Aka, how far is the deep end?

A lot of topics talk about "but a Bolter fires mini rocket launchers" but this is not about them. This is about the oft-neglected Tactical Marine, and his big brother the Tactical Terminator. Long has he labored under the shadow of his Grav-Gun toting biker and Centurion brothers, occasionally catching bullets for the soldier lucky enough to be carrying the squad Meltagun (and combi-sergeant). All the meanwhile, the few times he does get to shoot his Bolter, cover and fluffed dice do much to result in a disappointing spurt.

Basically, I propose Bolt weapons get Shred. If the impact doesn't get you, the explosion will. The following units stand to benefit more than others:

* Scouts w/ Sentinels of Terra.
* Tacmarines (And Chaos Marines...and Power Armor Grey Knights)
* Terminators
* Attack Bikers w/ Heavy Bolters (it would be interesting to see them as an alternative to Multimeltas).
* Retributors (Shred + Rending...).

In theory, Bikes wouldn't gain *as* much due to saturation of Specials. However, my main concern would be the combining this special rule with the Dark Angel Banner of Devestation; if Bolt Weapons were to be given shred, the Banner should be modified so:

'All Friendly Dark Angels models within 12" of the Banner of Devestation fire an extra shot with their Bolt Weapons (including Storm & Heavy Bolters). A Bolter would fire 2 shots at 24", and 3 at 12"'

Your thoughts in general? Are there any trouble units that would need appropriate point adjustments? And should Shred work on all Sternguard ammo or only "some"?

No, firstly pleyers who hate marines will cite yet another marine player wanting a much needed buff to bolt weapons, 2nd, the last time we saw an army wide rule to buff basic weapons, we got bladestorm, and I would rather not open up that can of worms again.

I don't see a reason why.

I fully agree with Formosa that complete overhauls of major weapons do not work well. Especially in a weapon as ubiquitous as the bolter.

as an ork player and the subject of many relentlessly accurate bolter volleys I would be fine with that, but you would have to tac on another 2ish points per model that comes with bolt weapons as base. Otherwise knock yourself out.

I am primarily an Ork/Chaos player. The way I view it as, is:

>Tacmarines/Grey Hunters get a 1 pt hike.
>Bikes and Sternguard get a 3-pt hike.
>Most other stuff remains as-is (including non-Marine users of bolt weapons). However, up the cost of Bolters/Storm Bolters to 3/6 respectively for Inquisitorial henchmen (forgot about them for a second).

I would much rather see the big stuff dialed back than more power pumped into the smaller stuff. The power creep is getting kind of silly; "S4 shooting is bad no matter what it is" is something I never expected to hear playing 40k, but in the past six months/year I've been getting that with increasing frequency and my experiences on the tabletop have only supported it.

Im ok with my Ork S4 shooting. Or course I only get 1 shooting phase per boyz squad before They are in CC and it doesn't matter anymore :-P

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I would much rather see the big stuff dialed back than more power pumped into the smaller stuff. The power creep is getting kind of silly; "S4 shooting is bad no matter what it is" is something I never expected to hear playing 40k, but in the past six months/year I've been getting that with increasing frequency and my experiences on the tabletop have only supported it.

S4 shooting has been awful for some time now. It really wasn't that good in 5th, and then 6th just raised the bar to S6/7 spam.

Anonmander: Nobody has run Tacmarines for Bolters since 3rd edition, barring some 5e Space Wolf builds:

>3rd/4th: Templar foot hordes, or min-sized Lasplas squads. The Rhino Rush existed in early 3rd ed.
>5th: Bike Marines, BA Jumpers, and massed Razorbacks. Even Loganwing, the nominal "Foot Marine" army of 5e, was built as squads of: One Cyclone/Chainfist Terminator, 4 bulletcatchers, sprinkle with Thunderwolf/Lone Wolf support. The notable exception to this was the "4+2" Space Wolf list, where 4 Rhinos w/Grey Hunters, supported by two Razorbacks w/ Hunters, moved to midfield. A Wolf Guard unit provided backfield pressure, and the army sometimes took two "empty" Razorbacks for Wolf Guard units that were squad size 0 since they were attached elsewhere!

I played a 3v3 last night. 1k each.
Two players were GKs. Three dreadknights between them.
One was Dark Angels. Lots of Bikes.
One was Dark Eldar. Everything aside from a deep striking Scourge squad was in boats.

Of the last two, the BA player brought a bunch of Tags, but also a Baal Pred, Podded awesome-dreadnaught, and Rhino.
I was kroot/fw/fw/pathfinder with a few suits (crisis and stealth), two tanks, and a Pirhana.

Look at.those forces.
When 2 Dreadknights are running your infantry down, just how useful is boltgun fire? (Oddly, both lost half their wounds to Pulse Carbines...)
When everything is mounted up, how reliable are small arms?
Heck, even t5 3+ 5+FNP barely feel boltguns. Or other small arms.

But the Blood Angels? The Tau infantry? Boltguns (and storm bolters) were scary. And had to be avoided.

Seems to me the problem is more one of meta. The Boltgun doesn't really need to be more deadly to things t4 and under. Things t5 and up - or with great saves - need to be rarer and more expensive.

Power creep just begets power creep.

But Pandora's Box is open and T5 and things with great saves are not rare and not expensive.

So +1 to everything, in its time, indefinitely? How is that an answer?

I have bikers which are T5...and.......characters. and thats about it. I have Meganobz with 2+ and.....characters. So maybe in other armies but in mine T5 and 2+ saves are rare.

Bharring wrote:
So +1 to everything, in its time, indefinitely? How is that an answer?

Ideally, the game should be rebooted totally. As it stands now, there is no answer other than some units are god and some units are dust collectors.

Sorry, Ghaz, but ... Squiggy!

(Technically, but actually re-enforces your point...)

No. Bolters are already good.

If you don't think so, consider finding ways to use them more appropriately.

Bolters are not good for cost.

If you think so, consider finding ways to counter them more appropriately.

A beats B
B beats C
A beats C

Buff B? Wouldn't nerfing A be the better option?

Bolters are not great for their points cost on tac marines but that is because tac marines are not great for their points in general. The flip side is that 5pt bolter acolytes are great for their points.
Shred however is not the answer. Rerolling wounds is a huge boost! 6 wounds against T4 for example becomes 9 wounds, which is a huge leap. If you regularly come across wyverns you will see what I mean - they are basically bolter blasts with shred (yes they have other advantages such as barrage, twinlinked and 4 shots per model).
Stormbolters having shred would be a good shout... they need it. Makes termis better, and acolytes pay 3 times more for a stormbolter over a bolter. As it stands Sanguinary Guard have BETTER shooting than tac termis (due to ap4) because storm bolters are so meh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh - heavy bolter having shred may make it semi useful too.

But not bolters - that's too much.

Bharring wrote:
A beats B
B beats C
A beats C

Buff B? Wouldn't nerfing A be the better option?

In theory. In practice, there's a LOT to nerf now.

Certainly.

But buffing B just makes C even more useless. And I doubt this thread is talking about buffing all the relevant 'C's.

That would probably be much harder than nerfing all the 'A's.

Tac Bolters and Tac Terms arguably are the Cs.

Tac Termies, definitely.

Tacs? There is a lot in this game that is far more 'C' level than Tacs.

A "lot" you say. Meaning Fire Warriors, Wyches, Stealers and Hormagaunts. Any other notables?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Bolters are not good for cost.

If you think so, consider finding ways to counter them more appropriately.

Exalted.

Things Tac marines can handle?
Fire warriors
Kroot
Arguably Necron Warriors (same tier at least)
Ork Shoota Boys
Ork Choppa Boys
Termagaunts
Hormagaunts
Genestealers
Guardsmen
Corsairs
Guardians
Windriders
Rangers
Dire Avengers
Wraithguard
Kalabite Warriors
Wyches
Harlequins

And that's just troops. Off the top of my head.

Bharring wrote:
Things Tac marines can handle?
Fire warriors
Kroot
Arguably Necron Warriors (same tier at least)
Ork Shoota Boys
Ork Choppa Boys
Termagaunts
Hormagaunts
Genestealers
Guardsmen
Corsairs
Guardians
Windriders
Rangers
Dire Avengers
Wraithguard
Kalabite Warriors
Wyches
Harlequins

And that's just troops. Off the top of my head.

I disagree with shoota boyz and wraithguard. And then there's the issue of whether comparing troops to troops is valid or not.

They might be close.

The trend in that list is the bigger point. Tacs might (rightly) feel marginalized, but others have it much worse.

So why buff Tacs, especially in a way that let's them run roughshod all over most things they already beat anyways.

Because the real list really does include most troops in the game. It just doesn't feel like it.

Compare almost anything to a Wave serpent and its crap.
Compare almost anything to Storm Guardians and they rock.

Hell yeah Shred!

Poly Ranger wrote:
because tac marines are not great for their points in general.

BWAHAHAAH!

Do you think repeating a great big lie often enough will actually make it true? Or do you just believe the lie yourself?

What more could you possibly want from them?

"There are larger statistical numbers than Marines have, therefore Marines aren't good." You so crazy, internet.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
because tac marines are not great for their points in general.

BWAHAHAAH!

Do you think repeating a great big lie often enough will actually make it true? Or do you just believe the lie yourself?

What more could you possibly want from them?

"There are larger statistical numbers than Marines have, therefore Marines aren't good." You so crazy, internet.

Tac marines' big achilles heel is their offense/pt. They have a bunch of gear that rarely comes up in an actual game. That is to say, rarely comes up while being shot to death outside of assault range. Basically marine lists pay for premium troops in a game about offensive power that are no good at offense.

Bg wrote:
Things Tac marines can handle?
Fire warriors
Kroot
Arguably Necron Warriors (same tier at least)
Ork Shoota Boys
Ork Choppa Boys
Termagaunts
Hormagaunts
Genestealers
Guardsmen
Corsairs
Guardians
Windriders
Rangers
Dire Avengers
Wraithguard
Kalabite Warriors
Wyches
Harlequins

And that's just troops. Off the top of my head.

Windriders make tournament lists, as do any Eldar unit that can take Serpents. Unlike TACs, they can threaten Bikes to jink, and plink away at Monsters. Guard get orders, hymns, superior base transports...

Tyranid troops are D-grade. Barring Orks, no other army has troops that can wipe out half their own unit.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
because tac marines are not great for their points in general.

BWAHAHAAH!

Do you think repeating a great big lie often enough will actually make it true? Or do you just believe the lie yourself?

I don't know about Poly Ranger, but you seem an expert in the field...

Points for points
10 tacticals with 0 upgrades (including heavy weapons and special weapnos) vs same points cost in Shoota boyz, 20.

starting out at 24 inch range.

turn 1 orks, move forward 6 fire off maximum shot (40) 13ish hit 6ish wound. 6 wounds = 2 dead marines

8 marines go backwards 6 and fire 8 shots hitting about 5-6 times and wounding 2-3 times meaning 2-3 dead orks.

Turn 2 Orks move foward 6 fire maximum shots (36) 12 hits 6 wounds and another 2 dead marines

6 marines go back 6 inches and fire 4 hits and 2 dead orks.

Turn 3 Orks move forward 6 fire maximum shots (32) 10 hits 5 wounds 1-2 dead marines.

Marines rinse and repeat and get 5 shots 3-4 hits and 2ish dead orks

Turn 4 orks move forward 6 fire maximum shots (26) about 8 hits 4 wounds maybe 1 dead marine.

Marines same thing firing 4 shots 3 hits and 1-2 dead orks.

After 4 turns the orks are down to 11ish boyz and the marines are down to 5. thats with 0 upgrades and going by rough statistics. if you throw in heavy weapons and add shoota boyz for the cost increase then the marines win EASILY, furthermore, if the Marines get to go first then its even more one sided. So i would say Tac Marines can win against Ork shoota boyz and if not they at least hold their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ohh and side note to mob rule:

turn 1 space marines close to 12 inches (dangerous because then your in assault range) and fire a 2 shots at 12inches you will get 20ish shots 7ish hits and 4 dead orks which means morale check, chances are they fail and then mob rule takes effect 3 hits and 1-2 wounds and even more dead orks.

The Orks in your own example are killing more points of marines each turn than the marine can kill of Orks in a turn. The marines firepower is dropping faster than the Orks. In your own example.

Yep they are martel, but not at any kind of significant rate, and at any point if the marine rolled lucky and managed to inflict 25% casualties he would force a morale check on the orks that they would most likely fail and then they would kill 1-6 of their own boyz and boom the tide has turned.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Yep they are martel, but not at any kind of significant rate, and at any point if the marine rolled lucky and managed to inflict 25% casualties he would force a morale check on the orks that they would most likely fail and then they would kill 1-6 of their own boyz and boom the tide has turned.

I think losing points twice as quickly is a very significant rate. Even down at 14 boyz, the marines have to score 4 kills to force a morale test. The best shot for this is the first turn, but it's incredibly unlikely for 10 bolter shots to kill 5 Orks. Plus your whole scenario goes sideways quickly if the Orks are in no-cost cover.

And the entire scenario goes the OTHER way if we factor in that it is incredibly hard to get 20 ork boyz all in range if your at the max of 18' So instead of all 20 orks shooting it may be as few as 4 or 5 but I didn't throw in all these other factors because it would confuse the issue to much and throw in way to many variables that go both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want to start throwing in random crap lets give the tacs a Heavy bolter and start them out at 36 inches, give the marines 2 turns of free shooting with a heavy bolter. 2 hits 1-2 wounds each time so that by the time the orks are actually in range they have lost about 3 of their number and when they reach 24 inches they get hit with 9 bolters meaning 3 more dead orks so 15 remaining(when you throw in the extra boy for the price of a Heavy Bolter) and now the contest is going the complete other way. And again we could throw in another variable and give the shoota boyz 2 Big shootas and blah blah blah it can go on and on, dont throw factors into the equation unless you want to spend 20 hours working out every little detail.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And the entire scenario goes the OTHER way if we factor in that it is incredibly hard to get 20 ork boyz all in range if your at the max of 18' So instead of all 20 orks shooting it may be as few as 4 or 5 but I didn't throw in all these other factors because it would confuse the issue to much and throw in way to many variables that go both ways.

Movement for horde armies is certainly one of the big limitations they have. But there's a lot of power in having those wounds to give.

But I think it's telling that in your own base example, the marines will lose.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
because tac marines are not great for their points in general.

BWAHAHAAH!

Do you think repeating a great big lie often enough will actually make it true? Or do you just believe the lie yourself?

What more could you possibly want from them?

"There are larger statistical numbers than Marines have, therefore Marines aren't good." You so crazy, internet.

So by that logic you are saying Tac marines are GREAT for their points?
Also bit of a harsh post, if you would check my post history before you include me in your sweeping generalizations, you would realise that whilst I do not believe Tac marines to be great, I do not complain about them and try to buff them. If you also actually read PAST the part you quoted you would realise that I was AGAINST the buff.
As Martel states they have pretty poor offensive capability per point. Their defensive stats aren't fantastic per point either. I have never seen a tac heavy list win a game, ever. In fact on the rare occassions I have gone tac heavy (long time ago), I have been absolutely mullered! I have however seen necron warrior, eldar jetbike, ork boy, IG vet and IG AB russ heavy lists win games regularly if just talking about troops.
Now my armies include Necrons, CSMs (even worse marines), Renegades and BA (always with scouts despite owning a ton of tacs). So I am not saying this from a biased standpoint as I do not use them, and even if they were buffed, scouts would still compliment my BA playstyle more. I have nothing to gain from this, so please do not revert to such base insults as calling me a liar.

Also your quoted section at the end makes no gramatical or logical sense and I struggle to comprehend what you are saying. Please can you put some more effort into being more literate? Thank you.

I once borrowed by buddies models and proxied some Lascannons and ran a 1,500 unbound list of almost entirely tac marines combat squaded with veteran sergeants/PS and Flamer/Lascannon. God its been a long time but I think it was something like 8 tactical squads ish....either way my first turn i killed all my opponents transports and light armor and the next killed his armor. From that point onward i just let him walk towards me and whittled him down until my Veteran Sergeant and flamer with 3 other marines got in range and then just went to town on the remaining troops. Yeah it was unbound and all but its still fun to play like that :-P

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I once borrowed by buddies models and proxied some Lascannons and ran a 1,500 unbound list of almost entirely tac marines combat squaded with veteran sergeants/PS and Flamer/Lascannon. God its been a long time but I think it was something like 8 tactical squads ish....either way my first turn i killed all my opponents transports and light armor and the next killed his armor. From that point onward i just let him walk towards me and whittled him down until my Veteran Sergeant and flamer with 3 other marines got in range and then just went to town on the remaining troops. Yeah it was unbound and all but its still fun to play like that :-P

I'm pretty confident that my standard BA lists would table that list. 8 las cannons is not nearly enough to keep my lists from closing. I face many times that much fire from Eldar week in week out.

good for you martel.

The last time I played tac heavy was against the old eldar dex (the one that wasn't that great). My opponent took 3 wraithlords, karendras + scorps with a freekin 2++ reroll, avatar, seer council, 2 fire prisms, 3 warwalkers (2k pts so 2 detachments), and pathfinders. My tacs could do absolutely nothing. And that's not exactly an optimized eldar list either.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
good for you martel.

I don't think you understand the implication of that problem, though. 8 tac squads are miserable in hand to hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:
The last time I played tac heavy was against the old eldar dex (the one that wasn't that great). My opponent took 3 wraithlords, karendras + scorps with a freekin 2++ reroll, avatar, seer council, 2 fire prisms, 3 warwalkers (2k pts so 2 detachments), and pathfinders. My tacs could do absolutely nothing. And that's not exactly an optimized eldar list either.

The 4th ed Eldar codex still had some nasty builds in 5th. Particularly if your maps had ruins.

Yeah come to that and my renegades will be taking 3x that number of lascannons and will also have artillery, lots of spawn and tons of cheap chaff units. It'd butcher 8 tac units. Saying 'good for you martel' doesn't change his point.

nor does it change my point, it was a for fun game and we both played to have fun and to win and the tac marines whooped butt.

It was in 6th before the new eldar dex dropped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anything can do well in a fun fluffy game, even pyrovores. Doesn't make them great.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
nor does it change my point, it was a for fun game and we both played to have fun and to win and the tac marines whooped butt.

That's not really a point. Analysis of uncompetitive situations is pretty meaningless.

I will say that I feel that marines are very much painted into a mathematical corner that won't be escaped without a total rules rebuild.

There is a way to escape it Martel... take scouts :-p. I gave up on tacs a loooong time ago.

When was the last time you saw a Genestealer heavy list do well?

When was the last time you saw a Ranger heavy list do well?

When was the last time you saw a Wych heavy list do well?

Tac heavy lists will out perform those troop heavy lists quite regularly. Especially head to head.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Yep they are martel, but not at any kind of significant rate, and at any point if the marine rolled lucky and managed to inflict 25% casualties he would force a morale check on the orks that they would most likely fail and then they would kill 1-6 of their own boyz and boom the tide has turned.

If I haven't fethed up the calculations (which well could be the case) the Orks have a standard deviation on their to-hit roll of ~2.98, or 7.45% of their total output, whereas the corresponding value for the Marines is ~1.49, or 14.9% of their total output. I still kinda suck at calculating standard deviation though, so someone who's better at it than me is more than welcome to fix it if it's wrong, but if it's right then Shoota Boyz are twice as good at reliably putting out S4 hits as Marines.

They're also by far more consistent in that it is highly unlikely that one would have a unit of Boyz crippled by one bad roll of dice, whereas each extra that shows up for a Space Marine player is a significant blow.

Bharring wrote:
When was the last time you saw a Genestealer heavy list do well?

When was the last time you saw a Ranger heavy list do well?

When was the last time you saw a Wych heavy list do well?

Tac heavy lists will out perform those troop heavy lists quite regularly. Especially head to head.

I agree. What I merely said was that they are not great. Not once have I said they are the worst. On the flip side of the coin, Eldar have access to more in troops than rangers, Dark eldar have more in troops than Wych's, and 'nids have more in troops than 'stealers. Marines only have tacs and scouts (and bikes if you take C:SM with an unlock character). Both bikes and scouts are worth their points, just like other armies extra options. Tacs imo are the poorer choice.

Bharring wrote:
When was the last time you saw a Genestealer heavy list do well?

When was the last time you saw a Ranger heavy list do well?

When was the last time you saw a Wych heavy list do well?

Tac heavy lists will out perform those troop heavy lists quite regularly. Especially head to head.

I'd agree with head to head, but not in general. Failure is failure.

(2/3)(1/2)(1) = 1/3 dead Ork per Marine shot
(1/3)(1/2)(1/3) = 1/18 dead Marines per Ork shot

What am I missing? Even in Xenos fantasy land, where Marines never manage to leave that 12-18" sourspot, isn't it still 3 dead Orks for every Marine? And 6x3 is still more than 14x1.

Also, yes, each '1' you roll counts more against Marines than Orkz. I'm not sure that the standard deviation is that relevant here. How many times that do you have to be to tie it up? Probably not huge, but definitely large enough.

And while Orkz might get shafted by a couple bad dice rolls less than Marines, they are almost infinitely more shafted than Marines on Morale. Heck, most of the time if you're meeting them in the middle like this, you would *want* to break on their.movement phase as Marines.

I must be missing something huge here, because the numbers don't look close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, Martel, but didn't Tac spam win the BAO recently? And several of us see it from time to time. So Tac spam list wins aren't zero. So there is definitely room for things to be worse than Tac spam.

Do any of you think tac marines are GREAT? If not then I do not understand what we are disagreeing upon. I will state again - I am against the OPs buff on tacs weaponary. Can somebody please explain to me where the disagreement lies?
If you think tacs are GREAT then yes we are in disagreement.

I would only agree to this if CSM gets shred bolters as well. Do heavy bolters get shred?

Havocs with 4 heavy bolters would be a viable thing!

1/18 * 40 shots = 2.222 * 14 pts = 31 pts lost

1/3 * 10 shots = 3.3333 * 6 pts = 20 pts lost

The marines lose 22.2% of their firepower in the first exchange, and the Orks lose 16.6% of their firepower in the first exchange. It gets worse from there.

Standard deviation is actually huge for marines. See, marines can experience "the turn". This is a turn in which meaningful statistical deviation from armor saves makes you straight up lose because you lost too much of your firepower in a single turn.

I think they are that:
1) Tacs are worse than [insert troop of choice]
2) whether to buff Tacs or not.

#2 is the point of the thread.

In discussing #2, a basic thought gets expressed a number of ways:
If,
A beats B
B beats C
A beats C
Should we buff B? Why them instead of nerfing A or buffing C?

That then begets arguments of if Tacs are closer to 'B' or 'C'.

That then gets implications from some that Tacs are 'A', and others that Tacs are 'C'.

So more comparisons to other units.

(Tacs are strong 'B' units, trumping a lot of troops IMO)

And around and around we go.

If only the game were called "trumping troops".

So it seems like most people don't like giving bolters shred, myself included. I feel like we're stuck in a kind of limbo with no way to make S4 shooting with no special rules mean much anymore. Maybe for heavy bolters, though.

Martel732 wrote:
So it seems like most people don't like giving bolters shred, myself included. I feel like we're stuck in a kind of limbo with no way to make S4 shooting with no special rules mean much anymore. Maybe for heavy bolters, though.

Well, imagine you're fighting a Scout Spam list...

S3 (15x RF Lasguns) - 30x(1/2)(1/3)(1/2) = 30/12 = 2.5
S4 (10x RF Bolters) - 20x(1/2)(1/2)(1/2) = 20/8 = 2.5
S5 (2x Heavy Bolter) - 6x(1/2)(2/3)(1) = 12/6 = 2
S7 (2x AC) - 4x(1/2)(5/6)(1) = 20/12 = ~2
S8 (2x Krak ML) - 2x(1/2)(5/6)(1) = 10/12 = ~1

Against T4 4+, the weaker weapons can get the job done. Against S3 or 5+, it's going to be even better.

Bharring - it would seem as though we actually agree then. We agree that shred is not what's needed.
I also agree that Tacs shouldn't be buffed (although I think they need buffing for all things to be equal but those are 2 seperate things), as all codexes have units in troops which are not optimal, that is just the way of the game that I accepted a long time ago.
As Martel stated a few posts ago - tacs need an entire rework for them to be considered a 'competitive' choice. It's just the way the meta is at the moment. That being said - so do many other troops, this is not unique to tacs.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Bahrring - it would seem as though we actually agree then. We agree that shred is not what's needed.
I also agree that Tacs shouldn't be buffed (although I think they need buffing for all things to be equal but those are 2 seperate things), as all codexes have units in troops which are not optimal, that is just the way of the game that I accepted a long time ago.
As Martel stated a few posts ago - tacs need an entire rework for them to be considered a 'competitive' choice. It's just the way the meta is at the moment. That being said - so do many other troops, this is not unique to tacs.

It's just that tacs end up "flushing" more points than xeno troops. Being marginally better for more points really isn't better in the over all meta.

Wouldn't the game be better if we, instead, just made toe stuff troops didn't have a chance against more rare/more costly? Chasing power creep seems like a bad idea to me.

(I think we mostly agree, Poly. I think my opinion of Tacs is a little higher than yours, but same general place)

(That said, it is really hard for me not to go after other posts here that seem logically deficient)

True - tacs indefinitely pay for things which do not come up in the majority of games. The curse of the 'all rounder', who's not really an all rounder at anything. I'm just not a fan of them and never will be if they stay remotely the same.

GW is doing the exact opposite They are ballooning the units that troops have zero chance against. TWC, anyone?

But I am, Poly. I like having to make the most of their abilities, when I field them. Its what I love about Tacs.

Yeh power creep ruined 6th.

Bharring wrote:
Wouldn't the game be better if we, instead, just made toe stuff troops didn't have a chance against more rare/more costly? Chasing power creep seems like a bad idea to me.
(I think we mostly agree, Poly. I think my opinion of Tacs is a little higher than yours, but same general place)
(That said, it is really hard for me not to go after other posts here that seem logically deficient)

"Dear Games Workshop: Please nerf Paper. Scissors are fine. Signed, Rock."

And yes, Martel. They are doin lg power creep. They did reign it in a bit after the SM codex, though.

I think I keep being a few posts behind lol. Anyhows I'm up at silly o'clock here with work tomorrow so I'll leave you lot to it.

MagicJuggler - I think that is much of what this three is about. Paper is on top, so Rock wants GW to nerf it. But those xeno scissors scum are OP already.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
"Dear Games Workshop: Please nerf Paper. Scissors are fine. Signed, Rock."

No need. Just do a "fan balance patch" about once a month, to fix about 3 issues in every army, and the most glaring imbalances in the game.

We are already doing most of the work by discussion here.

So, this might get kind of long, but bear with me.

First off, Bolters- aside from perhaps the Heavy Bolter- don't really need Shred. A lot of the problem with Bolters is that they're the signature weapon of a Troops choice that's not particularly cost-effective in offensive output. That second bit is a big deal, and we'll see why in a minute.

First, let's examine some other basic infantry weapons and the other weapon options of squads that can field said weapons:

Lasguns

IG Infantry squads get Lasguns, which are 24" Rapid Fire S3/AP-. In comparison, the Bolter looks pretty boss, with S4 and AP5. Lasguns do, however, get Orders to buff their output to a "Rapid Fire 3/2", if you will. In terms of support, you get a variety of special weapons; consisting of:

Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper Rifles, Meltaguns, and Plasma Guns

As well as heavy weapons including:

Mortars, HBs, Autocannons, MLs, ML+Flakk, and Lascannons

Hmm... we can't tell (yet) but it seems as if "mediocre basic gun=good specials" might be a thing. Let's move on.

Hotshot Lasguns

It loses 6" of range in exchange for gaining AP3- not necessarily a bad trade, but it can be quite hairy for a T3/4+ dude to have to get that close to power armored dudes who are usually T4, and probably more interested in charging in than standing around to be (slowly) shot to death. In any case, the two units with the HS Lasgun get no heavy weapons, but have access to most of the specials:

Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Meltaguns, Plasma Guns; no Sniper Rifles, but instead they get Hotshot Volley Guns, basically a sort of LMG/GPMG hybrid variant of the HS Lasgun

HS Lasguns have their pros and cons to the traditional Lasgun, but I'd say they're overall slightly better given the other options and equipment of the units with HS Lasguns- said units are all equipped with 4+ armor, making them a bit more durable, are BS4 and swap special/heavy options in favor of double specials, and additionally trading the Sniper Rifle for the HSVG, the latter of which is more suited to the types of things the rebranded Stormtroopers want to shoot at.

Bolters

We know it, we used to love it, now we just put up with it. Marines and Sisters are the iconic bolter-toting units- so much so for the latter that they even have an epithet associated with their army. We'll look specifically at Marine Tactical Squads, Chaos Marine Squads, and Battle Sister Squads.

Tactical Squads

Special Weapons include: Flamers, Meltaguns, Plasma Guns, Grav Guns
Heavy Weapons include: HBs, MLs, ML+Flakk, Lascannons, Plasma Cannons, MMs, Heavy Flamers (BA Only)

Melta and Plasma seem to be standard fare, as do Flamers. No Grenade Launchers or Sniper Rifles, and the Stormie-specific HSVG is naturally missing. Instead they do get Grav Guns, which are pretty good at killing 2+ anything, but especially anything that's T5+ and has a 3+ or 2+ armor save. Heavies are a bit all over the place- no Mortars or ACs, but they do get Plasma Cannons, which are pretty chill. Most of the time, alas, you're not likely to get more than one hit from a small blast, but hey, giant plasma blasts of doom are "cool" at least. They do get the useful Multi-Melta, and Blood Angels get the quite handy Heavy Flamer... though I feel as if HFs are only a good "heavy" on account of being able to fire on the move with no loss of effect.

Battle Sister Squads

Special Weapons include: Flamers, Meltaguns, Stormbolters
Heavy Weapons include: HBs, HFs, MMs

Very limited options here. Given that these are actually the only weapon options Sisters get period, I'm willing to chalk that up to "army flavor". Still, be kind of nice if GeeDubs had given them a little more variety that still stayed in the purview of "bolter/flamer/melta" weapons, considering the background. In any case, they do get MMs (which are nice) and HFs (which are very nice), but bizarrely get Stormbolters. Hmm.. maybe Bolters are actually good, it's just everybody has the S6/7 Spam disease?

It is worth noting that Battle Sisters can go double special if they forgo a heavy weapon- this isn't a bad idea either, though it may not be ideal for some weapon combinations or squad roles (IE, backfield objective holders).

Chaos Marine Squads

Special Weapons include: Flamers, Meltaguns, Plasma Guns
Heavy Weapons include: HBs, Autocannons, MLs, Lascannons

Chaos Marines are similar to Sisters in that they can go double special, or special+heavy. They trade out Flakk missiles, MMs, and Plasma Cannons for access to Autocannons as well as the ability to take double special instead of special+heavy, as mentioned. They also lack grav... but again, can take double special, and thus get two plasma guns into the squad if such is desired.

Confusing, confusing at this point.

Pulse Rifles

Our first detour into "Xeno" army territory is the Pulse Rifle. Compared to the Bolter, it gains +6" and +1S. The weapon options are, however, very slim: you can swap the Pulse Rifle for the Carbine variant, changing type from Rapid Fire to Assault 2, losing 12" of range, and gaining Pinning. You can also take EMP Grenades... which is amusing considering FWs and Tau models in general are so bad in combat.

But they get no special weapon options. Of note, however, is that the admittedly-FA slotted Pathfinders, which carry Pulse Carbines, can get access to two special weapons choices: The Rail Rifle and the Ion Rifle. The plot thickens yet more...

Splinter Rifles

Splinter weapons are 4+ poison, with no Strength value. While this makes them incredibly potent against high-Toughness enemies, it also makes them passable against T3/T4, and useless against anything with an Armor Value. Kabalite Warriors get a nice arrangement of special/heavy weapons- there's not very many different options for these guys, but they do get some stellar pieces:

Specials: Blaster, Shredder
Heavies: Splinter Cannon, Dark Lance

Both the Blaster and Dark Lance are S8/AP2 Lance weapons, making them very deadly against targets that are AV10/11 or AV13+, and rather mediocre against AV12 where S8 is middling and Lance isn't kicking in yet. Still, they are AP2, and Blasters get the added perk in that they have an 18" range instead of the usual 12" that most S8 anti-vehicle infantry special weapons are (IE, melta). Splinter Cannons are basically the epitome of a Salvo weapon done right, and Shredders... well Shredders are what they are.

Shuriken Catapults, Avenger Shuricats

I've lumped these two together, as they're remarkably similar in implementation. Shuriken weapons get Bladestorm, which is basically pseudo-Rending against Toughness-value targets. Shuricats are used by Guardians, who can take heavy weapons, but this rather hampers the use of the Shuricats that they carry as standard due to the Shuricat being 12" range. Avenger Shuricats are 18" range, but are also in a squad that has no special/heavy weapon options- literally the only way to juggle armament is to play around with Exarch kit.

It seems that we might have something with this. But there's not enough evidence... yet.

Gauss Weapons

Gauss weapons of all stripes have the Gauss rule, which confers an auto-wound or auto-glance on a To-Wound/armor pen roll of "6", no matter what the Toughness or AV of the target is. Which is incredibly powerful. Gauss Flayers and Gauss Blasters, which are deployed by Necron troop choices, are generally somewhat limited in range (24" for both, IIRC), and are Rapid Fire. Flayers are S4/AP5 while Blasters get HB-grade S5/AP4. Mostly what makes them good, however, is that Gauss rule- it actually means that a blob of Necron Warriors can glance literally any vehicle to death. Yes, even that notorious Wave Serpent.

In exchange, Warriors can only be equipped with Flayers (like they'd want anything else), while Immortals can optionally swap from all-Gauss to all-Tesla, which brings us to:

Tesla Weapons

Tesla Weapons have deceptively low rates of fire, on account of the Tesla rule; more-or-less, triple-hit if you get a To-Hit of "6". And at S7 this is really boss. It is only AP-... but when you can dump that many S7 hits onto something, it doesn't much matter anymore what the AP value is. It is, however, important to note that Tesla is almost universally Assault 1- more relevantly, Necron Immortals can only be armed with Tesla weapons that have Assault 1, so there is a bit of a hard cap on the potential hitrate.

Other Outliers

Ork Shootas and Tyranid guns tend to be outliers- in both instances the units are very assault centric, and and tend to have few or no special/heavy weapon options. Most of the time, these weapons seem to be designed to be used in such numbers that the actually quality of a shot isn't particularly important- only the quantity. This said, Ork shootas aren't too shabby, at 18" Assault 2 S4/AP6, with options for a Big Shoota (36" Assault 3 S5/AP5) or Rokkit Launcha (24" Assault 1 S8/AP3). It's just kind of hard to typify them in the grand scheme of things since they're both shooty and choppy infantry. I also realize I didn't go over Grey Knights, who really buck the trend in that their best upgrades tend to, IMO at least, be the various force weapons that they have access to.

All that being said, it seems like there may be a trend at work- in whatever way GW ultimately implemented it over multiple editions, units which can't take special/heavy weapon upgrades seem to generally have much more scalable firearms (Gauss, Tesla, Bladestorm), and other units which can take special weapons seem intended to use said special/heavy weapons to offset that lack of scalability that their basic weapons have.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working out that well. This is, incidentally, why basic Bolters and even Stormbolters getting Shred doesn't change anything- Bladestorm is awesome because it can potentially murder any 2+ save infantry/MC model in the game, Gauss is boss due to the auto-glance in particular, while Tesla is great due to being S7, and being able to generate even more S7. Meta loves Tesla, since Meta loves S6/7 spam.

Even then, I'd say that DE Splinter weapons are still great, they just aren't quite as potentially killy as, say, Bladestorm. For killing MCs, I'd take Splinter over Gauss or Tesla, but Bladestorm over Splinter. For emergency anti-vehicle it's Gauss, then Tesla, then maybe Pulse, and then cry because nothing else can reliably- or perhaps actually- hurt armor. Lasguns are passable because they're on a really cheap dude and there's ways to up the output of a Lasgun; Hotshot Lasguns are AP3, which is nice. Shootas are on a unit which is good at punching things, and are also very cheap, while Bolters tend to be on pricier models that also don't usually have sufficient special/heavy weapon density to really scale up against the big nasty things of 6th/7th-era armies. Granted, Orks somewhat have the same problem, but they squeeze around it by being cheap and also being very capable at punching things for their cost.

Fire Warriors get around it by cheating with EMP Grenades for AV-related problems, and by having 30" of range to try and stay out of trouble. Tacs, CSM, and Sisters don't have that luxury.

TL;DR: nerf Bladestorm. Gauss and Tesla still allow armor saves to be taken, Pulse is just long range, and Splinter is useless against AV. Bladestorm is also useless against AV, I'll admit... but it still gets AP2 auto-wounds. That's pretty insane for a basic troop gun to get Pseudo-Rending.

Additional observations of note, are that grav weapons are salvo and have reduced range; ergo, one doesn't take Grav weapons on Tactical Marines, instead reserving them for the use of Bikers.

TacMarines don't charge stuff. Grey Hunters, sure. Tacmarines are not assaulters.

Unlike Loyalists, Chaos Marines do know fear, and they cannot take Combat Squads. Generally, you won't see any Bolters in a Chaos Marine army other than the occasional Termicide with Combi-bolters; the bulk of the troops get filled out with Cultists, with the rest of the points dedicated to killier units.

Dark Eldar are unique among most Xenos in that their squads have an Imperial-like ability to saturate their squads full of specials/heavies without issue. Contrast with Orks getting one Rokkit Launcha per 10 boyz, vs 4 Scourges swapping out for Haywire Blasters, or the Bikes playing bumper-cars with Cluster Caltrops...

Shred gives bolters a niche in that they are "reliable" at taking out units. They don't threaten vehicles, nor do they allow the ability to kill Monstrous Creatures that much more efficiently (you "could" stack them up firing on a Misfortuned Wraithknight, but this is an edge case at best). They still need to get up close and dirty in order to have a fight.

Other units that would benefit from Shred Bolters that haven't yet been covered, include Thousand Sons & Legion of the Damned.

Your Tac marines may not charge stuff, but mine do.

Shred might nearly double the output against Dreadknights and Riptides. But double almost nothing is still nearly nothing. And double against Wraithknights *is* literally nothing. Meanwhile, the foot troops that have been running from boltguns are even more hosed.

So, to give boltguns a niche, you turn a strong counter to things you don't care about into a hard counter. While barely changing its effectiveness against the things you care about.

I always hear about how s4 just can't threaten anything that matters. First, it makes it clear that the things that s4 does scare just don't matter to you. And second, it makes it obvious what you need help against. Shred makes the first part worse, and does nothing for the second part.

For the record, I think most people's standard of "what matters" tend to be those things that fall under "incredibly tough and/or mobile".

S4 can't hurt hurt AV11+, or T8+, and it can't reliably do anything to T6/7, nor is of great use against things with 2+ armor saves.

When you combine some of those traits (IE, T6/2+ armor, and Jump/Jetpack movement), then you get a threat that you really care about killing, especially since it often totes an inordinately powerful weapon.

And it becomes something that S4 is pretty irrelevant against.

At least, that's how I always took it.

I primarily play Chaos and Orks. I mentioned this earlier.

I would never recommend Tacmarines in their current form. Bikers (with Grav) or SoT Scouts, sure. Tacs are a tax.

Most T3 units don't intend to get within rapid-fire range anyway (barring the terribleness that is 7e Wyches). Most are meant to stay back and harass. If anything, the main targets that Shred would benefit against are T4 and T5 models...mass T5 is a thing after all...

PS: Watch your tone. Implying "you need help vs X" to discredit an author is ill-advised.

"Your Tac marines may not charge stuff, but mine do. ""

I guess that's great, but most of us have likely not had good results with this plan. In my case, it's nearly suicidal to try to get tacs in a position to assault.

Why not just make everything suck? It might not be fluffy but it would at least match our real lives.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh who are we kidding? This is real life! Now back to the line before the Commissar sees!

Wow so much drama! Fun.

Tacs are S4/T4/I4 with a 3+ save. Frag grenades to assault into cover without penalties, Krak grenades to deal with vehicles. Bolt pistols to fire into a charge. Combat Squads, ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics. Most of the units carrying the nicer troop rifles don't have equivalent stat lines, equipment or special rules. Take it into consideration.

Tacs aren't necessarily disadvantaged just because the Bolter is a simple wrapon. Most of the infantry listed above are struggling in the current meta, it's not unique to Tacs. Some of you guys should try playing a 3x Troops and 1x HQ game. Not pushing an IK into a list at 500pts.

Oh and the bit about charging with tacs ... I often use them in melee as well. I mean sometimes I just want to underwhelm my foes with sheer mediocrity. That sounds snappy but I'm just trying for a laugh. I'm serious though, Tacs are our only real tarpit unit aside from dreads. You can still use a lesser unit effectively. Not everything has to be "good".

I like my tacs just fine. Sure they could be better, but why not just buy grav star units if you want to have powerful stuff.

s4 with shred is more effective than s5. You want rapid fire s5+ for 1 ppm? Was that you writing Codex: Eldar?

darkcloak wrote:
Why not just make everything suck? It might not be fluffy but it would at least match our real lives.

Alternatively. When everyone is super... nobody will be!

Martel732 wrote:
Standard deviation is actually huge for marines. See, marines can experience "the turn". This is a turn in which meaningful statistical deviation from armor saves makes you straight up lose because you lost too much of your firepower in a single turn.

This cannot be stated enought times.

It goes for attacks as well; as an example, the rerolls to-hit in combat that AAC gave Black Templars in 5th edition was a godsend, because it meant that Black Templars, as a Marine Chapter, were much less likely to have that one turn in combat where you miss everything. Minimizing the bad outcomes is everything in 40k, I'd rather take slightly more casualties on average than have a bigger chance of catastrophic failure.

Because marine firepower is capped rather low in comparison to a true shooty list, statistical deviations in favor of marine armor saves is not nearly as beneficial as the reverse is detrimental.

I disagree.

First, baseline numbers.

1 marine making 5 saves? (2/3)^5? 32/243. 13%.
1 DA making 5 saves? (1/2)^5? 1/32. 3%.
1 Guardsman making 5 saves? 1/243. 0.4%.

10?
Marine: 1.7%
DA: 0.09%
Guardsman Boy: 0.002%

So, when it comes to frequency, that last remaining Marine has nearly twice the chance to survive 10 wounds than a DA, and over a thousand times (1024) the odds of a Guardsman. It does happen, for Marines. At nearly 2%.

Then, that one Marine with his Meltagun or PG (what? You put him out front?) does his damage.

Now let's look at it the other way:
10 Marines die to 10 wounds: (1/3)^10. 0.002%.
10 DA die to 10 wounds: 0.9%
10 Guardsmen die to 10 wounds: 1.7%.

In killing the squad, overkill does nothing. Wasted firepower.
In killing the first guy, overkill kills more.
Having one guy survive in a Fire warrior or Necron Warrior squad might be useful. But not nearly as useful as one guy in a Tac squad. The special/heavy/seargent should be the last few to die, in about the order you want. That's the huge strength of weapon upgrades: the squad doesn't lose much of its puch until its.mostly/completely gone.

Add in ATSKNF, and it gets even better.

So,
1) deviation treats Marines at least as well, if not better from deviation numbers themselves.
2) Marines after a very bad set of rolls (say, fail 4/6 instead of 1/6) will still have the brunt of their firepower (special/heavy/sarge)

So the Turn cuts both ways, but not as deep into Marines.

10 tac marines armed normally (bolters, flamer and missile launcher) shoot 9 pistols and flame a group of whatever. then they charge, Yeah they are mediocre in CC but thats because they aren't an assault unit, they are TACTICAL. very few troops choices come equipped with a ranged weapon AND a pistol. the comment made 100 times a day is jacks of all trades masters of none. This is a fact. The point of Tacs is you can equip them to do just about anything well, not great, but better then average. Compare them to any other "Troops" choice and they win most contests except the one or two things that that troop choice was built to do. I don't think Bolters need an upgrade. Maybe giving Tactical marines the option of equipping another heavy weapon or Special weapon would be nice. So you max out at 3 1 of each and then a floater for whatever you wish to do. 2 flamers and a missile launcher for spraying flaming death everywhere, 1 flamer and 2 Lascannons to pop vehicles. it would probably break tacs though :-P

For a unit to want to assault, it needn't be able to handle TH/SS Termies. It needs to handle the poor sods in front of it.

Any troop Tac Marines can't outshoot easily, it can handle in CC easily.

Many units Tac Marines can outshoot easily it can handle in CC easily.

I rarely enter a game with the strategy of getting into Assault with my Marines. But I do go in planning to use their Assault threat.

That is why you don't see them in Assault more often: selection bias. Most things know to not let Tacs assault them, unless they are a CC unit. So it forces their hands.

I would still rather see the tacs have a s:user ap:- combat knife so that they get 2 attacks to make them not pitiful in melee, and give chainswords rending, shred, or some other slight boost for asm to be a little better. Maybe half-tesla. 1 Bonus hit on 6's.
Asm currently are pretty pathetic for an assault unit, and tacticals, even though they are supposed to be all-rounders, can't fight worth a damn with one s4 attack. I wouldn't have a problem with the current bolters if tacs were actually more than just a bad shooting unit for their point cost.

"So the Turn cuts both ways, but not as deep into Marines. "

We can agree to disagree on this.

Would we also buff everything that already loses to Tacs and ASMs, or are they just supposed to get shafted?

Bharring wrote:
Would we also buff everything that already loses to Tacs and ASMs, or are they just supposed to get shafted?

But it's very rare that anything ACTUALLY loses to tacs or asms in practice. According to you, the other units are shafted now, but it's not DA or Firewarriors being shot off the table trivially. You number crunch and number crunch and make all these hypotheticals, but in practice, tacs have been doing nothing for anyone where I play since as far back as 5th. They just get killed by real units.

I think all this discussion is doing is highlighting the difference between theoryhammer and the actual game. In a real game, no one cares about tactical squads. It is a challenge for marines to minimize the amount of points they waste on units that can accomplish nothing in practice. This is why many players have gone to scouts, because it is a smaller tax on their list, and they can spend more points on units that actually have efficacy.

Xenos are bringing units like DA for their transport. The marines don't have that luxury. Even if someone tried to make use of tacticals' assault stats, they have no good delivery mechanisms. DA don't care that they have no assault mechanisms because they are going to sit in the tank for most of the game.

CODEX CREEP!
Give every weapon type a special rule on top of a fire mode!

Thanks for the list Whiskey144

Lasguns get Blind, Pinning
Flamers get some kind of AOE or DOT burn effect
Grenade Launchers get some kind of AOE, pinning
Sniper Rifles - Precision shots, pinning, Fleshbane
Meltaguns - melta at full range!
Plasma Guns - gets hot, blind, DOT burn effect
Mortars get some kind of AOE, pinning
Bolters - SHRED
Autocannons - SHRED
MLs, get some kind of AOE, pinning
ML+Flakk, skyfire, ordinance or some added bonus for being an esploding missile
Lascannons - lance
Grav Guns - graviton

Only Xenos weapons that don't have a special rule
Pulse Rifles, blind
Rail Rifle, lance, beam
Ion Rifle get some kind of AOE or DOT burn effect

No where are my meds

Again, selection bias and current meta.

DAs are never on the table until table until the game is almost over, according to most, in the current meta.

Fire Warriors would be shot off the table twice as easily as Marines, if Marines vs FW were the meta. But its other things in the Tau list shooting the Marines off the table. Marines would do a better job shooting Fire Warriors off the table than Fire Warriors shooting Marines off, if that was what it came down to.

Bharring wrote:
Again, selection bias and current meta.

DAs are never on the table until table until the game is almost over, according to most, in the current meta.

Fire Warriors would be shot off the table twice as easily as Marines, if Marines vs FW were the meta. But its other things in the Tau list shooting the Marines off the table. Marines would do a better job shooting Fire Warriors off the table than Fire Warriors shooting Marines off, if that was what it came down to.

The Riptide makes sure that is never the case, though.

And its not hypothetical. I see -and do - these things all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So we're back to:
A beats B
B beats C
A beats C

Buff B, in a way best suited to destroy C better.

Bharring wrote:
And its not hypothetical. I see -and do - these things all the time.

I don't understand how people are letting this happen. It's really, really hard for me to envision these things you are reporting.

In your logic sample, it's hard for me to ignore the fact the "C" units never have to engage the "B" units anyway, because the "A" units have shot them off the table. Consequently, only "A" units matter and if "C" units are cheaper to bring, then you can bring more "A" and not even worry about the "B". That's what really happens. And also, there are cases where "C" unit are cheaper and able to do more damage to "A" before they are killed. This makes "B" the titanic loser in the meta. There is no place for "B".

So, if you like Xenos troops, screw you.
If you like Tactical Marines, here, screw Xenos more?

I mean, why buff 'B' troops and not 'C' troops? Taste? Because its just as logical to say 'B' never needs to face 'A'.

I obviously can't show you my meta. But I can point to the Tac-heavy and Scout-heavy recent well-ranked tourney lists, to show that its not only my meta. Not that I want my meta to be anything like a big tourny. At all.

('C' units are cheaper? When have we not been talking per-point? That argument factors in cost twice.)

Bharring wrote:
So, if you like Xenos troops, screw you.
If you like Tactical Marines, here, screw Xenos more?

I mean, why buff 'B' troops and not 'C' troops? Taste? Because its just as logical to say 'B' never needs to face 'A'.

I obviously can't show you my meta. But I can point to the Tac-heavy and Scout-heavy recent well-ranked tourney lists, to show that its not only my meta. Not that I want my meta to be anything like a big tourny. At all.

I understand that buffing "B" is not cool with Xenos. So I'd settle for getting rid of "B" troops. Make marines cheaper, and take away their capabilities. That way, I'd being paying less to fail equally hard. Sorry, I meant "capabilities".

I meant "C" was cheaper in absolute points. Because they do less. Allegedly.

But Xenos still need to pay their full points for their fail? That also seems like a terrible solution. Not all Xenos troops are noticably cheaper per model. And those that are are often still more expensive per unit.

Its the cost that make Marines a 'B' unit. Reduce their price by much at all, and they become an 'A'.

(And tactical Termies are a great example of an Imperial 'C' unit. They are by no means cheap. Cost is what makes them a 'C' unit.)

Bharring wrote:
But Xenos still need to pay their full points for their fail? That also seems like a terrible solution. Not all Xenos troops are noticably cheaper per model. And those that are are often still more expensive per unit.

Its the cost that make Marines a 'B' unit. Reduce their price by much at all, and they become an 'A'.

(And tactical Termies are a great example of an Imperial 'C' unit. They are by no means cheap. Cost is what makes them a 'C' unit.)

I said reduce their price, but take away capabilities, since they are only there to fill troops slots in FOCs anyway. Make greandes, ATSKNF, bolt pistols and bolters optional add-ons so we don't have to pay for them and leave them off if we just want warm bodies to satisfy FOC. Then they can run out there and get ignored and die like the always do after all the marine useful units have been neutralized, or contribute nothing as the marine useful units do their thing.

So, Guardsmen?

And don't you already have scouts?

Cheapest SM tax? 55 points.
Cheapest CW Eldar tax? 51 points.
Cheapest Tau tax? 54 points.

If you want Tactical Marines for their points, take them.
If you don't want Tactical Marines for their points, don't take them.

I'm not seeing a huge difference in minimum 'tax' between those factions. And I'm fairly sure Necrons are higher.

Unless you think SM should pay even less?

And this all presupposes we want troops to be nothing but tax.

you basically want a S4, T4, I4 WS4 BS4 LD8 model with a 3+ save and you want it to be 1-4pts cheaper because your taking away its abilities? You basically want guardsmen with a better statline then.

Just take scouts dude save your points there

Consider the Following:

5 of the 8 LVO top 8 players were Marines or their equivalents. No Tacmarines or Chaos Marines. One player ran podded Grey Hunters as secondary to a Guard primary, so every unit either had 3 Specials or 2 & a Combi. The runner-up ran mass Scouts with a Gravstar and Mephiston, and the pure Marine player ran bikes.

Bharring wrote:
So the Turn cuts both ways, but not as deep into Marines.

The potential to roll better saves than average does not outweigh the potential to lose half the unit due to two failed dice; the game is about minimizing bad outcomes, not about maximizing good ones. Assuming an optimal usage of units, losing less than average and average might as well be the same outcome, since you're going to have taken average casualties into account when committing the unit in question. As such, any performance in excess of average is a "win more" scenario, whereas flubbing a roll could lose you the game. Consistency is king because it allows you to plan what to do and be fairly certain that you're going to make it.

Are you really complaining about the effects of probability in a game that relies on rolling dice?

Bharring wrote:
So, Guardsmen?

And don't you already have scouts?

Cheapest SM tax? 55 points.
Cheapest CW Eldar tax? 51 points.
Cheapest Tau tax? 54 points.

If you want Tactical Marines for their points, take them.
If you don't want Tactical Marines for their points, don't take them.

I'm not seeing a huge difference in minimum 'tax' between those factions. And I'm fairly sure Necrons are higher.

Unless you think SM should pay even less?

And this all presupposes we want troops to be nothing but tax.

That's what empirical outcomes seem to indicate. As you have pointed out, even troops like DA with nice special rules really aren't that great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
you basically want a S4, T4, I4 WS4 BS4 LD8 model with a 3+ save and you want it to be 1-4pts cheaper because your taking away its abilities? You basically want guardsmen with a better statline then.

Just take scouts dude save your points there

I'd sell back the WS and S if I could, too.

Claim:
Better saves are less reliable
Stats:
2x 3+ save has the same Expected Value as 1x 5+ (2/3 of a fail)
Premise:
Odds of failing 4 3+ should, therefore, be more likely than 2 5+
Numbers:
1/(3^4) compared to (2^2)/(3^2)
1/81 to 4/9.

Result: Reject the claim.

In other words, odds of a specific amount of exceptional failure goes down much, much faster with better saves.

But that assumes equal wounds are equal. They are not. Let's look at this in a more weighted environment.

Let's claim that 5+ is worth half a Marine.
So:
EV of 3 3+ is 1 Marine.
EV of 3 5+ is 2 half-Marines.
Therefore, 1 3+ = 1 5+.
Odds of failing 2 of 2?
(1/9) vs (4/9)

Once again, the better save has a lower chance of deviating to this specific degree.

(The one thing not covered is distribution. Every roll is independent. Therefore, normal distribution.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that's what *your* imperial evidence supports. Mine does not. 3+ Troop units and/or not being bare bones isn't rare in my experience. Isn't that what the tourney lists were brought up to show?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sell back WS and S? You can. They're called Necron Warriors. At 13ppm.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Are you really complaining about the effects of probability in a game that relies on rolling dice?

Yes, I am. Why should I not?

Bharring wrote:
Claim:
Better saves are less reliable
Stats:
2x 3+ save has the same Expected Value as 1x 5+ (2/3 of a fail)
Premise:
Odds of failing 4 3+ should, therefore, be more likely than 2 5+
Numbers:
1/(3^4) compared to (2^2)/(3^2)
1/81 to 4/9.

Result: Reject the claim.

In other words, odds of a specific amount of exceptional failure goes down much, much faster with better saves.

But that assumes equal wounds are equal. They are not. Let's look at this in a more weighted environment.

Let's claim that 5+ is worth half a Marine.
So:
EV of 3 3+ is 1 Marine.
EV of 3 5+ is 2 half-Marines.
Therefore, 1 3+ = 1 5+.
Odds of failing 2 of 2?
(1/9) vs (4/9)

Once again, the better save has a lower chance of deviating to this specific degree.

(The one thing not covered is distribution. Every roll is independent. Therefore, normal distribution.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that's what *your* imperial evidence supports. Mine does not. 3+ Troop units and/or not being bare bones isn't rare in my experience. Isn't that what the tourney lists were brought up to show?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sell back WS and S? You can. They're called Necron Warriors. At 13ppm.

Yes, better saves are less reliable because the only feasible way to play them is to assume that they will survive (3+ save models are generally too expensive to hold back), which means 33% of the time you're fethed, whereas with a 5+ you'll assume that they'll die and as such plan around it. In the case of the 3+ unit, deviation generally means you're fethed, in the case of the 5+ unit it's generally in your advantage. Hence, the Orks are much more reliable than the Marines.

So Marines are worse than models that cost half as much for half the save, because the player can bring four times as much? I think some numbers are off.

Odds a marine fails 2/2 saves is 1/9.
Odds a 5+ fails 4/4 is 16/81.

Once again, your statements of deviation are way off. Even assuming Marines lose twice as much, they still win 16:9 at this rare an instance.

Then there is the whole half a DA squad is worth a lot less than half a Marine squad. Because, usually, they will still have their special weapon. Among other things.

Bharring wrote:
So Marines are worse than models that cost half as much for half the save, because the player can bring four times as much? I think some numbers are off.

No, the point is that the Ork player in this example can play more conservatively as he doesn't, to the same extent, have to fear the very real possibility of one turn's bad rolling wiping out most of a unit. If you get 10 wounds when shooting at a unit of 10 Marines there is a remote possibility that all 10 Marines will die. If you get 10 wounds when shooting at a unit of 20 Boyz the odds of losing the entire unit is 0%, excepting the fringe cases like Black Mace hits.

The Orks also do not have anything that's nearly as dangerous to them as AP3- is to Marines. You can mitigate the effect of blast weapons, the supposed horde counter, with positioning, whereas you're reduced to hoping for cover saves against AP3-.

Actually, 10 wounds can take an Ork unit off the table. Even with armor saves, they'll probably lose more than 25%. Odds of them breaking and never reforming aren't great, but not that unreasonable. Odds of Marines breaking and never reforming are 0, unless you're hugging the board edge.

And against a 5+ save (numbers are much easier) the odds of losing all 10 are exactly one *thousand* twenty four times as much as losing all 10 marines to 10 wounds.

As for fearing AP2, its just boltguns and the like that scare them. Granted, they're cheaper (6ppm for an Ork, 9ppm for a Guardian, 11 ppm for a Pathfinder, etc), but Boltguns are a lot more common than plasma guns.

Not in my lists. Well, I guess if you count the bolters on the bikes they are. But not by much. If you count the bikers that will never fire their boltguns because they have grav guns, it's almost the same. I'd have zero bolters if I could without going unbound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Actually, 10 wounds can take an Ork unit off the table. Even with armor saves, they'll probably lose more than 25%. Odds of them breaking and never reforming aren't great, but not that unreasonable. Odds of Marines breaking and never reforming are 0, unless you're hugging the board edge.

And against a 5+ save (numbers are much easier) the odds of losing all 10 are exactly one *thousand* twenty four times as much as losing all 10 marines to 10 wounds.

As for fearing AP2, its just boltguns and the like that scare them. Granted, they're cheaper (6ppm for an Ork, 9ppm for a Guardian, 11 ppm for a Fire Warrior, etc), but Boltguns are a lot more common than plasma guns.

I don't think I've ever played against an Ork player who cared about my boltguns. Of course, in 5th, my lists actually had ZERO boltguns in them.

I think you and I play markedly different games. But I like the one where my Pulse Carbines and Rangers have a purpose.

Last I checked, dying wasn't a purpose.

Scouts versus Lasgun vets.

10x Scouts (110pts) - 10x(1/2)(2/3)(1) = 20/5 = 4 Vets removed (24pts)
18x Vets (108pts) - 18x(1/2)(1/3)(1/2) = 18/12 = 1.5 Scouts removed (16.5pts)

Not really seeing why Bolters need Shred. Stat line and armour have a big effect on effective damage.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Scouts versus Lasgun vets.

10x Scouts (110pts) - 10x(1/2)(2/3)(1) = 20/5 = 4 Vets removed (24pts)
18x Vets (108pts) - 18x(1/2)(1/3)(1/2) = 18/12 = 1.5 Scouts removed (16.5pts)

Not really seeing why Bolters need Shred. Stat line and armour have a big effect on effective damage.

You'd better leave this your reasonable logics and mathematical averages out of "buff mehreens" threads!

I already stated I don't think shred is the right answer. There is no way to force players to bring units to care about bolters, so the best course of action is just to bring as few bolters as possible and go on with gaming.