thousand Sons etc, its a lot more than 1/3rd.
Spoletta wrote: Having a few anti MEQ weapons in your list isn't skewing or tailoring.
The medium/heavy infantry profile is everywhere in the game, not only on SM. If you don't prepare for them, then it is like making a list without any form of AT.
Correct. And as I just mentioned above, if you lump in all those armies together due to their very similar defensive profiles, its closer to 50%+ of the playerbase if not more.
Spoletta wrote: As far as I see though, lists are not skewing toward anti MEQ.
I'll use examples of pre nerf because I still don't have a clear picture of the post data slate meta.
Freebooterz: Anti MEQ in in the form of squigbuggies and that's it. Whazbomma and scrapjects are anti tank. Dakkajets are anti chaff.
Now obviously, many of the anti chaff or anti AT I listed, will work decently against MEQs too. That's normal, they are a profile which stands between chaff and tanks, so they get caught in the crossfire. The actual amount of dedicated anti MEQ units in lists, is actually fairly reasonable.
There also a few stratagems and buffs which can turn anti chaff weapons into decent anti MEQ weapons. But again, that's not a skew in list building, that's just how the game is made.
If you look at lists, the real profile which gets spammed above everything else, is the single damage high AP weapon, since it is currently a good weapon against chaff and MEQ, and a very good weapon against the -1D profiles. But again, that is not an anti MEQ weapon. It is a good general purpose weapon.
I'm highlighting orkz because...well, its the only army I play
Squigbuggies are purpose built to feth up Marines. The Whazbom is also great at killing Marines. The Tellyport Mega Blasta is 7 shots on average for 3.5 hits, just shy of 3 wounds and at -2 its basically 2 dead Marines a turn just from that. Smasha gun likely aces another Marine, and the 2 Supa Shootas average 1 more dead Marine. So it likely kills 4 Marines a turn without any buffs at all. Same with the dakkajet, unbuffed its 36 shots, 12 hits, 8 wounds and 4dmg to a Marine for 2 dead Marines, and it costs about half as much as the Wazbom. Scrapjet...its purpose built to target everything. On a normal turn that Scrapjet is killing 1.29 Marines from its Rokkitz and another 0.92 from its Big shootas. But the truly horrific dmg to Marines...hell, to everyone against that Freeboota list is when it is buffed. During a SpeedWaaagh turn...also known as Turn 1, that Wazbom goes from killing 4ish Marines to 5.8ish, the Dakkajet meanwhile kills 4.6, and the Scrapjet? it goes from killing 2.21 Marines to 4.43. Scrapjet is 90pts, its killing almost exactly 90pts during a Speedwaaagh and when buffed with freeboota proc.
The reason those units were so popular is specifically because they are multi-role. A wazbom can kill about 50% of its cost in Marines in 1 turn OR it can do some hefty dmg to a heavy vehicle with its S9 and S8 weapons. The Dakkajet can slaughter Marines or just as easily clean out light infantry with relative ease. The scrapjet is a jack of all trades. its rokkitz can shred elite infantry and heavy vehicles while its Bigshootas can go after light infantry and when buffed can even inflict some significant dmg to Marines.
As I already said in my post, I know that Wytches, Whazbommas and the like can perfectly kill marines.
But as I said that's because marines suffer not only from anti MEQ, but also against anti chaff and anti vehicle. If I wanted to skew against MEQ I would bring different stuff. The fact that people bring weapons that are more broadly useful, speaks for the fact that MEQs are not what you are worried about. Especially now that the SM profile has mostly disappeared from competitive play.
The only ones left are GK, and usually the problem against them is not in killing the infantry in LoS.
personally I like that GW showed they are willing to play with ways other than armor saves to make units more different. the loss of initiative ( i think this was a good change) to make armies different and choice more impactful. 2 wounds on a toughness 4 with a 3+ is a reasonably durable platform that can still be dealt with. orks going to T5 was also good in that its a way of showing them shrugging off what to other species would be mortal wounds which in the fluff is the case (could also have done with a inbuilt feel no pain thing like armywide 6+++ but alas that did not happen and ork infantry are kind of overcostedly bad now). I am hoping custodes now get more wounds and maybe even a higher toughness for some units like their allarus terminators as well too. Each army should feel significantly different and for the last few editions they have trended more samesies so welcome the differentiations to factions.
I feel its a very boring drum to beat these days - but surely the issue demonstrated by the mathhammer above is just that most things are effective against most things these days. Arguably this has been taken to achieve balance - but the result is that you don't really have to specialise and in turn this is why you get complaints that everything's fallen over by the end of turn 2 unless the table is neatly compartmentalized with LOS-blocking terrain.
Spoletta wrote: As I already said in my post, I know that Wytches, Whazbommas and the like can perfectly kill marines.
But as I said that's because marines suffer not only from anti MEQ, but also against anti chaff and anti vehicle. If I wanted to skew against MEQ I would bring different stuff.
The fact that people bring weapons that are more broadly useful, speaks for the fact that MEQs are not what you are worried about. Especially now that the SM profile has mostly disappeared from competitive play.
The only ones left are GK, and usually the problem against them is not in killing the infantry in LoS.
From a competitive stand point it's not marines people are worried about, they're the bulk of the herd in the middle that people know they have to beat but not what will win the event. The tools used to melt marines aren't by default good against the top flight armies, but the stuff that is good against the top flight armies generally aren't horrendous against marines conversely.
Spoletta wrote: As I already said in my post, I know that Wytches, Whazbommas and the like can perfectly kill marines.
But as I said that's because marines suffer not only from anti MEQ, but also against anti chaff and anti vehicle. If I wanted to skew against MEQ I would bring different stuff.
The fact that people bring weapons that are more broadly useful, speaks for the fact that MEQs are not what you are worried about. Especially now that the SM profile has mostly disappeared from competitive play.
The only ones left are GK, and usually the problem against them is not in killing the infantry in LoS.
From a competitive stand point it's not marines people are worried about, they're the bulk of the herd in the middle that people know they have to beat but not what will win the event. The tools used to melt marines aren't by default good against the top flight armies, but the stuff that is good against the top flight armies generally aren't horrendous against marines conversely.
I think part of that equation was GW's decision to move away from hordes being really viable. mass low save low to medium toughness armies like Tyranids, Orks, and Chaos demons had their horde versions nerfed and brought down with mechanics making them uncomperative. instead its a T3/4 3/4+ armor meta (in the case of Drukari witches 4++ in melee but 6+ armor)
On the other end of the spectrum from hordes most Heavy vehicles are pretty overpriced. Landraiders, Battlewagons, Forgefiends, Fireprisms etc. are now generally too expensive points wise to consider taking. So people bring light armor vehicles mostly instead of heavier so most people see the meta and no reason to bring out the heavy low shot guns liek lascannons or bright lances.
A lot of the middling weapons that deal well with medium to heavy armor infantry also can handle light armor. so its a bad time for power armor armies. That said I think with the buffs to Leman Russ battle tanks and the changes to Imperial knights we may see a shakeup in that meta. Its a bit too early to tell though maybe in another month or so to see the affect on tournament lists just in time for hopefully the GSC and Custodes books to shake things up.
Spoletta wrote: Having a few anti MEQ weapons in your list isn't skewing or tailoring.
The medium/heavy infantry profile is everywhere in the game, not only on SM. If you don't prepare for them, then it is like making a list without any form of AT.
True, but bringing lots of anti meq weapons and little anti cheap chaff and little anti tank surely is. Most of the SM armies just run footslogging/jump pack/biker multi-wound models.
maybe this has more to do with the fact that weve had a huge power spike for basically any army getting a 9e codex outside of space marine 2.0dex bs which was more of a side-grade, and in that time we've had...two? One? one and a half? armies that include any GEQ-profile infantry units, so people dont really have to prepare for them.
Its almost like GSC, Guard, nids (outside of busted FW super-monsters and specifically hive guard), Eldar, Tau, etc have all been just sitting around in the dumpster while GW releases 9 power armor codexes.
Spoletta wrote: As I already said in my post, I know that Wytches, Whazbommas and the like can perfectly kill marines.
But as I said that's because marines suffer not only from anti MEQ, but also against anti chaff and anti vehicle. If I wanted to skew against MEQ I would bring different stuff.
The fact that people bring weapons that are more broadly useful, speaks for the fact that MEQs are not what you are worried about. Especially now that the SM profile has mostly disappeared from competitive play.
The only ones left are GK, and usually the problem against them is not in killing the infantry in LoS.
From a competitive stand point it's not marines people are worried about, they're the bulk of the herd in the middle that people know they have to beat but not what will win the event. The tools used to melt marines aren't by default good against the top flight armies, but the stuff that is good against the top flight armies generally aren't horrendous against marines conversely.
I think part of that equation was GW's decision to move away from hordes being really viable. mass low save low to medium toughness armies like Tyranids, Orks, and Chaos demons had their horde versions nerfed and brought down with mechanics making them uncomperative. instead its a T3/4 3/4+ armor meta (in the case of Drukari witches 4++ in melee but 6+ armor)
On the other end of the spectrum from hordes most Heavy vehicles are pretty overpriced. Landraiders, Battlewagons, Forgefiends, Fireprisms etc. are now generally too expensive points wise to consider taking. So people bring light armor vehicles mostly instead of heavier so most people see the meta and no reason to bring out the heavy low shot guns liek lascannons or bright lances.
A lot of the middling weapons that deal well with medium to heavy armor infantry also can handle light armor. so its a bad time for power armor armies. That said I think with the buffs to Leman Russ battle tanks and the changes to Imperial knights we may see a shakeup in that meta. Its a bit too early to tell though maybe in another month or so to see the affect on tournament lists just in time for hopefully the GSC and Custodes books to shake things up.
^^^^^this edition appears to be a 'race to the middle' edition much like 7e where spammed bikes, heavy infantry stars and other forms of super-buffed elite units dominated and cheap units couldnt compete while big units would just get dunked on super hard by the massive buffed up star lists.
"Tell me you've got someone on ignore without telling me you've got someone on ignore."
He mentioned he ignored me in the very thread he did it in because he didn't like that I preferred 4th instead of 5th or something after I asked him his opinion on how something was in 4th.
I forget the details
Don't feel bad, I think by now I'm on almost everyone's ignore list or one reason or other.
I'm basically just a ghost at this point.
To anyone who hasn't yet ignored me: Wooooooooooo
I don't have you ignored, rejoice I can enjoy each delicious written word as they are placed into a thread. Mmmmm writing.
I don't have vipod on ignore either because despite me almost never agreeing with them, they actually use arguments to back up their opinion and don't derail every other thread.
I mostly use the ignore function to remind me to not reply to certain people.
The problem with marines stats is that they don't pay for them.
I mean, look at Custodes. It doesn't matter how their basic infantry is basically better than all other armies elite infantry because they actually pay for those stats. I have never seen someone come and say "Man it sucks that your 3 custodian guards fought agaisnt my 30 hormagants and won with one and a half custodian guard alive" because those two squads cost basically the same in points and it took like 5 fight phases for the combat to resolve.
If the upgrade of marine stats came with appropiate point costs in relation to the other armies, you would not need to make all other factions "hordes", just marines more elite.
But we can see how even as cheap as they are basic marines aren't used because they are nearly useless. That speaks more about the state of the game and less about the power relations thematically and mathematically of different infantries in the game, of course, but is something to keep in mind nonetheless.
But we can see how even as cheap as they are basic marines aren't used because they are nearly useless. That speaks more about the state of the game and less about the power relations thematically and mathematically of different infantries in the game, of course, but is something to keep in mind nonetheless.
That's because T5 3W infantries are much better and SM can bring a lot of those, but basic marines are far from being bad. As always in the recent history of 40k most of the SM stuff that is considered underwhelming in reality isn't bad at all, it simply suffers from internal competition.
Blackie wrote: That's because T5 3W infantries are much better and SM can bring a lot of those, but basic marines are far from being bad. As always in the recent history of 40k most of the SM stuff that is considered underwhelming in reality isn't bad at all, it simply suffers from internal competition.
You are talking about Gravis, right? They aren't used in tournaments either, from what I can tell. No Captains, no Heavy Intercessor, no Eradicators, maybe a unit of Plasma Inceptors, but they are stupidly expensive.
The basic issue as I see it is that GW have altered the stat lines of units, but they keep altering the weapon stats too so you end up back where you start.
Yes, a Marine is now more resilient versus any basic 1 damage attack. But then about half the weapons on the table seem to have 2 damage now and/or S5+ and a bunch of AP.
Hence the need for Marines to operate as a 2+/4++ faction.
What changes when marines go to W1? I'd wager nothing. As for me, they'd go back on the shelves because they'd most likely be unplayable unless you take some skew list that doesn't have a hint of fluff behind it.
The prevalence of high ap weapons won't just disappear, as you yourself say marines are the most popular faction. So why would they change tactics? Nothing would change unless everything changes from grot to knight.
I can't speak for all marine players, but all I want to do is line up my 30 odd marines mixed with vehicles and have a fair game against my opponent. W1 marines didn't give me that.
What changes? More models in a host of armies become relevant and useful/playable. Why take a shoota boy which takes 18 turns to kill 1 Marine at 2wounds when I can take a choppa boy who kills a Marine in CC every 2 turns(4 phases). Why take big shootas on anything which take 9 turns to kill 1 Marine (at normal range) when I can instead take a Rokkit which kills a Marine every 2.7 turns, and can also be useful against Tanks.
You are a victim of your armies success, and in that I mean Popularity. I will ALWAYS list tailor at tournaments to play against Marines because its a rare event where Marines don't make up at least 1/3rd of the player base, and if you lump in similar profiled armies like Grey Knights, Custodes, Sisters of Battle, Chaos Marines, Death Guard, Thousand Sons etc, its a lot more than 1/3rd.
That's kind of my point.
If shootas were better than choppas you'd list tailor and pick shootas over choppas. Viability goes out the window when you actively choose to tailer against MEQ profiles.
Even if a faction that's not marines is dominating the meta you still probably have better odds of placing better if you tailer against marines due to their popularity. That's why I said nothing would really change unless everything did.
Viability goes out the window when you actively choose to tailer against MEQ profiles.
If that's a problem there are only two solutions:
1) Make marines the absolute worst army in the game so no one will tailor against them no matter how frequent they show up
2) Buy and play other armies
Being a marine player has certainly more upsides than downsides: it's a faction that is always updated, even multiple times in the same edition, it will always get a lot of new releases and it's one of the cheapest factions considering it's an elite army and always part of starter sets. 2nd hand market is flooded with marines as well. They're also the easiest army to play. Most of the players from other factions would certainly accept being tailored against pretty often if they get this kind of "support" from GW in return.
I'd argue a related issue is the move to make Vehicles use Toughness values, and then make the to-wound chart so broad in its range. Post 8th is a paradigm where mid strength, high rate of fire weapons happen to be very effective against vehicles in addition to being more effective against Marines under the new AP paradigm. If Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles demanded different weapons to engage them, players would be more pressured to choose options other than the mid-strength, high ROF weapons.
Wasn't that already the case in 6e and/or 7e after the advent of Hull Points? I know those weapons usually didn't have the AP to directly negate MEQ armor, but if you're already spamming them to critfish against vehicles...
waefre_1 wrote: Wasn't that already the case in 6e and/or 7e after the advent of Hull Points? I know those weapons usually didn't have the AP to directly negate MEQ armor, but if you're already spamming them to critfish against vehicles...
Well I'm reasonably certain nobody holds 6th-7th as any sort of pinnacle of 40k
As Marines the issue I see is that a Grav Cannon, in particular, is better than a HB against hordes (more shots), great against Elites (multishot high AP), and better against vehicles than a Lascannon (high ROF, multi-damage, high AP). Why take anything else? Only the Multimelta has a superior bracket of target.
But if S5 only wounded T7-8 on a 6 like previous editions, you cut out some targets. Previously, a Pred could only even be hurt by a S7 or higher weapon from the front. That changes the nature of the tools and tactics required.
waefre_1 wrote: Wasn't that already the case in 6e and/or 7e after the advent of Hull Points? I know those weapons usually didn't have the AP to directly negate MEQ armor, but if you're already spamming them to critfish against vehicles...
Well I'm reasonably certain nobody holds 6th-7th as any sort of pinnacle of 40k
As Marines the issue I see is that a Grav Cannon, in particular, is better than a HB against hordes (more shots), great against Elites (multishot high AP), and better against vehicles than a Lascannon (high ROF, multi-damage, high AP). Why take anything else? Only the Multimelta has a superior bracket of target.
But if S5 only wounded T7-8 on a 6 like previous editions, you cut out some targets. Previously, a Pred could only even be hurt by a S7 or higher weapon from the front. That changes the nature of the tools and tactics required.
Said Grav cannon is very bad against a lot of targets though. Namely DG, Dreadnaughts, Artist of flesh, ramshackle or any of the very common -1D targets.
2D weapons are high reward high risk weapons in 9th. They tend to have a good efficency compared to the points, but can run into some very hard counters.
Galas wrote: The problem with marines stats is that they don't pay for them.
I mean, look at Custodes. It doesn't matter how their basic infantry is basically better than all other armies elite infantry because they actually pay for those stats. I have never seen someone come and say "Man it sucks that your 3 custodian guards fought agaisnt my 30 hormagants and won with one and a half custodian guard alive" because those two squads cost basically the same in points and it took like 5 fight phases for the combat to resolve.
If the upgrade of marine stats came with appropiate point costs in relation to the other armies, you would not need to make all other factions "hordes", just marines more elite.
But we can see how even as cheap as they are basic marines aren't used because they are nearly useless. That speaks more about the state of the game and less about the power relations thematically and mathematically of different infantries in the game, of course, but is something to keep in mind nonetheless.
I think this post does kind of touch on the issue. At first, 2 wound marines felt over whelming, too good, now it's just the norm and all the tools are out there to deal with them. Two wounds feels absurd, until you look at how much damage is being tossed around, the kind of shot volleys that can rain down upon them, two wounds just doesn't feel all that amazingly helpful. I doubt as more updated armies come out that won't feel even worse for them. Which will lead to of course probably the inevitable second printing of a marine book to dial them over the top, or PA style books to buff everyone through the roof before edition change is inevitable.
Now I'm not saying marines are the super weak, I've never felt marines were weak, even when they were kinda weak, but aside from some specialist units, their infantry aren't what is rocking anyone's socks off, even if they are better than many other peoples infantry. Which is kind of an odd thing to feel when the marines as long as I played them were kind of supposed to find their strength in their infantry at least by ideal if not in game rules reflecting it.
Which for good or bad the time of the 5th ed space wolf book comes to mind. You had some cheesy tricks but the core Grey hunter squad felt great, too good ? Probably, but it was one of those times that the core troop felt amazing for a space marine faction. They even took up most of my points in a list and something about that felt really good. Better than all the thunder wolves, or wulfen, etc, etc, just relying on the troops to get it done felt good. How do GW get there with marines but avoid player rage ? Of that I am not sure.
Marines are too common among the playerbase to be "good" (ie: as good as Marines player want them to be) while the game is in a healthy state at the same time.
Another reason is that's inevitable that other armies and TAC lists are prepared with facing MEQ profiles in mind, since Marines are so common.
Wait for CSM to receive their second wound and you'll see even more anti-MEQ weapons in lists.
Aenar wrote: Marines are too common among the playerbase to be "good" (ie: as good as Marines player want them to be) while the game is in a healthy state at the same time.
Another reason is that's inevitable that other armies and TAC lists are prepared with facing MEQ profiles in mind, since Marines are so common.
Wait for CSM to receive their second wound and you'll see even more anti-MEQ weapons in lists.
Marines are currently "good", I don't think I've seen any marine players asking for buffs either, just my fellow chaos marines asking for parity.
I just want to know where the idea that marine players want to be top of the pile comes from? They're a very healthy middle of the pack I.e. fairly balanced at present.
waefre_1 wrote: Wasn't that already the case in 6e and/or 7e after the advent of Hull Points? I know those weapons usually didn't have the AP to directly negate MEQ armor, but if you're already spamming them to critfish against vehicles...
Well I'm reasonably certain nobody holds 6th-7th as any sort of pinnacle of 40k
As Marines the issue I see is that a Grav Cannon, in particular, is better than a HB against hordes (more shots), great against Elites (multishot high AP), and better against vehicles than a Lascannon (high ROF, multi-damage, high AP). Why take anything else? Only the Multimelta has a superior bracket of target.
But if S5 only wounded T7-8 on a 6 like previous editions, you cut out some targets. Previously, a Pred could only even be hurt by a S7 or higher weapon from the front. That changes the nature of the tools and tactics required.
Said Grav cannon is very bad against a lot of targets though. Namely DG, Dreadnaughts, Artist of flesh, ramshackle or any of the very common -1D targets.
2D weapons are high reward high risk weapons in 9th. They tend to have a good efficency compared to the points, but can run into some very hard counters.
That's really just a confirmation of my point, hehe. GW has been forced to create a new special rule for damage resistance because of the mashed target profiles resulting from post 8th to-wound chart and AP system.
waefre_1 wrote: Wasn't that already the case in 6e and/or 7e after the advent of Hull Points? I know those weapons usually didn't have the AP to directly negate MEQ armor, but if you're already spamming them to critfish against vehicles...
Well I'm reasonably certain nobody holds 6th-7th as any sort of pinnacle of 40k
As Marines the issue I see is that a Grav Cannon, in particular, is better than a HB against hordes (more shots), great against Elites (multishot high AP), and better against vehicles than a Lascannon (high ROF, multi-damage, high AP). Why take anything else? Only the Multimelta has a superior bracket of target.
But if S5 only wounded T7-8 on a 6 like previous editions, you cut out some targets. Previously, a Pred could only even be hurt by a S7 or higher weapon from the front. That changes the nature of the tools and tactics required.
Said Grav cannon is very bad against a lot of targets though. Namely DG, Dreadnaughts, Artist of flesh, ramshackle or any of the very common -1D targets.
2D weapons are high reward high risk weapons in 9th. They tend to have a good efficency compared to the points, but can run into some very hard counters.
That's really just a confirmation of my point, hehe. GW has been forced to create a new special rule for damage resistance because of the mashed target profiles resulting from post 8th to-wound chart and AP system.
GW creates multiple categories of special durability rules in order to make different weapons optimal vs different targets, instead of defaulting towards a race to the middle where a couple specific values of strength and a couple specific values of AP are vastly more valuable than others.
The horror. Oh man, really shows how completely imbalanced the game is now. I might have to take something other than a las-plas razorback to win games. How awful.
The horror. Oh man, really shows how completely imbalanced the game is now. I might have to take something other than a las-plas razorback to win games. How awful.
I use Las/Plas Razorbacks because that's the only model of Razorback I own.
Different turrets came along loong after I'd bought/built/painted my Razorbacks & I saw no need to buy/build/paint additional turrets.
If my opponent objects because the Las/Plas isn't even in Legends? The I just shoot the Lascannon twice.
waefre_1 wrote: Wasn't that already the case in 6e and/or 7e after the advent of Hull Points? I know those weapons usually didn't have the AP to directly negate MEQ armor, but if you're already spamming them to critfish against vehicles...
Well I'm reasonably certain nobody holds 6th-7th as any sort of pinnacle of 40k
As Marines the issue I see is that a Grav Cannon, in particular, is better than a HB against hordes (more shots), great against Elites (multishot high AP), and better against vehicles than a Lascannon (high ROF, multi-damage, high AP). Why take anything else? Only the Multimelta has a superior bracket of target.
But if S5 only wounded T7-8 on a 6 like previous editions, you cut out some targets. Previously, a Pred could only even be hurt by a S7 or higher weapon from the front. That changes the nature of the tools and tactics required.
Said Grav cannon is very bad against a lot of targets though. Namely DG, Dreadnaughts, Artist of flesh, ramshackle or any of the very common -1D targets.
2D weapons are high reward high risk weapons in 9th. They tend to have a good efficency compared to the points, but can run into some very hard counters.
That's really just a confirmation of my point, hehe. GW has been forced to create a new special rule for damage resistance because of the mashed target profiles resulting from post 8th to-wound chart and AP system.
GW creates multiple categories of special durability rules in order to make different weapons optimal vs different targets, instead of defaulting towards a race to the middle where a couple specific values of strength and a couple specific values of AP are vastly more valuable than others.
The horror. Oh man, really shows how completely imbalanced the game is now. I might have to take something other than a las-plas razorback to win games. How awful.
I genuinely don't understand the point of this post. There appears to be a lot of misapplied sarcasm.
waefre_1 wrote: Wasn't that already the case in 6e and/or 7e after the advent of Hull Points? I know those weapons usually didn't have the AP to directly negate MEQ armor, but if you're already spamming them to critfish against vehicles...
Well I'm reasonably certain nobody holds 6th-7th as any sort of pinnacle of 40k
As Marines the issue I see is that a Grav Cannon, in particular, is better than a HB against hordes (more shots), great against Elites (multishot high AP), and better against vehicles than a Lascannon (high ROF, multi-damage, high AP). Why take anything else? Only the Multimelta has a superior bracket of target.
But if S5 only wounded T7-8 on a 6 like previous editions, you cut out some targets. Previously, a Pred could only even be hurt by a S7 or higher weapon from the front. That changes the nature of the tools and tactics required.
Said Grav cannon is very bad against a lot of targets though. Namely DG, Dreadnaughts, Artist of flesh, ramshackle or any of the very common -1D targets.
2D weapons are high reward high risk weapons in 9th. They tend to have a good efficency compared to the points, but can run into some very hard counters.
That's really just a confirmation of my point, hehe. GW has been forced to create a new special rule for damage resistance because of the mashed target profiles resulting from post 8th to-wound chart and AP system.
GW creates multiple categories of special durability rules in order to make different weapons optimal vs different targets, instead of defaulting towards a race to the middle where a couple specific values of strength and a couple specific values of AP are vastly more valuable than others.
The horror. Oh man, really shows how completely imbalanced the game is now. I might have to take something other than a las-plas razorback to win games. How awful.
I genuinely don't understand the point of this post. There appears to be a lot of misapplied sarcasm.
Every edition I played before the 8e/9e paradigm suffered from a massive problem with there being 'ideal weapon values' that the most competitive builds defaulted towards. All las-plas razorbacks. All missile launcher long fangs. All wave serpents. etc. The natural tendency of GW to pull all baseline troops towards the T3 6+/5+ W1 statline where nearly every basic anti-troop weapon in the game got AP5 handed out like candy, rendering all distinctions moot. The tendency to make nearly all elites and characters T4 with 3+ or 2+ armor. nearly all tanks AV12 or AV11 in the front, AV11 in the sides and AV10 in the rear. It meant every edition the competitive players would just figure out a 'solve' for the meta, and from the research ive done on 4th edition, it was no different - competitive lists were stuff like "heres my 6 gun-wielding carnifexes and my minimum ripper troops" and the like. in 7th, the edition I know the best, grav and strength 6 weaponry represented a 'solution' to 90% of the defenses in the edition, for almost the entire extent of the edition.
Pick any edition and look at a tournament-winning list, and then look at a tournament-winning list right now. Odds are EXTREMELY good that youre going to see drastically more variety in what people take in their unit choices, precisely because they've finally finally broken free of the idiotic self-restriction of creating 4-5 balance levers for durability but making 95% of the units in the game durable in exactly the same ways. And the types of units that have issues - say, vehicles atm - are having issues exactly because they havent diversified their defenses at all, you can 'solve' for vehicles by just taking something that will be optimally effective vs T7 3+.
But now if youre talking about elite infantry - do i take D2 to tailor vs marines? do I take D1 because I might be up against Necrons or Sisters who make my D2 pointless? Do I take AP, or is the elite unit im going to be up against Harlequins or Custodes, with solid invulnerable saves? Will the elite unit be T3, T4, or T5 - there are actual units in the meta at appreciable quantities that actually have all those values.
Invulns, high toughness+wounds with low save, to-hit mods, -1 damage, feel no pain, res prots, 1+ saves and ignore AP, all operate differently now, which makes finding "the perfect profile" much more difficult and the meta much more diverse. I have many problems with the current edition, but this is undeniably one of the things that is the best about it, and wanting to go back to the old days in this regard is just idiotic.
Every edition I played before the 8e/9e paradigm suffered from a massive problem with there being 'ideal weapon values' that the most competitive builds defaulted towards. All las-plas razorbacks. All missile launcher long fangs. All wave serpents. etc. The natural tendency of GW to pull all baseline troops towards the T3 6+/5+ W1 statline where nearly every basic anti-troop weapon in the game got AP5 handed out like candy, rendering all distinctions moot. The tendency to make nearly all elites and characters T4 with 3+ or 2+ armor. nearly all tanks AV12 or AV11 in the front, AV11 in the sides and AV10 in the rear. It meant every edition the competitive players would just figure out a 'solve' for the meta, and from the research ive done on 4th edition, it was no different - competitive lists were stuff like "heres my 6 gun-wielding carnifexes and my minimum ripper troops" and the like. in 7th, the edition I know the best, grav and strength 6 weaponry represented a 'solution' to 90% of the defenses in the edition, for almost the entire extent of the edition.
Pick any edition and look at a tournament-winning list, and then look at a tournament-winning list right now. Odds are EXTREMELY good that youre going to see drastically more variety in what people take in their unit choices, precisely because they've finally finally broken free of the idiotic self-restriction of creating 4-5 balance levers for durability but making 95% of the units in the game durable in exactly the same ways. And the types of units that have issues - say, vehicles atm - are having issues exactly because they havent diversified their defenses at all, you can 'solve' for vehicles by just taking something that will be optimally effective vs T7 3+.
But now if youre talking about elite infantry - do i take D2 to tailor vs marines? do I take D1 because I might be up against Necrons or Sisters who make my D2 pointless? Do I take AP, or is the elite unit im going to be up against Harlequins or Custodes, with solid invulnerable saves? Will the elite unit be T3, T4, or T5 - there are actual units in the meta at appreciable quantities that actually have all those values.
Invulns, high toughness+wounds with low save, to-hit mods, -1 damage, feel no pain, res prots, 1+ saves and ignore AP, all operate differently now, which makes finding "the perfect profile" much more difficult and the meta much more diverse. I have many problems with the current edition, but this is undeniably one of the things that is the best about it, and wanting to go back to the old days in this regard is just idiotic.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but mechanics like -1 damage just seem like really clunky methods for addressing these issues.
Every edition I played before the 8e/9e paradigm suffered from a massive problem with there being 'ideal weapon values' that the most competitive builds defaulted towards. All las-plas razorbacks. All missile launcher long fangs. All wave serpents. etc. The natural tendency of GW to pull all baseline troops towards the T3 6+/5+ W1 statline where nearly every basic anti-troop weapon in the game got AP5 handed out like candy, rendering all distinctions moot. The tendency to make nearly all elites and characters T4 with 3+ or 2+ armor. nearly all tanks AV12 or AV11 in the front, AV11 in the sides and AV10 in the rear. It meant every edition the competitive players would just figure out a 'solve' for the meta, and from the research ive done on 4th edition, it was no different - competitive lists were stuff like "heres my 6 gun-wielding carnifexes and my minimum ripper troops" and the like. in 7th, the edition I know the best, grav and strength 6 weaponry represented a 'solution' to 90% of the defenses in the edition, for almost the entire extent of the edition.
Pick any edition and look at a tournament-winning list, and then look at a tournament-winning list right now. Odds are EXTREMELY good that youre going to see drastically more variety in what people take in their unit choices, precisely because they've finally finally broken free of the idiotic self-restriction of creating 4-5 balance levers for durability but making 95% of the units in the game durable in exactly the same ways. And the types of units that have issues - say, vehicles atm - are having issues exactly because they havent diversified their defenses at all, you can 'solve' for vehicles by just taking something that will be optimally effective vs T7 3+.
But now if youre talking about elite infantry - do i take D2 to tailor vs marines? do I take D1 because I might be up against Necrons or Sisters who make my D2 pointless? Do I take AP, or is the elite unit im going to be up against Harlequins or Custodes, with solid invulnerable saves? Will the elite unit be T3, T4, or T5 - there are actual units in the meta at appreciable quantities that actually have all those values.
Invulns, high toughness+wounds with low save, to-hit mods, -1 damage, feel no pain, res prots, 1+ saves and ignore AP, all operate differently now, which makes finding "the perfect profile" much more difficult and the meta much more diverse. I have many problems with the current edition, but this is undeniably one of the things that is the best about it, and wanting to go back to the old days in this regard is just idiotic.
Gathering data and short on time atm, but already posted from earlier in the thread:
Pre 8th, Heavy Bolter (BS agnostic) vs.
Marine 3x .666 x .333 = .6 wounds
Guardsmen 3 x .83 = 2.49 wounds
Post 8th Heavy Bolter (BS agnostic) vs.
Marine 3x .666 x .5 = .999 wounds
Guardsmen 3x .666 x .83 = 1.65 wounds
Old system naturally provided for more diversity of defensive profiles, while the new system mashes them together. Old system also has hard cutoffs where weapons can no longer even hope to damage a defensive profile. Also Lasguns were AP -, Shootas AP 6, so some pretty major players were using less than AP 5. While Fleshborers were AP5, Devourers were AP -. So basic troops of IG, Orks and Nids, being canonically the most numerous factions of 40K.
The new system you laud for it's "diversity of defensive profiles" is the same one where lasguns and boltguns are strangely equally effective against T5, Orks and Immortals. At the same time the side effect of giving Marines 2W is taking a big dump on basically every other troops unit.
Edit: Getting bent out of shape over Las/Plas seems pretty silly. That's an AT weapon and an Anti-Elite weapon. Throw that in a Tac Squad and you have a unit with weapons against anti-light infantry, anti-elite, and anti-tank. That seems to be a rather ideal spread of weapons against a spread of targets.
I think that you are using the wrong example with the heavy bolter.
The heavy bolter was a terribly bad weapon against marines pre 8th, which was redesigned to become a good marine killer in recent editions.
You are also not accounting for the damage/wound system.
Using a more apt example, let's look at lasguns, which stayed exactly as they were.
A BS agnostic shot of lasgun used to kill 0.11 marines and 0.33 guards.
Now that same shot still kills 0.33 guards, but only 0.055 marines.
In this case you can see that the defensive profiles were actually broadened.
Let's use a weapon with AP, inferno bolters.
An inferno bolter shot killed 0.66 guards, and 0.5 marines.
Now that same bolter shot kills 0.66 guards and 0.16 marines.
Again, you can see that the difference between the defensive profiles was increased.
Now let's look at a weapon which also changed in damage. Force swords (using the 8th version before the strenght buff).
A swing from this weapon killed 0,66 guards and 0,50 marines. Now, a swing from this weapon kills 0,66 guards and 0,42 marines. They remained almost the same.
As you can see, GW acted on the problem of defensive profiles by introducing a third degree of freedom, the wound/damage system. This makes it possible to model many more defensive profiles compared to previous editions.
Every edition I played before the 8e/9e paradigm suffered from a massive problem with there being 'ideal weapon values' that the most competitive builds defaulted towards. All las-plas razorbacks. All missile launcher long fangs. All wave serpents. etc. The natural tendency of GW to pull all baseline troops towards the T3 6+/5+ W1 statline where nearly every basic anti-troop weapon in the game got AP5 handed out like candy, rendering all distinctions moot. The tendency to make nearly all elites and characters T4 with 3+ or 2+ armor. nearly all tanks AV12 or AV11 in the front, AV11 in the sides and AV10 in the rear. It meant every edition the competitive players would just figure out a 'solve' for the meta, and from the research ive done on 4th edition, it was no different - competitive lists were stuff like "heres my 6 gun-wielding carnifexes and my minimum ripper troops" and the like. in 7th, the edition I know the best, grav and strength 6 weaponry represented a 'solution' to 90% of the defenses in the edition, for almost the entire extent of the edition.
Pick any edition and look at a tournament-winning list, and then look at a tournament-winning list right now. Odds are EXTREMELY good that youre going to see drastically more variety in what people take in their unit choices, precisely because they've finally finally broken free of the idiotic self-restriction of creating 4-5 balance levers for durability but making 95% of the units in the game durable in exactly the same ways. And the types of units that have issues - say, vehicles atm - are having issues exactly because they havent diversified their defenses at all, you can 'solve' for vehicles by just taking something that will be optimally effective vs T7 3+.
But now if youre talking about elite infantry - do i take D2 to tailor vs marines? do I take D1 because I might be up against Necrons or Sisters who make my D2 pointless? Do I take AP, or is the elite unit im going to be up against Harlequins or Custodes, with solid invulnerable saves? Will the elite unit be T3, T4, or T5 - there are actual units in the meta at appreciable quantities that actually have all those values.
Invulns, high toughness+wounds with low save, to-hit mods, -1 damage, feel no pain, res prots, 1+ saves and ignore AP, all operate differently now, which makes finding "the perfect profile" much more difficult and the meta much more diverse. I have many problems with the current edition, but this is undeniably one of the things that is the best about it, and wanting to go back to the old days in this regard is just idiotic.
Gathering data and short on time atm, but already posted from earlier in the thread:
Pre 8th, Heavy Bolter (BS agnostic) vs.
Marine 3x .666 x .333 = .6 wounds
Guardsmen 3 x .83 = 2.49 wounds
Post 8th Heavy Bolter (BS agnostic) vs.
Marine 3x .666 x .5 = .999 wounds
Guardsmen 3x .666 x .83 = 1.65 wounds
Old system naturally provided for more diversity of defensive profiles, while the new system mashes them together. Old system also has hard cutoffs where weapons can no longer even hope to damage a defensive profile. Also Lasguns were AP -, Shootas AP 6, so some pretty major players were using less than AP 5. While Fleshborers were AP5, Devourers were AP -. So basic troops of IG, Orks and Nids, being canonically the most numerous factions of 40K.
The new system you laud for it's "diversity of defensive profiles" is the same one where lasguns and boltguns are strangely equally effective against T5, Orks and Immortals. At the same time the side effect of giving Marines 2W is taking a big dump on basically every other troops unit.
Edit: Getting bent out of shape over Las/Plas seems pretty silly. That's an AT weapon and an Anti-Elite weapon. Throw that in a Tac Squad and you have a unit with weapons against anti-light infantry, anti-elite, and anti-tank. That seems to be a rather ideal spread of weapons against a spread of targets.
...Come on, Insectum, try a few more examples buddy, dont just assume everyone's gonna take your word on literally one single weapon example that they literally changed to be more of an anti-MEQ weapon in a weapon update by making it D2
(all examples are assuming auto-hits to remove ballistic skill)
boltgun pre-8 vs
guardsman 1.332
kabalite 1.332
ork boy 1
marine .33
boltgun 9th vs
guardsman .887
kabalite .666
ork boy .554
marine .1665
plasma pre-8 vs
guardsman 1.666
kabalite 1.666
ork boy 1.666
marine 1.666
(Gets Hot means 1s always kill the bearer)
plasma 9th vs
guardsman 1.666
kabalite 1.387
ork boy 1.332
marine 1.387
(1s only kill the bearer vs Marine)
Battlecannon pre-8th vs
guardsman .833
kabalite .833
ork boy .833
marine .833
Battlecannon 9th vs
Guardsman .833
kabalite .694
ork boy .666
space marine .666
assault cannon pre-8th vs
guardsman 5
kabalite 5
ork boy 5
space marine 2
assault cannon 9th vs
guardsman 4.16
kabalite 3.33
ork boy 4
space marine 1
Damn, I sure miss pre-8th! I remember the good old days when my non-marine units' stats seemed to never matter at all ever, or were just the same because everybody and their mother was just T3 5+!
New AP system is primarily (not entierly) what requires us to look into other avenues of durability. It inheritley favors low armor 5+/6+ units that didnt get armor before and punishes those who use to ignore it.
New AP system is primarily (not entierly) what requires us to look into other avenues of durability. It inheritley favors low armor 5+/6+ units that didnt get armor before and punishes those who use to ignore it.
Are you intentionally or un-intentionally skipping over the fact that marines are W2 now (thus dividing the damage number for marines in half)?
the main purpose of my breakdown is just: I enjoy that 9th has added a large number of mechanics that actually meaningfully differentiate various types of units from each other in terms of durability. I don't like how muddy the waters have become in terms of adding in strats, auras, subfactions, doctrines, etc, but I like that even within the umbrella of "Space Marines" you have
-Disgustingly Resilient (-1D)
-All is Dust (if 1D then +1sv)
-Storm Shields (+1Sv effectively negating -1AP)
-Inner Circle (only wound on 4+)
That uncertainty moves 40k away from a game that can be 'solved' purely at the strategic level, and incentivizes a varied offensive array on the part of the player as opposed to just stacking on the same weapon types.
In particular, I love the decision to make Dreadnoughts -1D, which makes D2 weaponry the single least effective weapon against them. In my eyes the only problem with this was the fact that they then also left out every other marine vehicle from getting that rule - I'd have called it 'armored ceramite' or something, and had marine vehicles in general have lower wound counts but -1 damage - basically naturally fixing the issue with moving all marines to a W2 base incentivizing opponents to stack D2. As it stands, people are basically just only taking dreadnoughts in their marine armies because it naturally fixes an army wide weakness while other vehicles have zero purpose within the marine ecosystem.
if you want 'the scot take' - we need to differentiate vehicle statlines much much further than they currently are. I like the new paradigm of necron vehicles, I dont mind Ramshackle that much though I do think with its edition you really need to make sure to create a whole faction category of vehicles and monsters that really are not a fan of autocannon-equivalent weaponry to compensate. I'd make Eldar, GSC, and Dark Eldar heavy units around a baseline tough value of 6 and give them a mechanic that incentivizes multiple shots while disincentivizing single shots, and I'd make tyranid monsters extremely high toughness and wounds but with a very low save value.
You can basically resolve the deadliness problem by buffing up cover and stripping away layers of rules bloat. Ditch the 'doctrine' layer of army-wide rules/make it narrative only or whatever, and redesign strats to be like AOS rather than the current state of the game where theyre basically just a way to on-demand double or triple a couple units' firepower throughout the game.
The third dimension if you want to argue that line has always been points.
Back in 7th mass S6 AP- shooting was great because yes, you could mow down Marines and Terminators (who had their full save, but were wounded on 2s), provided instant-death versus T3 characters, and also wounded T8 and glanced AV12 on 6s.
But... if Scatbikes (for instance) had been dramatically more expensive or nerfed (as they surely would have been if GW had operated a vaguely active FAQ programme back then), every Eldar Army wouldn't have turned up with a huge amount of this attack profile.
In a similar note, 8th ended up dominated by mid-strength, mid-AP, 2 damage weapons with lots of rerolls because such weapons were far too cheap compared with everything else. 9th by contrast brought the triplewhammie of generally nerfing these things hard (see the slow rehabilitation of the Dissie) and -1 damage armies which make 2 damage attacks utterly awful - while generally buffing the "D6 damage" style weapons.
It has been a consistent problem with GW - something that is too good or too weak one edition gets 2-3 boosts or nerfs rather than just 1, pushing it from weak to OP or OP to useless. If I didn't have a low opinion of the talent and professionalism of the GW design studio when it comes to rules, I'd say they did it on purpose. Instead I think they are well meaning but incompetent.
Tyel wrote: The third dimension if you want to argue that line has always been points.
Back in 7th mass S6 AP- shooting was great because yes, you could mow down Marines and Terminators (who had their full save, but were wounded on 2s), provided instant-death versus T3 characters, and also wounded T8 and glanced AV12 on 6s.
But... if Scatbikes (for instance) had been dramatically more expensive or nerfed (as they surely would have been if GW had operated a vaguely active FAQ programme back then), every Eldar Army wouldn't have turned up with a huge amount of this attack profile.
Aside, there's also the matter of availability.
40k tended towards a rough paradigm wherein most units - and troops especially - couldn't just spam heavy or special weapons. There did exist specialist units but these were generally limited to footslogging with few to no additional advantages. So for example, a Chaos Chosen unit could all take plasmaguns but if you wanted the extra toughness and mobility afforded to Chaos Bikers, you were limited to just one special weapon per three men - the rest were stuck with bolters.
However, Eldar bikes broke this completely - they were jetbikes with (in addition to extra toughness and speed) a 4++ *and* a JSJ ability, yet you could freely outfit the entire unit with Scatter Lasers or Splinter Cannons (which, being naturally Relentless, they could fire on the move without penalty). Oh, and they were a troop unit. By comparison, the closest comparable DE unit was a fast attack choice which was limited to one special weapon per 3 bikers.
If Eldar had had to pay for 3 jetbikes to get just 1 scatter laser or splinter cannon, it might have made them a far less appealing option.
Tyel wrote: The third dimension if you want to argue that line has always been points.
Back in 7th mass S6 AP- shooting was great because yes, you could mow down Marines and Terminators (who had their full save, but were wounded on 2s), provided instant-death versus T3 characters, and also wounded T8 and glanced AV12 on 6s.
But... if Scatbikes (for instance) had been dramatically more expensive or nerfed (as they surely would have been if GW had operated a vaguely active FAQ programme back then), every Eldar Army wouldn't have turned up with a huge amount of this attack profile.
Aside, there's also the matter of availability.
40k tended towards a rough paradigm wherein most units - and troops especially - couldn't just spam heavy or special weapons. There did exist specialist units but these were generally limited to footslogging with few to no additional advantages. So for example, a Chaos Chosen unit could all take plasmaguns but if you wanted the extra toughness and mobility afforded to Chaos Bikers, you were limited to just one special weapon per three men - the rest were stuck with bolters.
However, Eldar bikes broke this completely - they were jetbikes with (in addition to extra toughness and speed) a 4++ *and* a JSJ ability, yet you could freely outfit the entire unit with Scatter Lasers or Splinter Cannons (which, being naturally Relentless, they could fire on the move without penalty). Oh, and they were a troop unit. By comparison, the closest comparable DE unit was a fast attack choice which was limited to one special weapon per 3 bikers.
If Eldar had had to pay for 3 jetbikes to get just 1 scatter laser or splinter cannon, it might have made them a far less appealing option.
Sure. And it always, always....didnt work, because people would always just take the version of the unit that could spam weapons and then spam them.
its like people didnt play these old editions - do people not remember 'every guard squad is a triple-plasma vet squad, every kabalite squad is a blasterborn squad, every dreadnought is double the same ranged weapon on each arm, every jetbike squad is all scatter lasers, yadda yadda yadda yadda'?
Are you intentionally or un-intentionally skipping over the fact that marines are W2 now (thus dividing the damage number for marines in half)?
You are ignoring the purpose of Insectum7's original discussion point. Breaking down WOUNDS caused per gun is the factor that matters when determining the lethality of a weapon. The ap system using the old profiles from 7th is what caused a breakdown in 8th and a complete re-assessment of the stat lines in 9th, hence the 2nd wound on marines, bonus T on orks etc etc.
I am not advocating the reversion to the pre-8th stat lines or AP system. I am simply stating that you are misrepresenting the position that Insectum7 was making.
...
-Disgustingly Resilient (-1D)
-All is Dust (if 1D then +1sv)
-Storm Shields (+1Sv effectively negating -1AP)
-Inner Circle (only wound on 4+)
That uncertainty moves 40k away from a game that can be 'solved' purely at the strategic level, and incentivizes a varied offensive array on the part of the player as opposed to just stacking on the same weapon types.
The pre-8th system had numerous methods of durability modification, though it wasn't as necessary because armor actually meant something.
Cover saves being actual pseudo invuls
Going to ground
Jink
Feel no Pain
The entire AV system for vehicles
The S:T chart having caps
The ap system is a rip off of the Rend system from Sigmar, which also takes its roots from WHFB, but every profile in that game was designed from the ground up with this system in mind, when it was ported into 8th, they just copy and pasted the stat lines from 7th, which doesn't work.
There is growing pains right now because not all of the profiles have been updated to fully realize the introduction of AP modifying save. It certainly feels a lot like the old ALL or NOTHING style of armor, but instead it's "Do you have an invul?" if you don't too bad, no Armor for you. This style of play only affects elite armies that use to rely on their good armor save now, its reliant on excess wounds, bonus damage mitigation rules and invuls.
You can basically resolve the deadliness problem by buffing up cover and stripping away layers of rules bloat. Ditch the 'doctrine' layer of army-wide rules/make it narrative only or whatever, and redesign strats to be like AOS rather than the current state of the game where theyre basically just a way to on-demand double or triple a couple units' firepower throughout the game.
Also, this 100%. Sigmar Command abilities are way more balanced. There is counter-play by tying the usage of them to the heroes. If 40k could adopt this it would be amazing.
Well yeah. What I'm trying to say is that it would be good to get rules to encourage this asymmetry - i.e. you want one weapon type for Marines, another for DG, another for Orks, another for Tyranids etc etc - but if points mess it up, people end up with the weapons the the power/point ratio encourages.
Which I guess is obvious - but I thought it a more meaningful point that arguing about whether Heavy Bolters were any good in 7th (at least by my memory, they weren't.)
Sure. And it always, always....didnt work, because people would always just take the version of the unit that could spam weapons and then spam them.
its like people didnt play these old editions - do people not remember 'every guard squad is a triple-plasma vet squad, every kabalite squad is a blasterborn squad, every dreadnought is double the same ranged weapon on each arm, every jetbike squad is all scatter lasers, yadda yadda yadda yadda'?
Sure, but you were also more limited in how many of those you could take.
You could take 3 Blasterborn squads but then (assuming the old FOC) that's your entire Elite selection gone. Plus you needed to take transports for each of them if you actually wanted them to accomplish anything. You can take 3 Havocs but that's your entire heavy support section gone.
With scatter-bikes, you were able to spam heavy weapons with troops. So not only could you take twice as many of them (as well as fulfilling mandatory slots), you also left your elite, FA and HS slots free for spamming even more weapons. Also, unlike units like Blasterborn (which required additional costs in the form of transports) or units like Havocs (which, until very recently, couldn't move and shoot), they had mobility and relentless built in.
I'm also not even sure why you talk about old editions as if this has meaningfully changed. Are people now taking 4 different weapons on their Havoc units? I guess Trueborn have since ceased to exist but otherwise I'm not aware of any great change in the ability of units to spam weapons and the fact that players will naturally tend towards that when able.
All I was saying was that you typically had to look to elite or HS slots to spam weapons, and on units with additional mobility (like bikes or jetbikes) you generally still couldn't get a 1:1 ratio of models to heavy/special weapons. Thus, being able to spam heavy weapons on a jetbike unit that could be taken as troops constituted an insane change to the formula.
...Come on, Insectum, try a few more examples buddy, dont just assume everyone's gonna take your word . . .
If you read my post I did say that I didn't have the time to do a full workup. (Hint, it was the very first sentence) I'll get to it, don't you worry.
That said:
the_scotsman 801877 11263911 wrote:
turns out people can do math. Go figure!
But are they doing the right math?
"boltgun pre-8 vs
guardsman 1.332
kabalite 1.332. Revised to 4+ save .666
ork boy 1
marine .333
boltgun 9th vs
guardsman .887
kabalite .666
ork boy .554. Revised to T4 .83
marine .1665" Removing extra wound .333
The profile of the Kabalite has changed to 4+, which changes the math. Better to just say T3 4+ in that case, such as a Dire Avenger or Tau Fire Warrior. You'll get a more honest assessment. Doing likewise with Ork profile.
In the case of the boltgun, the extra wound on the Marine is required in order to get a spread of results greater than pre 8th. Stats like T and Save were adjustable under the old system as well, so could have been implemented if desired.
....I'm sorry, why is it more "honest" to evaluate the offensive stat changes of weapons vs the same defensive stats when both were changed, and this is a thread discussing the defensive change to make marines W2?
The point i'm trying to make is that GW DIDNT make adjustments to, for example, ork toughness or kabalite save in older editions. Basic statlines were this sacred cow for 4 straight editions even when they became increasingly comical (see: Marines at 1A as HuMaNiTyS GrEaTeSt WaRrIoRs).
Now theyre changing them. That's good. Thats a positive to the current edition. Thats the argument I'm making. If your counter-argument is "if you ignore the changes, less change has occurred" then you got me, I concede that point wholeheartedly.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: The ap system is a rip off of the Rend system from Sigmar, which also takes its roots from WHFB, but every profile in that game was designed from the ground up with this system in mind, when it was ported into 8th, they just copy and pasted the stat lines from 7th, which doesn't work.
Oh, you sweet summer child...
The armour modification system was used back in Rogue Trader and Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition, before the move to the AP system for 3rd through 7th editions. It's a reversion to a previous mechanic, not something lifted from AOS.
Given WHFB was around first, it was probably initially taken from the early editions of WHFB into RT.
New AP system is primarily (not entierly) what requires us to look into other avenues of durability. It inheritley favors low armor 5+/6+ units that didnt get armor before and punishes those who use to ignore it.
And the new cover rules inherently favors armies with good armor. I used to get a 4+ save on my models when in cover, now its a 5+, Marines used to get a 4+ in cover, now its a 2+.
the_scotsman wrote: ....I'm sorry, why is it more "honest" to evaluate the offensive stat changes of weapons vs the same defensive stats when both were changed, and this is a thread discussing the defensive change to make marines W2?
Well, were Marines 2w, Orks T5 and Kabalites 4+ save during 8th?
What problem is 2w Marines trying to solve?
My point is that 8th ed decreased differentiation between defensive profiles through changes to both the AP system, to-wound paradigm, and for vehicles, AV.
9th appears to be addressing this issue primarily by boosting Marines in a way that leaves other other factions behind along the wrong axis of differentiation, specifically being problematic by reducing the effectiveness of basic weapons and CC attacks, areas that were really not the cause of the issues players like yourself seem to espouse. If the problem was the spamming of mid range, high-ROF weapons, well the solution appears to hit basic weapons harder instead. That's a big miss.
The point i'm trying to make is that GW DIDNT make adjustments to, for example, ork toughness or kabalite save in older editions. Basic statlines were this sacred cow for 4 straight editions even
Untrue. Necrons were shifted downward, both in T (Immortals) and Sv (Warriors). Eldar Guardians gained WS4 BS4. Dark Reapers I think went from 4+ to 3+ sv. Bloodletters lost a point of Toughness somewhere along the way. There are more examples I'm sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: I think that you are using the wrong example with the heavy bolter.
The heavy bolter was a terribly bad weapon against marines pre 8th, which was redesigned to become a good marine killer in recent editions.
A Heavy Bolter what???
The Marine save went from a 3+, to a 4+. That's the only change. That's the difference between "terribly bad" and "good killer"?
You are also not accounting for the damage/wound system.
Using a more apt example, let's look at lasguns, which stayed exactly as they were.
A BS agnostic shot of lasgun used to kill 0.11 marines and 0.33 guards.
Now that same shot still kills 0.33 guards, but only 0.055 marines.
In this case you can see that the defensive profiles were actually broadened.
But were LASGUNS really the problem? Were basic rifles really the reason Marines didn't feel tougher in earlier editions? Or was it maybe. . . Oh I dunno. . . Hellturkeys? Plasma and Starcannon Spam? Whatever the big gun on the Riptide is called? Etc. Etc.
Could there have been other fixes? That's another good question to ask too. Different cover mechanics? A better ability for Marines to engage high-threat targets (such as a Multi-damage Lascannon against Targets like Riptides).
It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.
In previous editions they were not only vulnerable to plasma pies, they were also quite reasonably killed with small weapons. The marine profile sucked terribly, and in fact you never saw them on tables (not without a free transport at least). It was vulnerable to both high power and low power weapons.
Terminators were even worse. A wrong 2+ save and that was one terminator in the bin. They were terrified by lasguns, shuriken catapults, boltguns and similar weapons. They were only good against AP3 weapons.
In fact I don't remember seeing many terminators on older edition tables.
To counteract this, GW was forced to progressively reduce the cost of the marines, until they became almost an horde army. We all thought that was wrong, I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Now with this new wound/damage system, terminators are no longer scared of rolling a 1 against a lasgun, so they can finally be properly costed. Marines are finally back to being 20 point models, because they now indeed feel like 20 point models.
I feel the issue with Marines - and one shared with many units without bespoke stats - was the old problem of "base points for attack+defence" and then paying a flat block for +attack options.
So I don't think basic Marines at 14 points were that bad defensively with T4 and a 3+ save in either 7th or 8th. The problem was that a boltgun and a single S4 punch had grown progressively obsolete for 14 points.
The issue was that if you blinged them out with special weapons to up the damage they doubled in price. And at say 24-34 points but still only 1 T4 3+ save wound were now incredibly fragile.
So I think GW recognised that unless you want everything to be a glasshammer, units need to gain a balance of both offensive and defensive stats when they go up in points. The problem is that this has been intermittently implemented, creating the meta of the last 6 months.
Spoletta wrote: Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.
. . .
In previous editions they were not only vulnerable to plasma pies, they were also quite reasonably killed with small weapons. The marine profile sucked terribly, and in fact you never saw them on tables (not without a free transport at least). It was vulnerable to both high power and low power weapons.
It took 5 Marines Rapid-Firing Bolters to kill a single Marine. 2x .666 x.5×.333 ×5 = 1.1
It took 10 Guardsmen to do the same (20 shots).
That seems just fine. Espescially in an era where Guardsman had no save vs.Bolters, and Flamers took them off the table in droves.
. . .
Here's my big beef with the old system though. Cover helped Marines not one bit against low AP weapons. If we're really going to point to an issue of those editions, I'd put it on that.
Tyel wrote: I feel the issue with Marines - and one shared with many units without bespoke stats - was the old problem of "base points for attack+defence" and then paying a flat block for +attack options.
So I don't think basic Marines at 14 points were that bad defensively with T4 and a 3+ save in either 7th or 8th. The problem was that a boltgun and a single S4 punch had grown progressively obsolete for 14 points.
The issue was that if you blinged them out with special weapons to up the damage they doubled in price. And at say 24-34 points but still only 1 T4 3+ save wound were now incredibly fragile.
So I think GW recognised that unless you want everything to be a glasshammer, units need to gain a balance of both offensive and defensive stats when they go up in points. The problem is that this has been intermittently implemented, creating the meta of the last 6 months.
This. There's an odd shift where some people want the game to be less lethal but I'm not sure they're not the same people who felt bolters were underwhelming. Which is how we kind of end up how we are now as you say.
Tyel wrote: I feel the issue with Marines - and one shared with many units without bespoke stats - was the old problem of "base points for attack+defence" and then paying a flat block for +attack options.
So I don't think basic Marines at 14 points were that bad defensively with T4 and a 3+ save in either 7th or 8th. The problem was that a boltgun and a single S4 punch had grown progressively obsolete for 14 points.
The issue was that if you blinged them out with special weapons to up the damage they doubled in price. And at say 24-34 points but still only 1 T4 3+ save wound were now incredibly fragile.
So I think GW recognised that unless you want everything to be a glasshammer, units need to gain a balance of both offensive and defensive stats when they go up in points. The problem is that this has been intermittently implemented, creating the meta of the last 6 months.
This. There's an odd shift where some people want the game to be less lethal but I'm not sure they're not the same people who felt bolters were underwhelming. Which is how we kind of end up how we are now as you say.
I want the game to be less lethal but outside of a couple exceptions like multi-meltas (which I still contend could have been easily, easily fixed via the exact same thing they did with the dreadnought-mounted plasma cannon, creating a "Heavy Multi-Melta" that gets 2 shots on a couple platforms but keeping regular multi-meltas 1 shot) the ridiculous lethality is not actually caused by the core stats of weaponry, it's caused by the stratagem system, which multiplies with auras, purchaseable abilities, relics, warlord traits and the usually 5 layers of army-wide rules to create ridiculous over the top damage spikes. Theres no reason at all I need to be able to multiply the damage of my Assault Intercessors by 7x on demand.
Tyel wrote: I feel the issue with Marines - and one shared with many units without bespoke stats - was the old problem of "base points for attack+defence" and then paying a flat block for +attack options.
So I don't think basic Marines at 14 points were that bad defensively with T4 and a 3+ save in either 7th or 8th. The problem was that a boltgun and a single S4 punch had grown progressively obsolete for 14 points.
The issue was that if you blinged them out with special weapons to up the damage they doubled in price. And at say 24-34 points but still only 1 T4 3+ save wound were now incredibly fragile.
So I think GW recognised that unless you want everything to be a glasshammer, units need to gain a balance of both offensive and defensive stats when they go up in points. The problem is that this has been intermittently implemented, creating the meta of the last 6 months.
This. There's an odd shift where some people want the game to be less lethal but I'm not sure they're not the same people who felt bolters were underwhelming. Which is how we kind of end up how we are now as you say.
I want the game to be less lethal but outside of a couple exceptions like multi-meltas (which I still contend could have been easily, easily fixed via the exact same thing they did with the dreadnought-mounted plasma cannon, creating a "Heavy Multi-Melta" that gets 2 shots on a couple platforms but keeping regular multi-meltas 1 shot) the ridiculous lethality is not actually caused by the core stats of weaponry, it's caused by the stratagem system, which multiplies with auras, purchaseable abilities, relics, warlord traits and the usually 5 layers of army-wide rules to create ridiculous over the top damage spikes. Theres no reason at all I need to be able to multiply the damage of my Assault Intercessors by 7x on demand.
Completely agree, it doesn't seem to be slowing down or going away though. I'd personally like to see the bulk of strats removed or consolidated into a greater (but not too great) universal list with a small handful of flavour strats in the armies books. Maybe even the same with traits and relics, I know they attempted this a little in 6th/7th but I feel they'd actually manage a better job now.
Spoletta wrote: Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.
It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.
This just isn't true. A Marine used to be 15pts or so. It took 18 Lasguns to kill 1 Marine. Thats 18 shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save for 1 dead Marine. At half range you could lower that to 9 guardsmen but usually it was 18. So i took 18 guardsmen who I think were 4pts each (Can't remember) So 72pts to kill 15pts Thats a really bad return on investment.
Shoota boyz, At 18' range it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Orkz were 6ppm so 54pts to kill 15pts of Marine...still a really bad return on investment.
Firewarriors at 30' range it took 9 shots or 9 firewarriors. 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Tau are notorious for being good at ranged firepower, I believe back then a Firewarrior was either 6-7pts. So 54-63pts to kill 15pts of Marine. Again, a really bad return on investment.
My general rule of thumb is and has always been, a shooting unit should make back its points in 3 turns against its target to be considered effective. None of those weapons are anywhere close to that. So no, the problem for Marines was never small arms weapons, it just "felt" that way because you never remember the time you rolled 27 saves in a row, but you do remember the time you rolled 5 bad saves in a row to lose a combat squad. Same thing is true for Terminators. To kill 1 Terminator with shoota boyz took 36 shots, or 18 Shoota boyz all in range. Thats 108pts at 6ppm to kill 1 Terminator. But again, you don't remember that, you remember that time a shoota boy mob unloaded on you and you rolled 3 1s
Statistically Small arms fire has never been a problem for Marines, like I said, it just felt that way do to how you remember games.
Spoletta wrote: Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.
It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.
This just isn't true. A Marine used to be 15pts or so. It took 18 Lasguns to kill 1 Marine. Thats 18 shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save for 1 dead Marine. At half range you could lower that to 9 guardsmen but usually it was 18. So i took 18 guardsmen who I think were 4pts each (Can't remember) So 72pts to kill 15pts Thats a really bad return on investment.
Shoota boyz, At 18' range it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Orkz were 6ppm so 54pts to kill 15pts of Marine...still a really bad return on investment.
Firewarriors at 30' range it took 9 shots or 9 firewarriors. 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Tau are notorious for being good at ranged firepower, I believe back then a Firewarrior was either 6-7pts. So 54-63pts to kill 15pts of Marine. Again, a really bad return on investment.
My general rule of thumb is and has always been, a shooting unit should make back its points in 3 turns against its target to be considered effective. None of those weapons are anywhere close to that. So no, the problem for Marines was never small arms weapons, it just "felt" that way because you never remember the time you rolled 27 saves in a row, but you do remember the time you rolled 5 bad saves in a row to lose a combat squad. Same thing is true for Terminators. To kill 1 Terminator with shoota boyz took 36 shots, or 18 Shoota boyz all in range. Thats 108pts at 6ppm to kill 1 Terminator. But again, you don't remember that, you remember that time a shoota boy mob unloaded on you and you rolled 3 1s
Statistically Small arms fire has never been a problem for Marines, like I said, it just felt that way do to how you remember games.
I'd add, too, that it doesn't seem a good thing from a gameplay perspective when many basic anti-infantry weapons are now so inefficient as to be all but useless against the most common infantry in the game.
LOL, well now you can basically DOUBLE that math and change the points values mostly in favor of the Marines.
For example, to kill a Marine now takes 36 shoota shots which at max range is 18 shoota boyz who are now 9ppm So the math is now 162pts of Shootaboy to kill 18pt of Tac Marine.
I literally forego my shooting from boyz 90% of the time anyway
SemperMortis wrote: LOL, well now you can basically DOUBLE that math and change the points values mostly in favor of the Marines.
For example, to kill a Marine now takes 36 shoota shots which at max range is 18 shoota boyz who are now 9ppm So the math is now 162pts of Shootaboy to kill 18pt of Tac Marine.
I literally forego my shooting from boyz 90% of the time anyway
Weirdly that tactical marine used to kill 0.333 orks at max range or 45 points of marines to kill 6 points of orks.
That tactical marine now kills 0.444 orks if stationary and in tactical doctrine or 0.37 if out. Or it now takes 54 points of marines to kill 9 points of orks.
The ratios really aren't that bad nor far off what they were in return and standard tactical marine bolters still suck even with umpteen layers of crap on top.
Edit: yes boyz shooting sucks atm and always has, that's the other thread, but the point is marines aren't miles ahead of where they were in terms of small arms output.
Spoletta wrote: Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.
It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.
This just isn't true. A Marine used to be 15pts or so. It took 18 Lasguns to kill 1 Marine. Thats 18 shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save for 1 dead Marine. At half range you could lower that to 9 guardsmen but usually it was 18. So i took 18 guardsmen who I think were 4pts each (Can't remember) So 72pts to kill 15pts Thats a really bad return on investment.
Shoota boyz, At 18' range it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Orkz were 6ppm so 54pts to kill 15pts of Marine...still a really bad return on investment.
Firewarriors at 30' range it took 9 shots or 9 firewarriors. 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Tau are notorious for being good at ranged firepower, I believe back then a Firewarrior was either 6-7pts. So 54-63pts to kill 15pts of Marine. Again, a really bad return on investment.
My general rule of thumb is and has always been, a shooting unit should make back its points in 3 turns against its target to be considered effective. None of those weapons are anywhere close to that. So no, the problem for Marines was never small arms weapons, it just "felt" that way because you never remember the time you rolled 27 saves in a row, but you do remember the time you rolled 5 bad saves in a row to lose a combat squad. Same thing is true for Terminators. To kill 1 Terminator with shoota boyz took 36 shots, or 18 Shoota boyz all in range. Thats 108pts at 6ppm to kill 1 Terminator. But again, you don't remember that, you remember that time a shoota boy mob unloaded on you and you rolled 3 1s
Statistically Small arms fire has never been a problem for Marines, like I said, it just felt that way do to how you remember games.
I'd add, too, that it doesn't seem a good thing from a gameplay perspective when many basic anti-infantry weapons are now so inefficient as to be all but useless against the most common infantry in the game.
I think its worth noting that in a game where the actual win condition gives a huge advantage to "Token" units you would actually want/expect the cheaper a unit gets the less effective for the points it gets, with sub-50ppm units like meks and such being basically next to worthless in actual combat due to the outsized impact of their ability to score points, perform secondaries and actions.
I believe a kabalite warrior is 8ppm at this point, correct? And shooting a splinter rifle into intercessors it returns 2.2 points of value, for a 27.5% points return. Given that there do exist units in the game that the kabalite warrior is arguably more specialised in dealing with (high toughness targets, where the Poison rule actually matters somewhat) I dont think that's a particularly unreasonable baseline return. A guardsman sans orders is 22% effective, which doesnt seem fantastic but then again an intercessor shooting back at the same guardsman is 20.3% effective, and I dont think anyone would make the argument that intercessors arent meant to be an anti-GEQ choice.
Could it be that both Guardsmen and Intercessors are models with most of their power budget in defense compared to the more elite combatants in the armies? That'd be a screaming hot take huh.
I feel that Lasguns shouldn't be cost efficient against MEQ and above units. If they need more than 3 shooting phases to kill their points in marines it is a good thing. Like the one thing in the game that marines should be almost invulnerable towards is str 3 attacks with no ap. Just because guardsmen and marines are both troops doesnt mean they should be equally good against each other with their standard equipment. Because if they are reasonably effective against each other with just bolt guns vs lasguns, what happens when you add plasmaguns to the squads? The guard unit becomes much stronger against MEQ while the marine unit mostly just gets more expensive when fighting guardsmen. The space marine is the perfect anti light infantry unit so comparing the units vs each other is rather pointless.
Even if the lasguns become even more useless vs marines doesn't mean that the basic guardsman is a useless model on the battlefield. They still have a footprint that is vastly superior to a marine for its cost so they can still hold area and delay the marines while you have special weapons/heavy weapon teams in the squads, veteran squads/heavy weapon teams with multiple special/heavy weapons and vehicles with heavier armament to actually kill the marines.
If an infantry horde with just basic guardsmen without many upgrades are even remotely viable against a marine list with lots of basic marine bodies then the basic Space Marine units have no reason to exist in this game. Guard horde vs Marine horde should be a one sided slaughter. If the guard horde should even have a chance they should have to buy lots of anti marine weapons.
Basic Space marines should be hard to kill(very point inefficient) with cheap and basic troops that are equipped to kill light infantry. On the other hand Marines should be worse at occupying space due to being more expensive. Them being 2W and more costly should help with both of those.
If an infantry horde with just basic guardsmen without many upgrades are even remotely viable against a marine list with lots of basic marine bodies then the basic Space Marine units have no reason to exist in this game. Guard horde vs Marine horde should be a one sided slaughter. If the guard horde should even have a chance they should have to buy lots of anti marine weapons.
Basic Space marines should be hard to kill(very point inefficient) with cheap and basic troops that are equipped to kill light infantry. On the other hand Marines should be worse at occupying space due to being more expensive. Them being 2W and more costly should help with both of those.
The only problem with this is if you say
"OKAY EVERYBODY STEP RIGHT UP COME ON DOWN CHOOSE YOUR FACTION, YOU CAN EITHER HAVE MORE EXPENSIVE MODELS THAT ALWAYS WIN BUT TAKE UP LESS SPACE ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR CHEAPER MODELS THAT YOU HAVE TO BUY WAY MORE OF THAT ALWAYS LOSE!!!"
then you have...well...what we have now. 90% of players choosing to play an 'elite' army. Because its cheaper moneywise by like 50%, and more enjoyable, and...why would you not?
like i've said before - i'm perfectly happy as the horde player to give up my 'footprint' advantage AND give the elite players the edge in unit-on-unit combat...just give me mechanics whereby I get to recycle my troops basically at will. Make the battle actually FEEL like an endless horde vs elite heroes trying to race a ticking clock.
If an infantry horde with just basic guardsmen without many upgrades are even remotely viable against a marine list with lots of basic marine bodies then the basic Space Marine units have no reason to exist in this game. Guard horde vs Marine horde should be a one sided slaughter. If the guard horde should even have a chance they should have to buy lots of anti marine weapons.
Basic Space marines should be hard to kill(very point inefficient) with cheap and basic troops that are equipped to kill light infantry. On the other hand Marines should be worse at occupying space due to being more expensive. Them being 2W and more costly should help with both of those.
The only problem with this is if you say
"OKAY EVERYBODY STEP RIGHT UP COME ON DOWN CHOOSE YOUR FACTION, YOU CAN EITHER HAVE MORE EXPENSIVE MODELS THAT ALWAYS WIN BUT TAKE UP LESS SPACE ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR CHEAPER MODELS THAT YOU HAVE TO BUY WAY MORE OF THAT ALWAYS LOSE!!!"
then you have...well...what we have now. 90% of players choosing to play an 'elite' army. Because its cheaper moneywise by like 50%, and more enjoyable, and...why would you not?
like i've said before - i'm perfectly happy as the horde player to give up my 'footprint' advantage AND give the elite players the edge in unit-on-unit combat...just give me mechanics whereby I get to recycle my troops basically at will. Make the battle actually FEEL like an endless horde vs elite heroes trying to race a ticking clock.
I like the easy you're thinking, guard as well probably would benefit from support squads and vehicles being their heavy lifters again, make them the firepower and the chaff... well, chaff. Make a way to keep the deadlier units alive by forcing you to gun through the squishy meatbags first.
If an infantry horde with just basic guardsmen without many upgrades are even remotely viable against a marine list with lots of basic marine bodies then the basic Space Marine units have no reason to exist in this game. Guard horde vs Marine horde should be a one sided slaughter. If the guard horde should even have a chance they should have to buy lots of anti marine weapons.
Basic Space marines should be hard to kill(very point inefficient) with cheap and basic troops that are equipped to kill light infantry. On the other hand Marines should be worse at occupying space due to being more expensive. Them being 2W and more costly should help with both of those.
The only problem with this is if you say
"OKAY EVERYBODY STEP RIGHT UP COME ON DOWN CHOOSE YOUR FACTION, YOU CAN EITHER HAVE MORE EXPENSIVE MODELS THAT ALWAYS WIN BUT TAKE UP LESS SPACE ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR CHEAPER MODELS THAT YOU HAVE TO BUY WAY MORE OF THAT ALWAYS LOSE!!!"
then you have...well...what we have now. 90% of players choosing to play an 'elite' army. Because its cheaper moneywise by like 50%, and more enjoyable, and...why would you not?
like i've said before - i'm perfectly happy as the horde player to give up my 'footprint' advantage AND give the elite players the edge in unit-on-unit combat...just give me mechanics whereby I get to recycle my troops basically at will. Make the battle actually FEEL like an endless horde vs elite heroes trying to race a ticking clock.
Well, if people run only basic guardsmen without any special weapons, heavy weapons or sergeant upgrades then they can't really complain about not being able to do much against Space Marines, Custodes, Monster lists or Vehicle lists. I don't think it should ever be a viable strategy even if they can take up more board space and win on points technically. I also don't want 100 tacticals/intercessors without upgrades to be viable either. If people don't want their basic troops to fold over as soon as they see Marines or tougher units and want them to do something else than just hold objectives in cover then they should upgrade them. If you do get those upgrades you won't just stand there and only lose. And if you dont upgrade them, perhaps you should only take 20-30 of them and not 180 guardsmen and complain they only lose.
Of course GW should balance the unit upgrades so they are actually worth taking over just spamming more bodies. Not just for guardsmen but for marines in the troop slot as well. I remember older editions with special weapons in both basic marine and guard squads being taken but for the latest 2 the troops have only been there to fill out detachments or hold ground. Special weapons being not worth the additional cost when you could spend those points better upgrading elite units with the same weapons that also have other special rules to make them more effective.
Spoletta wrote: Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.
It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.
This just isn't true. A Marine used to be 15pts or so. It took 18 Lasguns to kill 1 Marine. Thats 18 shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save for 1 dead Marine. At half range you could lower that to 9 guardsmen but usually it was 18. So i took 18 guardsmen who I think were 4pts each (Can't remember) So 72pts to kill 15pts Thats a really bad return on investment.
Shoota boyz, At 18' range it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Orkz were 6ppm so 54pts to kill 15pts of Marine...still a really bad return on investment.
Firewarriors at 30' range it took 9 shots or 9 firewarriors. 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Tau are notorious for being good at ranged firepower, I believe back then a Firewarrior was either 6-7pts. So 54-63pts to kill 15pts of Marine. Again, a really bad return on investment.
My general rule of thumb is and has always been, a shooting unit should make back its points in 3 turns against its target to be considered effective. None of those weapons are anywhere close to that. So no, the problem for Marines was never small arms weapons, it just "felt" that way because you never remember the time you rolled 27 saves in a row, but you do remember the time you rolled 5 bad saves in a row to lose a combat squad. Same thing is true for Terminators. To kill 1 Terminator with shoota boyz took 36 shots, or 18 Shoota boyz all in range. Thats 108pts at 6ppm to kill 1 Terminator. But again, you don't remember that, you remember that time a shoota boy mob unloaded on you and you rolled 3 1s
Statistically Small arms fire has never been a problem for Marines, like I said, it just felt that way do to how you remember games.
Correct rule of thumb, but used wrongly.
1/3 is a good return for a unit shooting at a target against which it is effective, without overly exposing itself, in which case you need returns higher than 1/2.
Here we are talking about the return of a unit shooting at a bad target in bad conditions (long range).
Let's see those percentages you mentioned:
Guards: 20,8% at long range, 41.6% at short range.
Shootas: 27,8%
Firewarriors: 23,8% at long range, 47,6% at short range. (assuming they were 7 points, I kind of remember that)
These rates are absurdly high.
Just to put things into perspective, guards at short range have a 7% return on a rhino, half at long range. THAT is a correct rate. You are shooting at the wrong target!
Vehicles are overly exposed to being blasted by AT weapons because in return they are hard targets for small caliber weapons.
In the same way, the marine profile is very vulnerable to anti MEQ weapons, but is (now) impervious to small caliber ones. A guard at short range on an intercessor is a 9%, half at long range. Like it should be.
A lascannon dev marine shooting into guards is 9% because he is firing the wrong weapon at the wrong target.
These are correct rates for wrong weapons into wrong target.
20,8% is definitely not, especially at long range.
A guard at short range on an intercessor is a 9%, half at long range. Like it should be.
Source?
If a Guardsmans return against a Rhino is 7%, and againat a Marine is 4.5-9% (average 7) umm, congrats? Nice target differentiation there. You've created a paradigm where it's more cost efficient for Guardsmen to fire Lasguns at Predator tanks than at infantry. Is the Predator the proper intended target for lasguns then?
A guard at short range on an intercessor is a 9%, half at long range. Like it should be.
Source?
If a Guardsmans return against a Rhino is 7%, and againat a Marine is 4.5-9% (average 7) umm, congrats? Nice target differentiation there. You've created a paradigm where it's more cost efficient for Guardsmen to fire Lasguns at Predator tanks than at infantry. Is the Predator the proper intended target for lasguns then?
Do they need a good target for their lasguns though? Isn't it enough that they are cheap and have multiple other uses than firing their flashlights? If you equip them with some plasma or other special weapons then they aren't bad against marines. If the lasguns are good against marines then what is the need for buying other stuff than normal guardsmen? Marine vehicles are crap and should probably get more wounds and be a bit cheaper so Lasguns aren't more effective against them than Intercessors. They still shouldn't be good at the marine troops though,
Do we need to nerf Knights so that a tactical squad can get a good target for their bolt guns? or should we expect a Tactical Marine squad that wants to fight other targets than light infantry to have to buy some upgrades?
I think its worth noting that in a game where the actual win condition gives a huge advantage to "Token" units you would actually want/expect the cheaper a unit gets the less effective for the points it gets, with sub-50ppm units like meks and such being basically next to worthless in actual combat due to the outsized impact of their ability to score points, perform secondaries and actions.
I accept that units can have value beyond their ability to kill other units.
The issue is that guardsmen were already inefficient at killing Marines. If guardsmen could won the objective game whilst also effortlessly mowing down Marines with massed Lasgun fire, I'd entirely agree with you.
However, GW instead took a unit that was already highly inefficient against Marines and then made Marines twice as durable against them.
There's also the 'fun' element. Having an army that only exists to be swept off the board so that Marine players can get that bolter-porn feeling is not fun. Same with playing against an all-knight army that your army doesn't have enough anti-vehicle weapons to beat. Maybe you can play the objective game and ultimately win, but it's neither fun nor satisfying to remove models with a dustpan and brush each turn whilst doing bugger-all save hoping that enough of your men survive to clog up the enemy's legs.
I believe a kabalite warrior is 8ppm at this point, correct? And shooting a splinter rifle into intercessors it returns 2.2 points of value, for a 27.5% points return. Given that there do exist units in the game that the kabalite warrior is arguably more specialised in dealing with (high toughness targets, where the Poison rule actually matters somewhat) I dont think that's a particularly unreasonable baseline return.
It's funny that you bring up poison because that has suffered a very similar issue to the one being discussed in this thread.
Back in 5th, a Splinter Rifle was Rapid Fire 24" S- AP5 Poison 4+, and a Carnifex had 4 wounds (maybe 5 with the right upgrade?). Now a Splinter Rifle is Rapid Fire 24" S1 AP- D1 Poison 4+, yet that same Carnifex is now 8 wounds. A 4-wound Hive Tyrant is now 12 wounds. A 1-wound Biker is now 2 or 3 wounds. etc.. Yet all DE's poison weapons are basically unchanged. So while DE can shoot high-toughness targets with poison, it's almost never an efficient choice compared with shooting anti-vehicle weapons at such targets. Not to mention that the change to the toughness chart has made low- and mid-strength weapons far more effective against higher toughness targets (further diluting the advantages of Poison).
I bring this up because it seems quite relevant to the current discussion in terms of how units and weapons can be pushed out if they remain the same while their targets gain extra wounds or such. Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, Kabalites have been all but abandoned by DE players as their weapons just don't cut it anymore. For reasons outlined above, they were already bad against most monsters and other targets that they once excelled against, but now they're not even good against common infantry.
Boltguns against crisis suits are basically the same concept. I don't expect my marines to do much of anything except maybe take pot shots.
Since when are Crisis Suits troops?
fraser1191 wrote: Sure there's the argument of troop slot but against a farsight list they're only taking min fire warriors anyway.
Then you've missed the point entirely. No one is arguing that lasguns should have an optimum target against an all-dreadnought Marine army. They're arguing that they should have a role against basic Marine troops.
vipoid wrote: No one is arguing that lasguns should have an optimum target against an all-dreadnought Marine army. They're arguing that they should have a role against basic Marine troops.
They do have a role. And that role is the same as it's always been: to be the models that absorb wounds instead of that Plasma gun etc &/or heavy weapon. Or, if melee occurs, to be the models you remove 1st rather than the Sgt with the Power Sword or whatever.
That's their purpose. To keep those specialized weapons fighting as long as possible.
Secondary role is causing as much extra damage as possible. Any wound or kill they achieve is just a bonus.
I find the argument that a lasgun is somehow good against space marines fairly laughable.
let assume a perfect case scenario for the guard, 1 min squad guard (10 man 10 wounds, 55 points) vs 1 min squad of tac marines (5 man, 10 wounds, 90 points), the marines are within 12" of the guardsmen but failed a charge. Also assuming neither squad has taken a casualty, giving the guardsmen the best chance here, we know if that range they would have taken bolters first but again best guard scenario.
neither is given any upgrades or special weapons (more realistic for the guard than the marines but to make it fair)
guard shoot first.
18 lasgun shots and 1 laspistol shot for a total of 19 str 3 ap0 D1 shots.
9.5 shots hit, 3.2 wounds, after armor saves the 10 guardsman do... 1.06 wounds so 1 wound on one marine.
guard player may charge the marines but probably not worth it to delay further (scenario dependent)
marine turn
sarg has a proper bolt gun so 10 shots str 4 ap-0 D1
6.6 hits, wound on 3's 4.4 wounds, 1.5 saves, so 3 guardsman go down
marines charge... and its downhill for the guard from there
best case the guard pass morale and a few leave combat next turn to act as bubble wrap again the next turn or if fortune favors them might have 1 or 2 left inthe marine phase to keep them tied up.
If anythign i think guardsman need a buff though I don't think lethality is the best fix, having the flakk jacket a proper 4+ would probably do the job better
vipoid wrote: No one is arguing that lasguns should have an optimum target against an all-dreadnought Marine army. They're arguing that they should have a role against basic Marine troops.
They do have a role. And that role is the same as it's always been: to be the models that absorb wounds instead of that Plasma gun etc &/or heavy weapon. Or, if melee occurs, to be the models you remove 1st rather than the Sgt with the Power Sword or whatever.
That's their purpose. To keep those specialized weapons fighting as long as possible.
Secondary role is causing as much extra damage as possible. Any wound or kill they achieve is just a bonus.
You know, there was a time when I was highly sympathetic towards Marine players.
However, after reading dozens of posts like 'the only purpose of lasguns is to die' or 'be grateful you only need 40 guardsmen to kill a marine - it should be 100', that sympathy is really wearing thin.
At this point I'm hoping that your basic Marines go up to 100pts per model, just to show how rare and special they are.
GoldenHorde wrote: It seriously added nothing positive to the game except power/lethality creep and was nothing but a sales ploy
Personally, I've wanted 2W marines since I started playing back in 3rd edition and house ruled them into custom campaigns with around a 50% points hike. (Very casually mind you, but still.) They never felt to me to be anywhere near as tough as they should be from the fluff and that always bothered me.
That being said, I didn't like the implementation. Putting so many things up to multiple points of damage made it feel not all that much different. Rather than bring everything up to match the new 2W marines, the marines should have had a points hike to make them field less models that were much more resilient instead. But then they'd sell less Space Marines, so that was never going to happen.
G00fySmiley wrote: I find the argument that a lasgun is somehow good against space marines fairly laughable.
Are you just kind of laughing at a suggestion you made yourself then, because I dont think i've seen anyone make that argument...
it seemed to be implied by Klickor "I feel that Lasguns shouldn't be cost efficient against MEQ and above units." then says maybe in 3 turns though honestly those guardsmen are already useless against marines and cannot get back their points in the whole game shooting lasguns against marines as it is.
I have to say that the bigger problem with marines durability was not that basic infantry had good investment against the cheapest troop of the army but the fact that 70% of your army has the same defensible profile.
Those lasguns slauthered from a point efficience perspective veteran , assault, devastator, etc... Squads because allí were equally durable as a táctical while being doble or thrice as expensive.
And yeah a veteran guardsmen with plasma was more expensive than a normal one. But you didnt had the same expectations from your infantry in a ig army than a marine one.
I play marines for the marines and the dreads. Thats the fantasy gw sells for most marines with a couple exceptions. And those armies have always sucked . Vehicle and biker spams were neccesary
G00fySmiley wrote: I find the argument that a lasgun is somehow good against space marines fairly laughable.
Are you just kind of laughing at a suggestion you made yourself then, because I dont think i've seen anyone make that argument...
Right here, dude:
Spoletta wrote: . . .
Let's see those percentages you mentioned:
Guards: 20,8% at long range, 41.6% at short range.
Shootas: 27,8%
Firewarriors: 23,8% at long range, 47,6% at short range. (assuming they were 7 points, I kind of remember that)
You know, there was a time when I was highly sympathetic towards Marine players.
However, after reading dozens of posts like 'the only purpose of lasguns is to die' or 'be grateful you only need 40 guardsmen to kill a marine - it should be 100', that sympathy is really wearing thin.
Do they need a good target for their lasguns though? Isn't it enough that they are cheap and have multiple other uses than firing their flashlights? If you equip them with some plasma or other special weapons then they aren't bad against marines. If the lasguns are good against marines then what is the need for buying other stuff than normal guardsmen? Marine vehicles are crap and should probably get more wounds and be a bit cheaper so Lasguns aren't more effective against them than Intercessors. They still shouldn't be good at the marine troops though,
Do we need to nerf Knights so that a tactical squad can get a good target for their bolt guns? or should we expect a Tactical Marine squad that wants to fight other targets than light infantry to have to buy some upgrades?
vipoid wrote: No one is arguing that lasguns should have an optimum target against an all-dreadnought Marine army. They're arguing that they should have a role against basic Marine troops.
They do have a role. And that role is the same as it's always been: to be the models that absorb wounds instead of that Plasma gun etc &/or heavy weapon. Or, if melee occurs, to be the models you remove 1st rather than the Sgt with the Power Sword or whatever.
That's their purpose. To keep those specialized weapons fighting as long as possible.
Secondary role is causing as much extra damage as possible. Any wound or kill they achieve is just a bonus.
You know, there was a time when I was highly sympathetic towards Marine players.
However, after reading dozens of posts like 'the only purpose of lasguns is to die' or 'be grateful you only need 40 guardsmen to kill a marine - it should be 100', that sympathy is really wearing thin.
At this point I'm hoping that your basic Marines go up to 100pts per model, just to show how rare and special they are.
100 ppmSMs? That's fine. My primary army here in 9e is Necrons & I have plenty of other armies to rotate between other than SMs while I await a SM pts drop.
But I was speaking as a Guard player.
Guard were my primary army 2e-6e. And one of these days, if plastic Krieg arrive en-force/should I grow bored of all my pretty 9e Necrons, they will be again.
Keeping my special/heavy weapons firing (and bringing plenty of them) is the core of my approach to playing Guard. It worked for 5 editions and I've seen nothing in 8e/9e that makes me think it won't work today. In fact, now that SMs have 2+W? Keeping those weapons firing is even more important.
Why bother even having different stat profiles if fething basic guardsmen armed only with lasguns should be able to take on a counter unit efficiently? A space marine is to a normal guardsman as a fully armoured knight were against a peasant. The knight is almost invincible unless the peasant have brought the right tools, like a polearm/plasma for the job.If you are so upset by your guardsmen not being good against all the other troops in their basic load out GW for once have done something good(sure they did this decades ago) and allowed you the option to buy special weapons so your guardsmen aren't worthless.
Tactical marines with bolters are even more useless than guardsmen against the troops that Custodes bring. Should we now make Custodes weaker so a marine player with a 100+ bolter marines in his list doesn't feel sad? Or maybe we should expect him to fill his list with not just the most basic troop model, elites and heavy support exist for a reason and if he do insist on a demi company of tacticals he should buy special weapons, heavy weapons and close combat weapons.
Never heard anyone in wfb complain that their basic goblins or basic state troopers were inefficient in killing chaos warriors. But both are core!!!! You had them to take up space and delay the enemy so you could send a unit of Knights in their flank.
I haven't and haven't seen anyone else say that Guardsmen as a unit should be useless against certain targets when it comes to killing. Only the most basic load out and none have said their options should be removed. Unlike the guard players complaining we seem to know that guardsmen can take upgrades.
Klickor wrote: Why bother even having different stat profiles if fething basic guardsmen armed only with lasguns should be able to take on a counter unit efficiently? A space marine is to a normal guardsman as a fully armoured knight were against a peasant. The knight is almost invincible unless the peasant have brought the right tools, like a polearm/plasma for the job.If you are so upset by your guardsmen not being good against all the other troops in their basic load out GW for once have done something good(sure they did this decades ago) and allowed you the option to buy special weapons so your guardsmen aren't worthless.
Tactical marines with bolters are even more useless than guardsmen against the troops that Custodes bring. Should we now make Custodes weaker so a marine player with a 100+ bolter marines in his list doesn't feel sad? Or maybe we should expect him to fill his list with not just the most basic troop model, elites and heavy support exist for a reason and if he do insist on a demi company of tacticals he should buy special weapons, heavy weapons and close combat weapons.
Never heard anyone in wfb complain that their basic goblins or basic state troopers were inefficient in killing chaos warriors. But both are core!!!! You had them to take up space and delay the enemy so you could send a unit of Knights in their flank.
I haven't and haven't seen anyone else say that Guardsmen as a unit should be useless against certain targets when it comes to killing. Only the most basic load out and none have said their options should be removed. Unlike the guard players complaining we seem to know that guardsmen can take upgrades.
First off, I don't play Guard. I'm a Marine player, and have been for 20 years.
Second, ignore the fact that it's Guardsmen. Leave them out of it if you're stuck on it. The question is this instead: How many Marines firing Bolters should it take to drop a Marine?
As I see it average units shooting average units should get a 20-25%ish return on their points. With the 10 unlooked for special rules of synergy, this can maybe go up towards 30%.
The problem is lots of things get around a 40% return versus most things - and with the 10 unlooked for special rules this jumps up towards 100%.
So yeah - I think it should take about 4 or even 5 marines shooting a marine to expect to kill them. Otherwise its going to be crazy when you get super bolter doctrine+reroll everything for the lols.
Weirdly that tactical marine used to kill 0.333 orks at max range or 45 points of marines to kill 6 points of orks.
That tactical marine now kills 0.444 orks if stationary and in tactical doctrine or 0.37 if out. Or it now takes 54 points of marines to kill 9 points of orks.
The ratios really aren't that bad nor far off what they were in return and standard tactical marine bolters still suck even with umpteen layers of crap on top.
Edit: yes boyz shooting sucks atm and always has, that's the other thread, but the point is marines aren't miles ahead of where they were in terms of small arms output.
Now add in the morale benefits kill 5-6 of those boyz and they likely fail morale and have more run away from attrition. Boyz are actually less durable then they used to be thanks to morale.
G00fySmiley wrote: I find the argument that a lasgun is somehow good against space marines fairly laughable.
Are you just kind of laughing at a suggestion you made yourself then, because I dont think i've seen anyone make that argument...
Right here, dude:
Spoletta wrote: . . .
Let's see those percentages you mentioned:
Guards: 20,8% at long range, 41.6% at short range.
Shootas: 27,8%
Firewarriors: 23,8% at long range, 47,6% at short range. (assuming they were 7 points, I kind of remember that)
You know, there was a time when I was highly sympathetic towards Marine players.
However, after reading dozens of posts like 'the only purpose of lasguns is to die' or 'be grateful you only need 40 guardsmen to kill a marine - it should be 100', that sympathy is really wearing thin.
Do they need a good target for their lasguns though? Isn't it enough that they are cheap and have multiple other uses than firing their flashlights? If you equip them with some plasma or other special weapons then they aren't bad against marines. If the lasguns are good against marines then what is the need for buying other stuff than normal guardsmen? Marine vehicles are crap and should probably get more wounds and be a bit cheaper so Lasguns aren't more effective against them than Intercessors. They still shouldn't be good at the marine troops though,
Do we need to nerf Knights so that a tactical squad can get a good target for their bolt guns? or should we expect a Tactical Marine squad that wants to fight other targets than light infantry to have to buy some upgrades?
Translation: feth your troops so I get mine.
I believe most of these posts are arguing "lasguns should not be effective against marines (or other elite, high-sv infantry)" rather than "lasguns are currently effective against marines."
Do you dispute the fact that presently the objective of the game Warhammer 40,000 generally has little to do with killing models? That it has much more to do with having models that exist at critical locations on the battlefield, thus making "more bodies" an inbuilt advantage that probably should, in some way, be paid for?
The minimum point value of a W2 space marine unit to perform an Action is 90 points. That unit has 5 models to hold objectives. As a guard player, the minimum point value of a unit to perform an Action is 55 points, and that unit has 10 models to hold objectives.
it absolutely stands to reason that if those two units are to engage in direct combat, the one with a natural disadvantage at winning the actual game should pretty much always win the combat.
I believe most of these posts are arguing "lasguns should not be effective against marines (or other elite, high-sv infantry)" rather than "lasguns are currently effective against marines."
Do you dispute the fact that presently the objective of the game Warhammer 40,000 generally has little to do with killing models? That it has much more to do with having models that exist at critical locations on the battlefield, thus making "more bodies" an inbuilt advantage that probably should, in some way, be paid for?
The minimum point value of a W2 space marine unit to perform an Action is 90 points. That unit has 5 models to hold objectives. As a guard player, the minimum point value of a unit to perform an Action is 55 points, and that unit has 10 models to hold objectives.
it absolutely stands to reason that if those two units are to engage in direct combat, the one with a natural disadvantage at winning the actual game should pretty much always win the combat.
The postulate included in "Lasguns should not be effective against marines [so the two wound change is good]" is "Lasguns were effective against marines but are not now."
I think that's what Insectum is pointing out; they weren't effective then either.
Klickor wrote: Why bother even having different stat profiles if fething basic guardsmen armed only with lasguns should be able to take on a counter unit efficiently? A space marine is to a normal guardsman as a fully armoured knight were against a peasant. The knight is almost invincible unless the peasant have brought the right tools, like a polearm/plasma for the job.If you are so upset by your guardsmen not being good against all the other troops in their basic load out GW for once have done something good(sure they did this decades ago) and allowed you the option to buy special weapons so your guardsmen aren't worthless.
Tactical marines with bolters are even more useless than guardsmen against the troops that Custodes bring. Should we now make Custodes weaker so a marine player with a 100+ bolter marines in his list doesn't feel sad? Or maybe we should expect him to fill his list with not just the most basic troop model, elites and heavy support exist for a reason and if he do insist on a demi company of tacticals he should buy special weapons, heavy weapons and close combat weapons.
Never heard anyone in wfb complain that their basic goblins or basic state troopers were inefficient in killing chaos warriors. But both are core!!!! You had them to take up space and delay the enemy so you could send a unit of Knights in their flank.
I haven't and haven't seen anyone else say that Guardsmen as a unit should be useless against certain targets when it comes to killing. Only the most basic load out and none have said their options should be removed. Unlike the guard players complaining we seem to know that guardsmen can take upgrades.
I mean, to be fair as math above shows 10 guardsmen unloading into space marine tac squads nets on average 1 unsaved wound when in rapid fire range with lasguns. is that still too effective? its not even killing a single marine and then the space marine squad shoots and wipes out the guardsmen in combat. Out of rapid fire range they average just under half a wound to the tactical squad with lasguns, is that too effective? should there be a lasguns cannot actually hurt space marines rule ever?
I believe most of these posts are arguing "lasguns should not be effective against marines (or other elite, high-sv infantry)" rather than "lasguns are currently effective against marines."
Do you dispute the fact that presently the objective of the game Warhammer 40,000 generally has little to do with killing models? That it has much more to do with having models that exist at critical locations on the battlefield, thus making "more bodies" an inbuilt advantage that probably should, in some way, be paid for?
The minimum point value of a W2 space marine unit to perform an Action is 90 points. That unit has 5 models to hold objectives. As a guard player, the minimum point value of a unit to perform an Action is 55 points, and that unit has 10 models to hold objectives.
it absolutely stands to reason that if those two units are to engage in direct combat, the one with a natural disadvantage at winning the actual game should pretty much always win the combat.
The postulate included in "Lasguns should not be effective against marines [so the two wound change is good]" is "Lasguns were effective against marines but are not now."
I think that's what Insectum is pointing out; they weren't effective then either.
They weren't effective agaisnt useless and cheap point wise tac marines. They were very much efficient agaisnt basically all the other non-terminator marine infantry. Heck stormshields made no difference agaisnt lasguns for the most part of 40k.
And that was literally the worst weapon of the game wielded by the third worst statline of the game.
Regarding stormshields being useless against lasguns for most of 8th edition
To be fair: if one argues that lasguns are "the wrong tool" to target Marines one has to say that any source of an invulnerability save for a Marine statline is "the wrong tool" against an AP0 weapon.
Thats the thing with lasguns as a marine player you could literally do nothing agaisnt that crap shooting from 3rd to 7th be it from orks or pistols or bolters or lasguns to avoid rolling a bunch of 1's and losing 22+ point models of anything that wasn't a barebones tactical marine for each 1 you rolled.
Deffensive buffs and cover were useless, only FNP mattered.
I also just want to be clear, as we're discussing this 'lasguns vs space marines' shtick we're on here:
Am I correct with my math comparison? a guard squad, so 9 lasgun-armed guardsmen and a laspistol-armed sergeant, fire 19 shots and deal just about 1 wound to tactical marines. So that's 9pts of models killed by 55pts of models, 17.2% return on points.
a tactical squad firing at guardsmen makes 10 shots, kills slightly less than 3 so we'll round up, 16.5pts of models killed by 90pts of models, 18.3% return.
This is what we're discussing, right? In a vacuum? Just comparing the core stats to each other, and not talking about potential special weapon upgrades, orders, doctrines, subfactions, all that crap?
Klickor wrote: Why bother even having different stat profiles if fething basic guardsmen armed only with lasguns should be able to take on a counter unit efficiently? A space marine is to a normal guardsman as a fully armoured knight were against a peasant. The knight is almost invincible unless the peasant have brought the right tools, like a polearm/plasma for the job.
There are exactly three options here.
1. Make Marines not be hard-counters to light infantry that are balanced out by being vulnerable to multi-damage anti-armor weapons. Make them more well-rounded in terms of both strengths and vulnerabilities, not highly resistant to Guardsmen but not points pinatas to plasma either.
2. Actively make Marines less popular, and not the massively meta-dominating (not tournament metas, actual go-out-and-play metas) statline that they are.
3. Accept that Marines are always going to feel like paper because, if you're vulnerable to certain weapons and you're roughly three-quarters of the armies in a shop at any given time, people are generally going to bring lots of your hard counters.
This isn't a historical simulation of peasants and knights, it's a wholly fictional game with no obligation to simulate anything. Gameplay comes first.
As I've said before, I don't really mind W2 on the face of it, but it has magnified both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the Marine defensive statline. Guardsmen without special weapons are more efficient against Knights than against Marines, but massed heavy bolters do something like 60% more damage to Marines than they did in 3rd-5th. If Marines didn't make up roughly half the armies in the game, with disproportionate popularity, it wouldn't be an issue.
Klickor wrote: Never heard anyone in wfb complain that their basic goblins or basic state troopers were inefficient in killing chaos warriors. But both are core!!!! You had them to take up space and delay the enemy so you could send a unit of Knights in their flank.
Chaos Warriors were T4/W1/3+ with shields. Basic State Troopers with Halberds (+1S) were wounding on 4+ and giving them a 4+ save. That wasn't great, but you could kill them reasonably effectively with even basic troops. If you had swords or spears it was the same wounding on 5+ and a 3+ save that Marines get... except now Marines have two wounds.
WHFB also didn't express a unit's combat ability strictly via damage output. Two units of State Troops, even if not optimally equipped to fight a unit of Chaos Warriors, could beat it by flanking; you didn't outright need Knights to make a dent when rank bonus + flanking + denying the enemy their ranks could result in a failed leadership test and the unit being taken out of action. 40K still has utility roles for Guardsmen- screening and objective-holding- but either you give them the right weapons at the listbuilding phase (emphasis on the right weapons, because grenade launcher + autocannon + lasguns still doesn't kill a single Marine) or they don't fight.
And probably most importantly, the Chaos Warrior defensive statline didn't make up roughly half of the armies in the game. If it did, it wouldn't be blocks of State Troopers making up armies, it would be ubiquitous blocks of Handgunners wounding on 4s and dropping them to a 5+ save. And then the Chaos players would probably complain that their expensive, good-against-light-infantry-but-bad-against-armor-piercing-S4 troops are too vulnerable.
It was ubiquitous blocks of Halberdiers and Handgunners precisely because T4 with heavy armour or equivalent was prevalent. Or not even T4, the prevalence of heavy heavy cavalry with 3+/2+/1+ saves alone made handgunners ubiquitous.
Rihgu wrote: It was ubiquitous blocks of Halberdiers and Handgunners precisely because T4 with heavy armour or equivalent was prevalent. Or not even T4, the prevalence of heavy heavy cavalry with 3+/2+/1+ saves alone made handgunners ubiquitous.
Same phenomenon - everyone builds to counter the most common army in the game, so as long as Marines are the most common army in the game, they will always feel weak.
Rihgu wrote: It was ubiquitous blocks of Halberdiers and Handgunners precisely because T4 with heavy armour or equivalent was prevalent. Or not even T4, the prevalence of heavy heavy cavalry with 3+/2+/1+ saves alone made handgunners ubiquitous.
Well, WHFB also had a bunch of popular T3 armies, like Elves and Skaven, and even the armies with tougher profiles (Chaos Warriors, Orcs) typically came with weaker units too for support (Marauders, Goblins). You could bring Swordsmen or Spearmen and more often than not they'd have a decent army-wide matchup, or a decent target within a varied roster. Armies that were entirely T4/3+ or better were a small minority.
But by the end of it, yeah, heavy cavalry with good saves made Handgunners (and cannons) pretty much must-haves. People will evolve list composition to match the meta threat, that's just how it goes.
If you want Marines to feel special- uniquely resilient to small arms, with an Achilles' heel to multi-damage armor-piercing weaponry- then they can't be the yardstick by which everything else in the game is judged. Otherwise the takeaway isn't 'Marines are strong against light infantry but weak to heavy weapons', it's just 'Guardsmen and grenade launchers suck, spam as much plasma as you can'. Which isn't really fun for either the player whose effective list composition is railroaded, or the player who gets hard-countered by take-all-comers (read: anti-Marine) lists.
Galas wrote: Thats the thing with lasguns as a marine player you could literally do nothing agaisnt that crap shooting from 3rd to 7th be it from orks or pistols or bolters or lasguns to avoid rolling a bunch of 1's and losing 22+ point models of anything that wasn't a barebones tactical marine for each 1 you rolled.
Deffensive buffs and cover were useless, only FNP mattered.
You could put them in a Rhino, making them immune to small arms. For 3-7, you could shoot out the Rhino too. Then, when the Rhino blew up, you could place Marines behind the wreck. Or you could Pod them in and strike on your terms.
But you are right, the fact that cover did nothing for Marines against small arms was really unfortunate.
Additionally, the switch to TLOS in 5th was also bad, especially for an elite army that's supposed to be good at concentrating force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: I also just want to be clear, as we're discussing this 'lasguns vs space marines' shtick we're on here:
Am I correct with my math comparison? a guard squad, so 9 lasgun-armed guardsmen and a laspistol-armed sergeant, fire 19 shots and deal just about 1 wound to tactical marines. So that's 9pts of models killed by 55pts of models, 17.2% return on points.
a tactical squad firing at guardsmen makes 10 shots, kills slightly less than 3 so we'll round up, 16.5pts of models killed by 90pts of models, 18.3% return.
This is what we're discussing, right? In a vacuum? Just comparing the core stats to each other, and not talking about potential special weapon upgrades, orders, doctrines, subfactions, all that crap?
1:Lasguns are a proxy discussion for small arms/attacks.
2: "Points returned" is not the only metric you could use. You can also look at "reduction in combat effectiveness", in which case your above example shows Marines recieving 0 combat effectiveness reduction, while Guardsmen lose 30%.
And there are related issued involving cover, range, LOS, etc. Broader game contexts resulting in this desire for 2w marines.
The WHFB discussion is giving me memory whiplash. In 8th at least you basically had chaff that were not expected to do anything except probably die or in a good world pin a unit in place for a flank. Then you had super-buffed up deathstars likely containing characters who ate everything. Finally you had characters on flying mounts who danced out of charge arcs 6 dicing dwellers on said deathstar, because initiative test or die the end is kind of broken.
Basic guys with Halberds were so-so. But with +1 S and T from the basic Lore of Beast spell (I'm really pushing my memory here, apologies if wrong) they are now a threat to more or less anything in the game - and you are likely to win any fight if you also have +3 rank bonus, a banner, and a flank charge etc. And if your opponent runs away you have a 50/50 chance to just kill them (unless they are fast etc).
Which is sort of a related comment. Close Combat did exist in older editions. Squads like Guardsmen could easily be charged, lose combat, and promptly be swept from the table. Obviously we don't have that today.
They weren't effective agaisnt useless and cheap point wise tac marines.
Tac marines weren't useless. But if they FELT useless where did that problem lie? Defensive capability or offensive capability? In later editiins 5-7 I'd argue offensive capability was a major factor. The fact that a Lascannon could only do a single wound against a MC like a Riptide or Wraithknight was a major problem.
3. Accept that Marines are always going to feel like paper because, if you're vulnerable to certain weapons and you're roughly three-quarters of the armies in a shop at any given time, people are generally going to bring lots of your hard counters.
This isn't a historical simulation of peasants and knights, it's a wholly fictional game with no obligation to simulate anything. Gameplay comes first.
Hard counters I am fine with and are even arguing for them to be there. Or even soft counters. But like scotsman have demonstrated lasguns aren't even that bad against 1w marines and as long as they remain even remotely points efficient against marines everything else will just trash marines even more. Without 2w marines are vulnerable to almost every weapon in the game except perhaps the biggest LoW weapons. Only because cheaper marines make low shot count weapons extreme overkill. Marines should at least feel strong against some weapons. And it doesnt matter if you need a whole squad to kill a marine if said squad isnt much more expensive than some of the previous 1w, now 2w models. A marine with a heavy weapon or upgraded sergeant can cost close to a whole guardsmen squad so if one guy do almost nothing against a marine is a bad argument when you can have 3-4x as many guardsmen as marines.
Chaos Warriors were T4/W1/3+ with shields. Basic State Troopers with Halberds (+1S) were wounding on 4+ and giving them a 4+ save. That wasn't great, but you could kill them reasonably effectively with even basic troops. If you had swords or spears it was the same wounding on 5+ and a 3+ save that Marines get... except now Marines have two wounds.
I would liken halberd infantry to plasmagun wielding guardsmen. If you only have str3 you wound on 5+ and they get a 2+ or 3+ save (thought they had 4+ base, +1 for shield and +1 for HW+shield for a 2+ but havent played against chaos for over a decade in wfb so might have remembered wrong. Might have just been for chosen). You usually only got 6 attacks in total as well for your whole 25 man unit so even with halberds you still did less than a wound on average in damage if they have 3+ base. With handweapons you are looking at something like 1/6-1/3 of a wound for your 150+pts unit even if you fight first. That is about a 3%-8%(if halberds) return. Never played 8th though so things might have changed there but Marines would have loved chaos warrior survivability in previous editions,
Hard counters I am fine with and are even arguing for them to be there. Or even soft counters. But like scotsman have demonstrated lasguns aren't even that bad against 1w marines and as long as they remain even remotely points efficient against marines everything else will just trash marines even more.
Scotsman has chosen a bad metric.
What his "points returned" scenario does not tell you is that the Space Marines in their ideal use case can nearly wipe out the Guardsman in a single turn through Rapid firing, assaulting, and subsequent morale. Nor does it inform you that Space Marines in cover will reduce the effectiveness of incoming lasgun fire by half.
The Guardsmen on the other hand have no real options available to them. The best they can hope for is to be in cover while the marines stand in the open, and slowly whittle the Marines down. A scenario that they will still loose at long range, and probably still lose even if they'r rapid firing at short range and the marines choose to take no action other than stand and fire.
3. Accept that Marines are always going to feel like paper because, if you're vulnerable to certain weapons and you're roughly three-quarters of the armies in a shop at any given time, people are generally going to bring lots of your hard counters.
This isn't a historical simulation of peasants and knights, it's a wholly fictional game with no obligation to simulate anything. Gameplay comes first.
Hard counters I am fine with and are even arguing for them to be there. Or even soft counters. But like scotsman have demonstrated lasguns aren't even that bad against 1w marines and as long as they remain even remotely points efficient against marines everything else will just trash marines even more. Without 2w marines are vulnerable to almost every weapon in the game except perhaps the biggest LoW weapons. Only because cheaper marines make low shot count weapons extreme overkill. Marines should at least feel strong against some weapons. And it doesnt matter if you need a whole squad to kill a marine if said squad isnt much more expensive than some of the previous 1w, now 2w models. A marine with a heavy weapon or upgraded sergeant can cost close to a whole guardsmen squad so if one guy do almost nothing against a marine is a bad argument when you can have 3-4x as many guardsmen as marines.
I mean, no. I'm not. I'm not arguing that lasguns 'arent even bad' against marines, a 17% points return is super low in 9th edition when "the norm" is that your unit shows up, blows away its points value or more in enemy models, and then gets evaporated in the following turn.
Mostly what I'm pointing out is that there isnt as much of this "small arms suck against elites, but elites rule against chaff" as people are actually saying. There's some, for sure, elites generally get better multiplicative buffs and dont have to deal with morale while chaff often does, but if you look at a damage breakdown between two units and it's low one way and low the other way, typically you go "Oh, I get it - this unit is a DEFENSIVE unit, not an OFFENSIVE unit."
guardsmen use their low cost to bottom out opposing units, even units that are designed to be able to kill guardsmen. This allows them to retain board control and win the game. This is how guardsmen work. They dont tend to be offensively oriented unless you give them offensive buffing units or offensive upgrades, which increases their cost, and increases the points return that enemy units get by targeting them.
This isnt rocket science. It's kind of what I'd consider 'pretty obvious."
Am I correct with my math comparison? a guard squad, so 9 lasgun-armed guardsmen and a laspistol-armed sergeant, fire 19 shots and deal just about 1 wound to tactical marines. So that's 9pts of models killed by 55pts of models, 17.2% return on points.
a tactical squad firing at guardsmen makes 10 shots, kills slightly less than 3 so we'll round up, 16.5pts of models killed by 90pts of models, 18.3% return.
You are not correct with your math comparison.
0 points of models are killed by a 55pts of models for a 0% return on points vs 2w marines.
Vs 1 wound marines. 16.3% return on points.
If you double the output its now 110pts of models for a return of 16.3%.
the_scotsman wrote: I also just want to be clear, as we're discussing this 'lasguns vs space marines' shtick we're on here:
Am I correct with my math comparison? a guard squad, so 9 lasgun-armed guardsmen and a laspistol-armed sergeant, fire 19 shots and deal just about 1 wound to tactical marines. So that's 9pts of models killed by 55pts of models, 17.2% return on points.
a tactical squad firing at guardsmen makes 10 shots, kills slightly less than 3 so we'll round up, 16.5pts of models killed by 90pts of models, 18.3% return.
This is what we're discussing, right? In a vacuum? Just comparing the core stats to each other, and not talking about potential special weapon upgrades, orders, doctrines, subfactions, all that crap?
1:Lasguns are a proxy discussion for small arms/attacks.
2: "Points returned" is not the only metric you could use. You can also look at "reduction in combat effectiveness", in which case your above example shows Marines recieving 0 combat effectiveness reduction, while Guardsmen lose 30%.
And there are related issued involving cover, range, LOS, etc. Broader game contexts resulting in this desire for 2w marines.
yeah dude, it's like thats how having more bodies always works. You can go up the scale, too - YOU were just pointing out as a gotcha that lasguns are technically more effective at removing more points of Predators than they are at removing points of space marines....but the number of lasguns it takes to cause 4 wounds to a predator causes 8 wounds to MEQs, which reduces the effectiveness of a squad of MEQs by 80% while reducing the effectiveness of the Predator by 0%.
But hey, look, that squad of MEQs gets to have 5 bodies on an objective, while the Predator gets 1! Its almost like thats an inherent trade-off that you get when you consider the units in this board game the objective of which is to hold the objectives and score the points and win the game!
I feel like I'm going crazy at this point. Like I'm standing at a blackboard with a pointer going "Come on, kids, one...plus one...lets say I have one apple, and now I get a second apple...you can do it..."
Honestly I wouldn’t mind 2w marines if everything else got that big of a defensive buff for that few points.
Orks have gone from 6 to 9 points, only gaining an extra point of toughness, while losing the ability to get a 5++ and taking massive morale. Marines go up comparatively less, then gain the ability to use cover to get a massive bonus, and the whole second wound, combined with whatever flavor of stuff comes with the power armor color.
the_scotsman wrote: I also just want to be clear, as we're discussing this 'lasguns vs space marines' shtick we're on here:
Am I correct with my math comparison? a guard squad, so 9 lasgun-armed guardsmen and a laspistol-armed sergeant, fire 19 shots and deal just about 1 wound to tactical marines. So that's 9pts of models killed by 55pts of models, 17.2% return on points.
a tactical squad firing at guardsmen makes 10 shots, kills slightly less than 3 so we'll round up, 16.5pts of models killed by 90pts of models, 18.3% return.
This is what we're discussing, right? In a vacuum? Just comparing the core stats to each other, and not talking about potential special weapon upgrades, orders, doctrines, subfactions, all that crap?
1:Lasguns are a proxy discussion for small arms/attacks.
2: "Points returned" is not the only metric you could use. You can also look at "reduction in combat effectiveness", in which case your above example shows Marines recieving 0 combat effectiveness reduction, while Guardsmen lose 30%.
And there are related issued involving cover, range, LOS, etc. Broader game contexts resulting in this desire for 2w marines.
yeah dude, it's like thats how having more bodies always works. You can go up the scale, too - YOU were just pointing out as a gotcha that lasguns are technically more effective at removing more points of Predators than they are at removing points of space marines....but the number of lasguns it takes to cause 4 wounds to a predator causes 8 wounds to MEQs, which reduces the effectiveness of a squad of MEQs by 80% while reducing the effectiveness of the Predator by 0%.
But hey, look, that squad of MEQs gets to have 5 bodies on an objective, while the Predator gets 1! Its almost like thats an inherent trade-off that you get when you consider the units in this board game the objective of which is to hold the objectives and score the points and win the game!
I feel like I'm going crazy at this point. Like I'm standing at a blackboard with a pointer going "Come on, kids, one...plus one...lets say I have one apple, and now I get a second apple...you can do it..."
Well good, we can agree that "points returned" isn't the end-all-be-all metric then. Good job.
Now all of that talk about "Guardsman are a defensive unit, duh", sure sounds to me like another way of saying "Just accept that your troops suck". Additionally, as I pointed out above, the Marines still win out against Guardsmen in cover even when the Marines are standing in the open, so I dunno how great Guardsmen are defensively. Guardsmen appear to lose in every scenario. Is that good design/an enjoyable experience for either player? No desperate charges to save the day from the Guardsmen? No forcing of the Marine player to engage in a particular way to avoid the strength in numbers that the Guardsmen supposedly have as their advantage? Is winning while doing nothing but standing on an objective as fun or as interesting as being able to effectively engage an opponent and kill models with good tactics/play?
This speaks nothing of Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, Hormagaunts, etc. and how their effectiveness vs. Marines has just been cut in half, either.
Question: If the lasgun-armed members of an Infantry Squad should be mowed down with abandon and do nothing but scratch paint in return, why not just have the Infantry Squad be a 10W special weapon gunner with a special rule stating that all multidamage weapons count as D1 against it? Why even bother having glorified wound counters that just waste time moving separately and complicate LoS determination?
waefre_1 wrote: Question: If the lasgun-armed members of an Infatrny Squad should be mowed down with abandon and do nothing but scratch paint in return, why not just have the Infantry Squad be a 10W special weapon gunner with a special rule stating that all multidamage weapons count as D1 against it? Why even bother having glorified wound counters that just waste time moving separately and complicate LoS determination?
I'm kind of fine with lasguns in and of themselves being bad, though they just keep getting worse as creep sets in. What is annoying is the buckets of dice being rolled for almost no damage. I mostly just fear that GW's response in the Guard Codex is going to be MORE DICE!!! And suddenly we'll see lasguns throwing out more and more shots for diminishing returns. Rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice, or for the purpose of "I might hurt something, so I have to roll it gets tiring.
Same goes for other chaff infantry really. A full unit of 30 Termagants throws out 90 shots and averages 2.5 dead marines based on a mathhammer ap. I keep hearing they got buffed lately though not quite sure how, I'm not fully caught up on the meta as I used to be.
I kind of just hope that we end up with a situation where these traditionally chaff units can function decently - whether its giving them the ability to dig in, slightly better damage output (though not too much), or even simply the ability to effectively respawn, as reinforcements from the back lines trudge forwards.
SIdenote, I'm kind of curious on what 9th will bring with Scions. Hot-shot lasguns have been pretty decent vs Marines since 5th edition (they were still S3, but got AP3 then) - I'm kind of curious if they'll give them an extra pip of strength, or change them to D2 to make Scions the anti-Marine infantry of Guard.
the_scotsman wrote: I also just want to be clear, as we're discussing this 'lasguns vs space marines' shtick we're on here:
Am I correct with my math comparison? a guard squad, so 9 lasgun-armed guardsmen and a laspistol-armed sergeant, fire 19 shots and deal just about 1 wound to tactical marines. So that's 9pts of models killed by 55pts of models, 17.2% return on points.
a tactical squad firing at guardsmen makes 10 shots, kills slightly less than 3 so we'll round up, 16.5pts of models killed by 90pts of models, 18.3% return.
This is what we're discussing, right? In a vacuum? Just comparing the core stats to each other, and not talking about potential special weapon upgrades, orders, doctrines, subfactions, all that crap?
1:Lasguns are a proxy discussion for small arms/attacks.
2: "Points returned" is not the only metric you could use. You can also look at "reduction in combat effectiveness", in which case your above example shows Marines recieving 0 combat effectiveness reduction, while Guardsmen lose 30%.
And there are related issued involving cover, range, LOS, etc. Broader game contexts resulting in this desire for 2w marines.
yeah dude, it's like thats how having more bodies always works. You can go up the scale, too - YOU were just pointing out as a gotcha that lasguns are technically more effective at removing more points of Predators than they are at removing points of space marines....but the number of lasguns it takes to cause 4 wounds to a predator causes 8 wounds to MEQs, which reduces the effectiveness of a squad of MEQs by 80% while reducing the effectiveness of the Predator by 0%.
But hey, look, that squad of MEQs gets to have 5 bodies on an objective, while the Predator gets 1! Its almost like thats an inherent trade-off that you get when you consider the units in this board game the objective of which is to hold the objectives and score the points and win the game!
I feel like I'm going crazy at this point. Like I'm standing at a blackboard with a pointer going "Come on, kids, one...plus one...lets say I have one apple, and now I get a second apple...you can do it..."
Well good, we can agree that "points returned" isn't the end-all-be-all metric then. Good job.
Now all of that talk about "Guardsman are a defensive unit, duh", sure sounds to me like another way of saying "Just accept that your troops suck". Additionally, as I pointed out above, the Marines still win out against Guardsmen in cover even when the Marines are standing in the open, so I dunno how great Guardsmen are defensively. Guardsmen appear to lose in every scenario. Is that good design/an enjoyable experience for either player? No desperate charges to save the day from the Guardsmen? No forcing of the Marine player to engage in a particular way to avoid the strength in numbers that the Guardsmen supposedly have as their advantage? Is winning while doing nothing but standing on an objective as fun or as interesting as being able to effectively engage an opponent and kill models with good tactics/play?
This speaks nothing of Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, Hormagaunts, etc. and how their effectiveness vs. Marines has just been cut in half, either.
How do you propose to offset the natural advantage of numbers and footprint on the objective?
Also, YOU play space marines. Last I checked, I'M the one who plays almost exclusively light infantry armies, lol. I'm arguing that MY troops should be the ones struggling in combat versus elite armies given the current setup of how the game works.
Leave guardsmen and lasguns to the side for a second - what if I told you that there was a unit called Poxwalkers that gets NO RANGED WEAPON AT ALL, and just has to sit there and take it from the space marines? ZERO percent damage return - how unfair! What could possibly be the use of this unit? People use them in competitive lists! Whats the point?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
waefre_1 wrote: Question: If the lasgun-armed members of an Infantry Squad should be mowed down with abandon and do nothing but scratch paint in return, why not just have the Infantry Squad be a 10W special weapon gunner with a special rule stating that all multidamage weapons count as D1 against it? Why even bother having glorified wound counters that just waste time moving separately and complicate LoS determination?
How about you tell me.
Lets replace a guard squad with exactly what you say here - a 10W special weapon gunner who costs 60pts who can only take 1 damage at a time.
How does this make a guard squad less effective in the game?
What cant you do with this guy that you could do with a regular guard squad?
I'll give you a hint: it is the objective of the game warhammer 40,000. The thing you have to do...to win the game.
All this absurd comparisons of infantry squads vs marines when in 8th I had games were my dark angels had as many marines as my IG opponent has vehicles because I ran a bunch of 2w terminators, 1w veterans with special equipement and characters.
If someone just brings gretchins I don't expect im to do anything but die. If my opponent just brings barebones infantry squads (the third worst profile of the game with the second worst main infantry weapon in the game only worse than gretchind and conscripts) in an army than can have 90+ bodies covering ground and still have 1500 points left for heavy artillery and vehicles and special and elite units then feth him.
And I know right now imperial guard are weak but this comparison of unit vs unit in a vacuum just makes no sense. Is completely ignoring how each army is supposed to play, how the game is actually played, and all the sinergyes and tactics of each army. Is ok to say a marine player "Of course your tactical and marines are completely shreded in the open! Take them in rhinos or in drop pods!" but not to a IG player "Of course your light infantry unit, the third cheapest unit in the game, with no equipement cannot hurt heavy infantry, take artillery and special weapons and vehicles!" is horrible and criminal and whatever. So feth marines that want to play marines and dreadnoughts because thats the fantasy of the army but not IG players that ... want to play... just infantry squads with lasguns?
If basic infantry squads with only lasguns are killing tacticals marines they are killing devastators and assault marines and veteran marines just as good. Infantry Squads with barebones lasguns exist for two things and two things only: Occupy space and fight other light infantry chaff.
And thats good and how they should be. Should 10 or 15 or whatever infantry take to kill a marine? I could not care less. Make marines more expensive to balance the game and not force the imperial guard player to bring 200 models that don't do anyhing I could not care about that. But stop this nonsense arguments that mix in the worse faith arguments fluff with mathematics with old editions with new mechanics with old statlines ignoring all support but applying it when it matters like doctrines to support different perspectives.
Call me a bolter porn fanboy. I came back to the game with 8th and tried playing heavy infantry dark angels for most of 8th. A misserable experience. I jumped to Custodes and could not be more happy about that (And I ran them with 0 shields and mostly infantry and dreadnoughts so feth me again but at least my units feel powerfull enough). But thats why I play ogres in fantasy and minotaurs in 40k not because I care about power but because I like when my guys feel tought and elite. Make them more expensive I actually like that more, less miniatures I need to play.
When I play my 40 kroot and 60 firewarriors Tau list I don't expect them to kill stuff they are there to die. And thats fun for me, watching the enemy shoot at my medium horde of infantry. Is the list I'm choosing to play and I don't expect my kroots to start killing marines or elite infantry left and right.
waefre_1 wrote: Question: If the lasgun-armed members of an Infatrny Squad should be mowed down with abandon and do nothing but scratch paint in return, why not just have the Infantry Squad be a 10W special weapon gunner with a special rule stating that all multidamage weapons count as D1 against it? Why even bother having glorified wound counters that just waste time moving separately and complicate LoS determination?
I'm kind of fine with lasguns in and of themselves being bad, though they just keep getting worse as creep sets in. What is annoying is the buckets of dice being rolled for almost no damage. I mostly just fear that GW's response in the Guard Codex is going to be MORE DICE!!! And suddenly we'll see lasguns throwing out more and more shots for diminishing returns. Rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice, or for the purpose of "I might hurt something, so I have to roll it gets tiring.
Same goes for other chaff infantry really. A full unit of 30 Termagants throws out 90 shots and averages 2.5 dead marines based on a mathhammer ap. I keep hearing they got buffed lately though not quite sure how, I'm not fully caught up on the meta as I used to be.
I kind of just hope that we end up with a situation where these traditionally chaff units can function decently - whether its giving them the ability to dig in, slightly better damage output (though not too much), or even simply the ability to effectively respawn, as reinforcements from the back lines trudge forwards.
SIdenote, I'm kind of curious on what 9th will bring with Scions. Hot-shot lasguns have been pretty decent vs Marines since 5th edition (they were still S3, but got AP3 then) - I'm kind of curious if they'll give them an extra pip of strength, or change them to D2 to make Scions the anti-Marine infantry of Guard.
The issue with S3 AP-2 D2 Hellguns is... Well, let me put it this way.
580 points of 43rd Iotan Dragons kills one Questoris Knight out of Deep Strike, assuming a 4+ Invuln.
If the Knight isn't able to Rotate Ion Shields or otherwise only has a 5++, you can do it with just shy of 500.
If Laurels of Command stacks with the new Orders mechanic, that number drops to 400 points. 310 if the Knight only has a 5++.
Those same 310 points of Scions kills, with two orders, kills 18-19 MEQ out of Deep Strike. 14 if they're in Cover.
waefre_1 wrote: Question: If the lasgun-armed members of an Infantry Squad should be mowed down with abandon and do nothing but scratch paint in return, why not just have the Infantry Squad be a 10W special weapon gunner with a special rule stating that all multidamage weapons count as D1 against it? Why even bother having glorified wound counters that just waste time moving separately and complicate LoS determination?
How about you tell me.
Lets replace a guard squad with exactly what you say here - a 10W special weapon gunner who costs 60pts who can only take 1 damage at a time.
How does this make a guard squad less effective in the game?
What cant you do with this guy that you could do with a regular guard squad?
Very little, as far as I can tell. Unless my math is off, one mini is significantly easier to hide than ten and since the special weapon was the only one we cared about, it shouldn't matter that we're not getting extra spotting off with other Guardsmen. And since we're already condensing the squad down into a single mini, it would only be fair to count the number of remaining Wounds as its number of models for ObSec tests.
Now, your turn: If the only real benefit to having nine warm bodies is completely negated by a simple, logical special rule tacked on to the hypothetical Special Weapon Guardsquad, why should we bother having the extra bodies?
waefre_1 wrote: Question: If the lasgun-armed members of an Infantry Squad should be mowed down with abandon and do nothing but scratch paint in return, why not just have the Infantry Squad be a 10W special weapon gunner with a special rule stating that all multidamage weapons count as D1 against it? Why even bother having glorified wound counters that just waste time moving separately and complicate LoS determination?
Because:
I'll lose out on taking my +1 heavy weapon,
+1 Sgt. upgrades,
I'll lose x shots that while aren't great DO generate more hits/wounds than not having them,
I'll lose x melee attacks that while aren't great DO generate more hits/wounds than not having them,
the squad will have an absurdly small footprint that'll do nothing to control table space (not just objectives),
the squad will have an absurdly small footprint that'll allow it to hide in tiny parcels of terrain,
the entire squad will now be vulnerable to any effect that targets a single model,
would force other rules like Transport capacity, Look Out Sir, & moral to have to be completely reworked
Is 100% against both GW & your FLGS interests in selling you more models.
Did I miss anything?
Oh yeah, and it'll look fething stupid on the table.
the_scotsman wrote: I also just want to be clear, as we're discussing this 'lasguns vs space marines' shtick we're on here:
Am I correct with my math comparison? a guard squad, so 9 lasgun-armed guardsmen and a laspistol-armed sergeant, fire 19 shots and deal just about 1 wound to tactical marines. So that's 9pts of models killed by 55pts of models, 17.2% return on points.
a tactical squad firing at guardsmen makes 10 shots, kills slightly less than 3 so we'll round up, 16.5pts of models killed by 90pts of models, 18.3% return.
This is what we're discussing, right? In a vacuum? Just comparing the core stats to each other, and not talking about potential special weapon upgrades, orders, doctrines, subfactions, all that crap?
1:Lasguns are a proxy discussion for small arms/attacks.
2: "Points returned" is not the only metric you could use. You can also look at "reduction in combat effectiveness", in which case your above example shows Marines recieving 0 combat effectiveness reduction, while Guardsmen lose 30%.
And there are related issued involving cover, range, LOS, etc. Broader game contexts resulting in this desire for 2w marines.
yeah dude, it's like thats how having more bodies always works. You can go up the scale, too - YOU were just pointing out as a gotcha that lasguns are technically more effective at removing more points of Predators than they are at removing points of space marines....but the number of lasguns it takes to cause 4 wounds to a predator causes 8 wounds to MEQs, which reduces the effectiveness of a squad of MEQs by 80% while reducing the effectiveness of the Predator by 0%.
But hey, look, that squad of MEQs gets to have 5 bodies on an objective, while the Predator gets 1! Its almost like thats an inherent trade-off that you get when you consider the units in this board game the objective of which is to hold the objectives and score the points and win the game!
I feel like I'm going crazy at this point. Like I'm standing at a blackboard with a pointer going "Come on, kids, one...plus one...lets say I have one apple, and now I get a second apple...you can do it..."
Well good, we can agree that "points returned" isn't the end-all-be-all metric then. Good job.
Now all of that talk about "Guardsman are a defensive unit, duh", sure sounds to me like another way of saying "Just accept that your troops suck". Additionally, as I pointed out above, the Marines still win out against Guardsmen in cover even when the Marines are standing in the open, so I dunno how great Guardsmen are defensively. Guardsmen appear to lose in every scenario. Is that good design/an enjoyable experience for either player? No desperate charges to save the day from the Guardsmen? No forcing of the Marine player to engage in a particular way to avoid the strength in numbers that the Guardsmen supposedly have as their advantage? Is winning while doing nothing but standing on an objective as fun or as interesting as being able to effectively engage an opponent and kill models with good tactics/play?
This speaks nothing of Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, Hormagaunts, etc. and how their effectiveness vs. Marines has just been cut in half, either.
How do you propose to offset the natural advantage of numbers and footprint on the objective?
This assumes that there are no advantages to having a small footprint or being fewer bodies. Being able to fit more combat power into a transport is a useful trait, as is being less/unaffected by the current Blast mechanics. My understanding is that Lictors and Rippers are popular among Nid players because they are tiny units that can tuck away into cover and still score/perform actions.
the_scotsman wrote: Also, YOU play space marines. Last I checked, I'M the one who plays almost exclusively light infantry armies, lol. I'm arguing that MY troops should be the ones struggling in combat versus elite armies given the current setup of how the game works.
What I play shouldn't matter, I'm concerned for the overall health of the game. But I do play Tyranids as well, and have a budding GSC collection (mostly for Necromunda atm, but it could grow). I also have a large collection of Eldar models that I'd like to paint and play with at some point.
the_scotsman wrote: Leave guardsmen and lasguns to the side for a second - what if I told you that there was a unit called Poxwalkers that gets NO RANGED WEAPON AT ALL, and just has to sit there and take it from the space marines? ZERO percent damage return - how unfair! What could possibly be the use of this unit? People use them in competitive lists! Whats the point?
Sure, unit without gun can't shoot. I bet they're less effective at slowly dragging down Marines in CC and eating their brains now that Marines have 2w.
Look, obviously playing for objectives is "how to win", but is that type of play as fun as killing the opponents models through effective movement and attacking? In prior editions, if a couple squads of Guardsmen were able to maneuver to get the drop on a Marine position, the Guardsman player would be awarded with more kills for their efforts. When two Devilfish float up and unload some Fire Warriors to storm the Marine position by unloading their Pulse Rifles at point blank range, the return should feel good for the Tau player. That's the sort of play that I'd want available for probably every basic troop, the ability to actually be somewhat effective on attack if used well. 2W Marines make that much harder, harming the ability of infantry-on-infantry actions. In return, it doesn't help much against the sort of weapons which are actually the ones that make Marine players go "screeeee" and give them the badfeels. The Plasma, the Dissie Cannons, the six Earthshaker gun carriages, whatever.
Basically at it's roots I think 40K should be balanced around infantry combat. When the most popular faction can laugh off the attacks of the basic infantry of other factions, there's a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Is ok to say a marine player "Of course your tactical and marines are completely shreded in the open! Take them in rhinos or in drop pods!" but not to a IG player "Of course your light infantry unit, the third cheapest unit in the game, with no equipement cannot hurt heavy infantry, take artillery and special weapons and vehicles!" is horrible and criminal and whatever. So feth marines that want to play marines and dreadnoughts because thats the fantasy of the army but not IG players that ... want to play... just infantry squads with lasguns?
Galas. . . were your Marines really getting shredded by Lasguns in the open? REALLY?
Right now I'm thinking you're the poster-child for negative bias.
As a Marine player, I want to play Marines and Dreadnoughts too. I just don't want that to come at the expense of everyone else's core infantry, especially core infantry that used to be able to reasonably combat Marines in their respective arenas.
They didn't needed to be because my opponent used his cheaps as chips infantry to block me from reaching his parking lot of 3 manticores and 3 basilisks.
And I have to say, not a single time I eard my opponent say "man are my lasguns useless" while I was removing squad after squad of marines under artillery fire.
Maybe I came a little too energetic. But is a little tiresome to take this absurd comparisons ignoring everything else that make factions work as a whole.
Galas wrote: Oh no, they weren't shredded by lasguns.
They didn't needed to be because my opponent used his cheaps as chips infantry to block me from reaching his parking lot of 3 manticores and 3 basilisks.
And I have to say, not a single time I eard my opponent say "man are my lasguns useless" while I was removing squad after squad of marines under artillery fire.
Maybe I came a little too energetic. But is a little tiresome to take this absurd comparisons ignoring everything else that make factions work as a whole.
Righto. Ok, so THAT particular scenario is an 8th edition problem. But the problem there isn't that Marines weren't tough. The problem there is that Marines couldn't kill Guardsmen fast enough, like they used to be able to do pre 8th, using template weapons, Drop Pods, and Morale. Additionally, the Guardsmen could just Fall Back out of CC, so you couldn't "hide in CC" the way you could prior to 8th. Also, due to the AP change, Guardsmen were now 30% tougher against Bolter Fire.
Aka, the solution is NOT 2w Marines.
Note that 2W Marines will also not help you against the Manticores, Basilisks, or the Heavy Bolters that they have as secondary weapons. Nor the Veteran Drop Plasma that was always mysteriously on call in that scenario.
Galas wrote: Oh no, they weren't shredded by lasguns.
They didn't needed to be because my opponent used his cheaps as chips infantry to block me from reaching his parking lot of 3 manticores and 3 basilisks.
And I have to say, not a single time I eard my opponent say "man are my lasguns useless" while I was removing squad after squad of marines under artillery fire.
Maybe I came a little too energetic. But is a little tiresome to take this absurd comparisons ignoring everything else that make factions work as a whole.
Righto. Ok, so THAT particular scenario is an 8th edition problem. But the problem there isn't that Marines weren't tough. The problem there is that Marines couldn't kill Guardsmen fast enough, like they used to be able to do pre 8th, using template weapons, Drop Pods, and Morale. Additionally, the Guardsmen could just Fall Back out of CC, so you couldn't "hide in CC" the way you could prior to 8th. Also, due to the AP change, Guardsmen were now 30% tougher against Bolter Fire.
Aka, the solution is NOT 2w Marines.
Note that 2W Marines will also not help you against the Manticores, Basilisks, or the Heavy Bolters that they have as secondary weapons. Nor the Veteran Drop Plasma that was always mysteriously on call in that scenario.
Oh. I've blocked & shelled many an opponent 2e-6e.
And I witnessed a 9e example of this just last Sat. The other player couldn't get close enough/LoS to the manticores. They were blasted off the table with stragglers/stray wounds being picked off by plasmagun/lasgun fire. It was a pretty solid Guard victory.
So I don't think this non-problem began & ended with 8th ed.
Oh. I've blocked & shelled many an opponent 2e-6e.
And I witnessed a 9e example of this just last Sat. The other player couldn't get close enough/LoS to the manticores. They were blasted off the table with stragglers/stray wounds being picked off by plasmagun/lasgun fire. It was a pretty solid Guard victory.
So I don't think this non-problem began & ended with 8th ed.
Don't get me wrong, the IG artillery castle should totally be a viable strategy. But 8th edition took away some very potent tools that Marines had in prior editions. For example, I think in 6th edition I had one Assault Squad kill about 30 Guardsmen in a turn through Flamthrowers and Assault and subsequent Morale. I remember dropping Drop Pods with a Command Squad and five Flamers right next to another IG castle, and hilarity ensued. Additionaly, pre-8th you could shoot and stun multiple artillery tanks in order to suppress them, and pre-7th every Marine in a squad could plant Krak grenades on them in CC to knock them out. For 8th, a lot of those tools vanished.
By 8.5 Marines were given a little more offensive power through Doctrines and their +1 attack in the first round of combat. For 9th Flamers gained more range, and Blast weapons have increased in efficacy against larger squads. Early 8th happened to be a particularly rough time for that matchup.
waefre_1 wrote: Question: If the lasgun-armed members of an Infantry Squad should be mowed down with abandon and do nothing but scratch paint in return, why not just have the Infantry Squad be a 10W special weapon gunner with a special rule stating that all multidamage weapons count as D1 against it? Why even bother having glorified wound counters that just waste time moving separately and complicate LoS determination?
How about you tell me.
Lets replace a guard squad with exactly what you say here - a 10W special weapon gunner who costs 60pts who can only take 1 damage at a time.
How does this make a guard squad less effective in the game?
What cant you do with this guy that you could do with a regular guard squad?
Very little, as far as I can tell. Unless my math is off, one mini is significantly easier to hide than ten and since the special weapon was the only one we cared about, it shouldn't matter that we're not getting extra spotting off with other Guardsmen. And since we're already condensing the squad down into a single mini, it would only be fair to count the number of remaining Wounds as its number of models for ObSec tests.
Now, your turn: If the only real benefit to having nine warm bodies is completely negated by a simple, logical special rule tacked on to the hypothetical Special Weapon Guardsquad, why should we bother having the extra bodies?
Probably because your 'simple logical' special rules do not exist.
if youre proposing to change the way scoring and movement works in the game to: You can ignore enemy models completely when you move, you are allowed to end your movement on top of any enemy models you want" and change scoring to "you count as the number of wounds remaining on your model" as well as changing damage to "multi-damage weapons remove multiple models" ala age of sigmar, then it makes way more sense for a 1-model, 10 wound unit to basically have identical combat stats and defensive stats to a 10-model, 1w unit.
UNTIL THEN, though, the trade-off for having your wounds kept in 1W (damage-capped) multi-body containers SHOULD be reduced combat effectiveness in terms of both offense and defense.
Note that this isnt actually all that far-fetched. Age of Sigmar does this. Large models DO count as multiple models for scoring, and multi-damage weapons DO remove multiple casualties from large units. And in age of sigmar, light infntry is allowed to wound big giant monsters just as good as they can damage other light infantry.
waefre_1 wrote: Question: If the lasgun-armed members of an Infatrny Squad should be mowed down with abandon and do nothing but scratch paint in return, why not just have the Infantry Squad be a 10W special weapon gunner with a special rule stating that all multidamage weapons count as D1 against it? Why even bother having glorified wound counters that just waste time moving separately and complicate LoS determination?
I'm kind of fine with lasguns in and of themselves being bad, though they just keep getting worse as creep sets in. What is annoying is the buckets of dice being rolled for almost no damage. I mostly just fear that GW's response in the Guard Codex is going to be MORE DICE!!! And suddenly we'll see lasguns throwing out more and more shots for diminishing returns. Rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice, or for the purpose of "I might hurt something, so I have to roll it gets tiring.
Same goes for other chaff infantry really. A full unit of 30 Termagants throws out 90 shots and averages 2.5 dead marines based on a mathhammer ap. I keep hearing they got buffed lately though not quite sure how, I'm not fully caught up on the meta as I used to be.
I kind of just hope that we end up with a situation where these traditionally chaff units can function decently - whether its giving them the ability to dig in, slightly better damage output (though not too much), or even simply the ability to effectively respawn, as reinforcements from the back lines trudge forwards.
SIdenote, I'm kind of curious on what 9th will bring with Scions. Hot-shot lasguns have been pretty decent vs Marines since 5th edition (they were still S3, but got AP3 then) - I'm kind of curious if they'll give them an extra pip of strength, or change them to D2 to make Scions the anti-Marine infantry of Guard.
The issue with S3 AP-2 D2 Hellguns is... Well, let me put it this way.
580 points of 43rd Iotan Dragons kills one Questoris Knight out of Deep Strike, assuming a 4+ Invuln.
If the Knight isn't able to Rotate Ion Shields or otherwise only has a 5++, you can do it with just shy of 500.
If Laurels of Command stacks with the new Orders mechanic, that number drops to 400 points. 310 if the Knight only has a 5++.
Those same 310 points of Scions kills, with two orders, kills 18-19 MEQ out of Deep Strike. 14 if they're in Cover.
I...legit forgot that they released a subfaction of stormtroopers that straight up ignores their main downside - being unable to unload full firepower on the drop. Just curious, what is the second order you factored in? I am guessing 310 points = 3 10 man squads and a Tempestor Prime with Command Rod? The points would be 5 more but that is basically a margin of error super tiny to be pointless. Plugging into a mathhammer thing I see 16 dead Marines there. Half that if you take a regiment type that doesn't just ignore the downside of the unit.
Still too big of a points return mind, though if they got a point bump in exchange. Or keep the points roughly the same and just make them pay for Deep Strike as an upgrade so that footslogging / mechanized is actually an option instead of being kind of pointless.
The S4 one seems a bit more reasonable however, that same 310 points goes down to 6 dead Marines (12 if you take the subfaction dedicated to ignoring drawbacks).
Oh. I've blocked & shelled many an opponent 2e-6e.
And I witnessed a 9e example of this just last Sat. The other player couldn't get close enough/LoS to the manticores. They were blasted off the table with stragglers/stray wounds being picked off by plasmagun/lasgun fire. It was a pretty solid Guard victory.
So I don't think this non-problem began & ended with 8th ed.
Don't get me wrong, the IG artillery castle should totally be a viable strategy. But 8th edition took away some very potent tools that Marines had in prior editions. For example, I think in 6th edition I had one Assault Squad kill about 30 Guardsmen in a turn through Flamthrowers and Assault and subsequent Morale. I remember dropping Drop Pods with a Command Squad and five Flamers right next to another IG castle, and hilarity ensued. Additionaly, pre-8th you could shoot and stun multiple artillery tanks in order to suppress them, and pre-7th every Marine in a squad could plant Krak grenades on them in CC to knock them out. For 8th, a lot of those tools vanished.
By 8.5 Marines were given a little more offensive power through Doctrines and their +1 attack in the first round of combat. For 9th Flamers gained more range, and Blast weapons have increased in efficacy against larger squads. Early 8th happened to be a particularly rough time for that matchup.
Guard were strong compared to early 8th Marines largely due to their low cost (they could easily have gone up 1 point and still been good), and a 5+ (and 6+) save actually meaning something for the first time I can remember. In previous editions marines could just straight up ignore the armor of Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks, etc and it no longer was the case, but the points didn't fully line up with that new reality. If memory serves, Guardsmen actually got cheaper jumping from 7th to 8th.
Since then Marines got Bolter Discipline to make their bolters a bit more reliable, Shock Assault giving them an extra attack on the charge, Combat Doctrines which made the AP on bolters and melee attacks stronger depending on the turn, and a 2nd wound on all non-Primaris. Guardsmen meanwhile got 15 points more expensive per squad and little else (I do think some of their special weapons got slightly cheaper too?).
Funny thing is I actually kind of like the idea of 2 wound Marines, but it feels like GW swung the pendulum too far compared to early 8th, where they had it too far in the opposite direction.
Are people now taking 4 different weapons on their Havoc units? I guess Trueborn have since ceased to exist but otherwise I'm not aware of any great change in the ability of units to spam weapons and the fact that players will naturally tend towards that when able.
