so I was reading around on the interwebs, and have found multiple occasions of people saying that marines are below average when it comes to survivability. Where does this notion come from?

Marines, or T4 3+ saves are IMHO above average in survivability, and much harder to kill than any other troop (bar decurion warriors and GK termies). On average it takes 30 wounds to kill a tactical squad, and with T4, that is not easy.

Although they will die, how does this mean that they are not survivable, and if it does, what should I expect as a troop that could survive shooting?

happy wargaming,

-Mikey

It's decent, but you have to worry about ap3 weaponry, so I'd say make good use of cover when possible

It's a massive improvement in survivability. As someone who has played Sisters (T3 3+sv), Guard (T3, 5+sv, which is ignored by most weapons), and Orks (T4, essentially no armor at all), in my experience, the 3+ save makes a massive difference-- and so does the T4.

From a 4+ or from nothing?

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
From a 4+ or from nothing?

Yes. 4+ gets ignored by heavy flamers and other such weapons. 3+ is ignored only by a few specialist weapons, and anti-tank weapons. But if they're aiming anti-tank weapons at your 3+ save infantry, they're not aiming them at your tanks, so it's okay.

Well from those armies I agree, but I play necrons which have T4 and usually a 3or 4+ save

You're playing Necrons and complaining about survivability issues?

You're doing it wrong.

I think it probably depends a little on how expensive the model is and what sort of incoming fire it can expect. e.g. a 3+ save will probably be more useful on a marine than, say, a MC - because the latter will already be a target for powerful weapons that will ignore its save anyway.

That being said, whilst they might not seem too useful, I think 3+ saves are the sort of thing that you'd really miss if they were taken away. e.g. if the aforementioned MC went down to a 5+ save, then suddenly autocannons are 3 times as effective against it, and poison will just shred it.

I've had it to where I've failed every reanimation protocol

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
I've had it to where I've failed every reanimation protocol

Which is an example of bad luck, not proof that necrons lack survivability

Exactly, damn the dice Gods!

If you are worried about survivability against AP3 weapons, just take rubric marines, they come with a 3+ 4++ standard.

 Melissia wrote:

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
From a 4+ or from nothing?

Yes. 4+ gets ignored by heavy flamers and other such weapons. 3+ is ignored only by a few specialist weapons, and anti-tank weapons. But if they're aiming anti-tank weapons at your 3+ save infantry, they're not aiming them at your tanks, so it's okay.

3+ is ignored by many specialist weapons (and for at least 2 armies, the basic troop weapons, although Bladestorm is only a chance of triggering), many of them of large range and being blasts/large blasts.

While there are some weapons that ignore 3+ saves on platforms that may be a little too numerous, I've found that there is no substitution for the 3+ save when dealing with all the other little things. dangerous terrain wounds, exploding vehicle wounds, get hot wounds, none specialist CC wounds, etc.

I know just how devastating vehicle explosions are for my orks, and Tau armies.

Rihgu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
From a 4+ or from nothing?

Yes. 4+ gets ignored by heavy flamers and other such weapons. 3+ is ignored only by a few specialist weapons, and anti-tank weapons. But if they're aiming anti-tank weapons at your 3+ save infantry, they're not aiming them at your tanks, so it's okay.

3+ is ignored by many specialist weapons (and for at least 2 armies, the basic troop weapons, although Bladestorm is only a chance of triggering), many of them of large range and being blasts/large blasts.

Let's use Imperial Guard as an example.

Does not ignore 3+:
Lasgun, laspistol, heavy stubber, heavy bolter, autocannon, mortar, frag missile, flak missile, storm bolter, sniper rifle, krak grenade, frag grenade, flamer, heavy flamer, multiple rocket pods, multilasers, Hellhound flamethrower, Stormshard mortars, frag launchers, ripper guns, Exterminator autocannon, punisher cannon, Manticore missile, boltgun, bolt pistol

Ignores 3+
Melta, plasma, battlecannon, demolister cannon, executioner plasma cannon, Vanquisher cannon, Earthshaker cannon, lascannon, krak missile, Deathstrike missile, hotshot lasgun, hotshot laspistol

I must be missing some, but you get the idea.

exactly my point. You need to shoot marines with dedicated anti tank weapons or the occasional AP3 flamer or special gun (rubric marines for example, or scions) to really kill them. They will pass 2/3 of the saves you make them take, yet I still see people constantly say they are not very survivable.

I find the problem with 3+ saves isn't that it is bad or that ap3 is abundant. It's that the units with 3+ are paying a premium for it. As a result they are usually "fragile for the price" and not just fragile in general. Especially when the price they pay for armor usually cuts in to their damage output and mobility.

I think when people say below average they are referring to points to survivability ratio. Yes an ork is 3 times more vulnerable to ap4, 5 and 6 weaponary but costs a lot less (and three orks whilst costing slightly more bring many more attacks). And SMs are just as vulnerable as a 6pt ork to ap1, 2 and 3.
I personally think that whilst straight out SMs are only slightly less than average for point to survivability ratio, this completely fails to take into account ATSKNF. Not being able to be swept and auto rallying bumps up the survivability by a large margin.

The 3+ is very useful again the vast majority of anti-infantry and even low end anti-tank. PLaying orks regularly requires figuring out how to get the full strength of a shoota mob or our few ap 3 weapons into the face of space marines. Certainly a small number of models off sets that a bit, but combines with models with a 3+ save also usually having better ap weapons in return evens it out.

Where the idea of "3+ is useless" comes from is less the fault of the save itself and more how 40k's meta shapes itself. The most likely thing you're going to run into is vehicles, monstrous creatures, and of course the complete saturation of some variety of space marine (along with other armies that have mass access to 3+ like eldar) encourages players to take as much plasma and/or grav as they can wedge into their army listand rarely need to take any dedicated anti-infantry unit beyond the bare minimum.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
From a 4+ or from nothing?

Yes. 4+ gets ignored by heavy flamers and other such weapons. 3+ is ignored only by a few specialist weapons, and anti-tank weapons. But if they're aiming anti-tank weapons at your 3+ save infantry, they're not aiming them at your tanks, so it's okay.

3+ is ignored by many specialist weapons (and for at least 2 armies, the basic troop weapons, although Bladestorm is only a chance of triggering), many of them of large range and being blasts/large blasts.

Let's use Imperial Guard as an example.

Does not ignore 3+:
Lasgun, laspistol, heavy stubber, heavy bolter, autocannon, mortar, frag missile, flak missile, storm bolter, sniper rifle, krak grenade, frag grenade, flamer, heavy flamer, multiple rocket pods, multilasers, Hellhound flamethrower, Stormshard mortars, frag launchers, ripper guns, Exterminator autocannon, punisher cannon, Manticore missile, boltgun, bolt pistol

Ignores 3+
Melta, plasma, battlecannon, demolister cannon, executioner plasma cannon, Vanquisher cannon, Earthshaker cannon, lascannon, krak missile, Deathstrike missile, hotshot lasgun, hotshot laspistol

I must be missing some, but you get the idea.

Don't forget power swords, power axes, and power fists. I think Bane Wolfs also have a weapon that ignores 3+? Are Hotshot Volleyguns available to normal AM or is that Tempestus book only?

I'd say ~33% of the weapons in the codex is more than "a few specialist weapons". And given that about half of those are blasts, my 20ppm 3+ save dudes (Grey Knights) aren't seeing their Power Armour as a good investment!

Rihgu wrote:

Don't forget power swords, power axes, and power fists.

The cornerstone of any IG army.

 vipoid wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

Don't forget power swords, power axes, and power fists.

The cornerstone of any IG army.

As much as boltguns/bolt pistols, flak missiles, mortars and sniper rifles are

And I recall 5th edition, where power fists were very popular on sarges. And 6th (perhaps into 7th? But maybe not now that Azrael has changed) had the 50 man blobs with 5 power axe wielding sarges.

The crux of the matter is cost to survivabiltiy ratio.

You pay a LOT of points for that power armor. Compare a Sister of battle to a guardsman. You DOUBLE a guardsman's cost to upgrade the lasgun to bolter, +1 BS and power armor. It's a 100% increase in his hitting power at range, and double the survivabilty to return fire...seems fair right? Well, those points paid for armor are only worthwhile if you actually get to make a save....other wise you might as well be naked and save yourself the points cost.

Now, the issue is worse for marines, as they are paying points for increased LD, Initiative, grenades, WS, all of which just contributes to making their survivability worse point for point while rarely contributing to their damage output. Throw in the multitude of rending, pseudo-rending, AP1-2-3 weapons (especially blast and/or ignores cover) and you have a very poor unit in terms of staying power to points ratio.

Rihgu wrote:

And I recall 5th edition, where power fists were very popular on sarges.

You mean back when they were reasonably priced?

And when sergeants couldn't be picked out and killed in combat?

 vipoid wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

And I recall 5th edition, where power fists were very popular on sarges.

You mean back when they were reasonably priced?

And when sergeants couldn't be picked out and killed in combat?

Yes, sir.

Not exactly sure where you want this to go that's on topic, though. If you point out that in the current edition they're not popular, I'll point out that my army is still the same as it was in 5th edition and I'm not the only one. We've already covered the point that it's not exactly a hallmark of a guard army. But it's still an option so it should be included in a list of the army's options...

The issue IMHO is that space marines are 'meta defining' meaning that with the prevalence of 3+ saves is something that most people have to consider when building their TAC lists. If the actual tabletop presence fit the fluff, then AP3 weapons would be far rarer on the field, as most armies would likely be Nids, Orcs, or Guard swarms with the rest showing up rarely, if at all.

3+ saves are crap due to power-creep. The amount of ranged firepower being thrown around the table has increased exponentially over the editions, and due to poor balancing mechanics any competitive list is going to min-max and spam the strongest weapons.

The people who are going on about how durable 3+ saves are against small-arms are failing to take into consideration how rare small-arms are in today's 40K. My 1500 point Eldar list has 36 models in it, and of those 36 models only 8 of them have weapons with a strength lower than 6.

tl;dr: for whatever reason, Space Marines are popular, therefor people take counters that target Space Marines.

The consequence being that it feths up the entire game. This 1500 pt Eldar list that deletes multiple squads of marines per turn also kills Guard and Orks faster than their cheap ppm can compensate due to the unholy combination that is high strength+high rate of fire.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
3+ saves are crap due to power-creep. The amount of ranged firepower being thrown around the table has increased exponentially over the editions, and due to poor balancing mechanics any competitive list is going to min-max and spam the strongest weapons.

I think that's partially true, but then I'm not sure many other saves have it better. I mean, guardsmen are cheap and plentiful, but there are so many weapons these days that just sweep handfuls of them off the table.

2+ saves are arguably the best off, but even that is very dependant on the cost of the unit. Really, it seems most survivable units these days are about using invulnerable saves, or 'bonus' saves - like FNP or Necro-no-pain.

Also, slightly off topic, but I think there's a similar problem with armour values. A lot of the time, there's very little benefit to going above AV12, and virtually none to going above AV13. It's not that the increases are inherently worthless, but they're just not worth the current costs. The number of Gauss, Haywire and D-weapons around mean that high-AV just doesn't offer much extra protection. And, that's not even counting stuff like meltas - where it simply doesn't make much difference.

I think this is tied to two other issues though:

1) Weapons that are good at everything, with no real downsides. Look at the old Haywire weapons - the one from the DE book is a 24" S4 AP4 Assault 1 weapon. The 5th edition Necron one was 12" S5 AP- Assault 4. And, both of these were pretty limited in where you could take them (the Necron one could only be taken on a royal court, and the DE one is and was limited to Scourges and Talos). The DE one is obviously pretty bad against virtually everything non-vehicle, whilst the necron one has a prohibitively-short range. Nowadays, we have 36" 2-shot S6 haywire guns on basic troops.

Then you have stuff like grav, which is incredibly strong against MCs, but has enough shots to be effective against lighter infantry and even a bonus rule that lets them shred a land raider in 2 hits (not to mention turning any transport into a piece of scenery with a single 6).

The trouble with weapons like this is that they eliminate any choice. Why take weapons that are good against some thing but bad at others, when you can have weapons that are just good all-round.

"Ah!" I hear you say (unless it's just the voices in my head again...). "But Grav isn't good against everything. In fact, it's awful against hordes."

Well, that leads me to:

2) Lack of good hordes. There's green tide and then... nope, that's it. I mean, there's two other armies that can even qualify as any sort of light horde - nids and IG. Nids hordes haven't been scary since 5th, and IG infantry lack both the survivability and the resilience necessary to win any kind of shooting war.

If there were more hordes that were actually a threat, there may be more of a reason for players to take flamers instead of melta/grav/plasma. But, when virtually every threat has good armour... it's just not going to happen.

The game has gotten steadily more lethal over the years. T4 with a 3+ save was a lot more durable in 3rd edition, for example. I tend to keep my Marines in metal boxes when they're not in cover because while they can still hold up pretty well to small arms fire, there's a lot of crazy weapons and abilities out there that will straight murder them.

 vipoid wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

Don't forget power swords, power axes, and power fists.

The cornerstone of any IG army.

Power axe sergeants in IG blobs is not entirely uncommon.

There is power in the humble 4's across the board stateline and a 3+ save. If you think otherwise, try and kill 60-80+ Marines in a game. That 3+ armor save will make you tear your hair out.

A regular SM opponent of mine holds that in a 1500 points or higher game, you should field roughly 30 space marines, split into combat squads.

Why? Because you get efficient weapons split, you can more easily hide small units, you are unlikely to run when taking casualties (and insta-regroup if you do), and you can throw your weight around more easily. And Blast weapons have a lower maximum hit.

Throwing their weight around, and getting into the enemy's face makes them surprisingly tough to handle in many occasions.

My mean grievance with marine survivability is that in the current meta, they either get wounded as easily as sisters by things that don't care that they're t4, or they drop like ork boys by things that ignore the armor, or both and they die like gretchin. Almost every gun fielded in the meta right now accomplishes at least one of those.

Either way, the units don't feel "elite" enough to be "the most elite basic troop."

I've had a lot of success running the gladius and having a ridiculous saturation of units with tons of power armor, but that's a 104 model army. Not really "an elite force." I admit that if they were tougher and I was still allowed to field so many, it would be flat out unfair. My complaint isn't really from a balance standpoint as much as a "army feel" standpoint. They "feel" like I'm just playing armored guardsmen. I end up losing half a company or more in every game.

Marines have good durability per point as long as you don't give them anything. As soon as they become Sternguard, Vanguard, carry a plasma gun, etc, they have terrible durability/pt.

So, if you want your models to DO anything, you have to sacrifice durability and defeat the purpose of the 3+ armor.

I play Space Marines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Harlequins, and I used to play GK and Tau.

3+ armor is awesome in terms of survivability. There are certainly more weapons currently that can penetrate it, as opposed to previous editions, but it has by no means become useless.

I suppose I should add close combat weapons to my list:

AP3:
Power sword, power axe, power fist

Not AP3:
Close Combat Weapons, ripper guns, slab shields, power mauls, power lances, chainswords

A 3+ save is fantastic at surviving 2/3rds of the time. That's a third more often than a 4+ save model survives. However, it still eventually dies. If you placed it in the right spot, it'll die to something that didn't ignore its armour, but they forced you to throw enough dice that the averages failed you. If you placed it wrong, it'll die, and it'll be entirely your fault. Sometimes you won't have a chance to place it "right", so you'll do the best you can with cover saves, but they rarely are as good as 3+, but they'll still die.

Ultimately, models die. A 3+ save is great, but it's just a part of the model. You can't just rely on it like you used to in 3rd and 4th edition to out-survive stuff. Now it's more like a "useful if caught by something light, but you better hit cover soon". Still, that's more than you'll get with 4+ "die once they choose for you to die" armour.

^ this.

Seems people play on Bowling Ball Planet.
IMO if you keep marines inside a rhino, ideally in cover, they are pretty tough.
I mean, you have to crack the transport (with at least a 5+ save for a turn) then start shooting the marines with heavy weapons, which you get your cover save against. if you want durability and uber damage output play Movie Marines.

Or Eldar.

As a side note, my meta is quite frindly, so we don't have flyrants air force or eldar scatbikes all over the place.

That same logic can be applied to anything. Guardsmen aren't squishy when they spend the entire match rolling in a Chimera, and you can in fact get a veteran squad and chimera DT for less points than a tactical squad.

Saves 3+ and 4+ is big difference because there is so many AP4 weapons.Sv2+ is costly, sv3+ is more balanced option. Plasma penetrates sv3+ and sv2+ so you pay much just against ap3 weaponry. I prefer tacticals over scouts.

I think a large part of it is a lot of people play marines, thus they have the largest voice. This then creates a few issues. One is when you are playing a faction you are naturally going to notice your failed saves more and you are also going to notice the least survivable unit in your list. So when that T4 3+ model dies its quite noticeable as generally its the least survivable model in your marine army and you get into the mindset that marine durability sucks as compared to your centurions or chapter masters etc, when its actually fine. The second goes along with marines being the most popular, thus people know they need AP 2/3 weaponry to handle 30 marines in a battle as at least 50% of the armies they will face are marines. Third is the prevalence of Knights along with hard to kill models and deathstars (centurions, riptides etc) where a lot of lists are bringing weaponry to deal with these models, these weapons naturally works vs marines as well since they are generally AP 3 or less.

It all adds up, but I would say the biggest part is my first point. When you only play marines and the least survivable unit in your army is T4 3+...well you just end up thinking its a bad defensive statline, when if you played other armies (from my experience most marine players may play other marine chapters, but not necessarily other armies) its pretty clear its a great statline for the cost.

Well I can upgrade my boyz to Eavy Armor boy for 4pts a model, making them 10pts each. Then I can laugh at SM players who fire bolters at me as I get my 4+ save. Of course they in turn laugh at me when they just wipe me out with all the AP4 in the game.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Well I can upgrade my boyz to Eavy Armor boy for 4pts a model, making them 10pts each. Then I can laugh at SM players who fire bolters at me as I get my 4+ save. Of course they in turn laugh at me when they just wipe me out with all the AP4 in the game.

'Ere 'ere!

 Melissia wrote:
tl;dr: for whatever reason, Space Marines are popular, therefor people take counters that target Space Marines.

100% this.

If the meta was composed of 70-80% Orks, a 3+ save would be incredibly useful. People would be all about AP2 or massed fire, with a little AP4 ignores cover to handle bikers and 'ard boys. Still mainly massed fire to take out Tshirt save in cover.

Because so much of the player base is running around with T4 3+ saves people tailor their army to taking out T4 3+ saves as efficiently as possible.

Eldar don't need to tailor because S6 ROF 4 is a panacea in this game.

If people learned how to play\started out with armies like orks or guard, this sort of thread would be rarer. it is the prevalence of marine armies in this game that lead some to believe that marines are not terribly durable at all.

An idea for anyone who doesn't believe that marines are durable? double the wounds on all models (and HPs on vehicles) for a game. Yours and, critically, your opponent's. Then you can see whether it is the durability that you don't like, or the ID aspect.

I make no secret of what armies I play, I started with tau, marines were my second army (and I rather enjoyed their durability), but what drove the difference home to me, my last army was guard, and there were some games where I would spend minutes deploying my models on the field to scoop them up in handfuls in seconds when they took casualties. I appreciate having fewer models on the field, but that also means that their staying power has increased as well.

I already stated that their durability is quite good until you start equipping them. And the base marine has awful output/pt, so that is a real problem.

Martel732 wrote:
I already stated that their durability is quite good until you start equipping them. And the base marine has awful output/pt, so that is a real problem.

I don't suppose that you play have played fallout3? you start out with barely more than the shirt on your back, but you get Power Armor part way into the game. This is (IMO) to give you better appreciation for the abilities of the armor. This game (40k) starts you out with an excellent model (if playing SM) (which you correspondingly never have to learn to appreciate as you start out with it), and if whoever taught you the game, they started with tutorial games that allowed you a save against their attacks - think SM on SM. both have Str4 AP5 bolters and a 3+ save.

Now think about what would have happened if you had started out with guard v SM. BS3 T3 5+sv models with Str3 AP- weapons versus BS4 T4 3+sv models with Str4 AP5 weapons. If there were more guard and correspondingly fewer SM. . . I've said this before.

Without descending to name calling, I'm not sure what you want here. But something to keep in mind. . . GUARD PAY THE SAME PRICE AS MARINES FOR THEIR UPGRADES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you think that marines have awful output per point. please do the math for guard in return.

"GUARD PAY THE SAME PRICE AS MARINES FOR THEIR UPGRADES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

No one said the Guard were tearing things up, either. That being said, the base guardsmen is a deal against weapons like the scatterlaser, which is very common marine killer at this point. Forget AP 1/2; its' all about wound spam with crap AP.

The wound spam approach is double duty because high STR, high ROF also doubles as anti-tank in 7th ed.

Yes, space marines are incredibly efficient at killing guardsmen. Unfortunately, that is a vast minority of targets of space marines. And don't forget that Eldar now have the best T4 3+ unit in the game, not marines.

I've army swapped with most armies at this point. I'm keenly aware of how IG works, or in 7th ed, doesn't work. But that's more about vehicles being crap in 7th. Cheap dudes with good guns still trump expensive dudes with terrible guns. The drop from BS4 to BS3 just isn't severe enough.

"I'm not sure what you want here."

For high STR, high ROF weapons to be extremely expensive. There is no universe where a scatterlaser should be cheaper than an assault cannon.

are there any models that don't get worse on an output\pt basis?

 carldooley wrote:
are there any models that don't get worse on an output\pt basis?

Please clarify.

Martel732 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
are there any models that don't get worse on an output\pt basis?

Please clarify.

Martel732 wrote:
the base marine has awful output/pt, so that is a real problem.

Martel732 wrote:
the base marine has awful output/pt

They're actually really good as far as utility per point, capable of handling many situations better than many other factions' specialists-- Tactical Marines are still better at close combat than most guard, sisters, or tau close combat specialists, for example (ogryns notwithstanding, but I've never seen anyone actually take ogryns so ymmv), and even their devastators are a risky proposition to assault for non-marines who aren't themselves assault specialists.

I know it's a longstanding tradition for marine players to whine that their marines aren't movie-marine enough, but the hyperbole here is ridiculous.

 carldooley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
are there any models that don't get worse on an output\pt basis?

Please clarify.

Martel732 wrote:
the base marine has awful output/pt, so that is a real problem.

So you're saying marines are bad for their point cost. But was there a question in there? Were you asking if other models were worse for their point costs? If that's what you are asking, then yes, the answer is Terminators. Horrible for their point costs and they have much better stats than your average marine.

I think the problem space marines is not their "survivability" per se, but instead their ability to withstand the onslaught of a similarly priced unit.
For example lets say we have 200 points of Tactical Space Marine vs 200 points of Slugga Ork Boyz.
Thats like a full tac squad with some nice upgrades and a 30-large ork blob with a nob, bosspole and maybe a big choppa. and enough for a rokkit launcha in there also.

Even footslogging, that 200 points worth of orks is going to destroy those marines. So the marine, on his own, on paper with t4 and a 3+ save is yeah, plenty survivable. However, marines, pt for pt, are not as survivable as other units. Orks have t4 and a 6+ save but because there are so many of them, they tend to shrug of casualties and keep on marching.
So wound size in a unit is also important. 10 wounds vs 31 wounds (the nob has 2 wounds).

 Melissia wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
the base marine has awful output/pt

They're actually really good as far as utility per point, capable of handling many situations better than many other factions' specialists-- Tactical Marines are still better at close combat than most guard, sisters, or tau close combat specialists, for example (ogryns notwithstanding, but I've never seen anyone actually take ogryns so ymmv), and even their devastators are a risky proposition to assault for non-marines who aren't themselves assault specialists.

I know it's a longstanding tradition for marine players to whine that their marines aren't movie-marine enough, but the hyperbole here is ridiculous.

Their utility/pt is only theoretical. The reality is most of them get shot to death before they can use said theoretical utility. From this perspective, a marines Str, WS, Bolt pistol, and grenades are all useless utility. The only thing that matters is their gun, BS, T, and save. And the T doesn't matter against S6 high ROF.

Vanilla marines are good because ATSKNF, csm marines are not so good for their points.

I'm getting together some Black Templars to support my IG.

I say support. They're the allied detachment, but take up more than 50% of the points, and are the main offensive.
The reason being, I get mass-slaughtered at close range, and I cannot compete at long range. So I'm taking some of the fastest, toughest, most aggressive front-line murderers can get my hands on.

3+ Saves and T4 are a damn blessing.

 Icculus wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
are there any models that don't get worse on an output\pt basis?

Please clarify.

Martel732 wrote:
the base marine has awful output/pt, so that is a real problem.

So you're saying marines are bad for their point cost. But was there a question in there? Were you asking if other models were worse for their point costs? If that's what you are asking, then yes, the answer is Terminators. Horrible for their point costs and they have much better stats than your average marine.

I think the problem space marines is not their "survivability" per se, but instead their ability to withstand the onslaught of a similarly priced unit.
For example lets say we have 200 points of Tactical Space Marine vs 200 points of Slugga Ork Boyz.
Thats like a full tac squad with some nice upgrades and a 30-large ork blob with a nob, bosspole and maybe a big choppa. and enough for a rokkit launcha in there also.

Even footslogging, that 200 points worth of orks is going to destroy those marines. So the marine, on his own, on paper with t4 and a 3+ save is yeah, plenty survivable. However, marines, pt for pt, are not as survivable as other units. Orks have t4 and a 6+ save but because there are so many of them, they tend to shrug of casualties and keep on marching.
So wound size in a unit is also important. 10 wounds vs 31 wounds (the nob has 2 wounds).

Wounds are trumping saves in 7th, except in extreme cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Draco wrote:
Vanilla marines are good because ATSKNF, csm marines are not so good for their points.

ATSKNF is virtually useless against most lists.

If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++
TWC - 2+/3++
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++
Skyhammer - 3+
Cents - 2+
IKs - 4++
Wind riders - 3+/4+
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

I have always hated Armour Saves for two reasons:
1) They are an all or nothing venture, either the weapon ignores it or it does not
2) They work with negative numbers, to make a save better you reduce it instead of increasing it

The second point is a little bit of a pet-peeve, THAC0 really annoyed me back in the day, as a Rule system should be uniformed when it comes to counting up or down as 'better.' It would be a lot simpler if the Armour Save was a modifier to the dice roll, with the intention to ensure the roll is Greater then 6 in order to pass, then the result the dice needs to surpass. I wouldn't mind Equal to, but in order to keep an Armour save of - as useless as it currently is it would need to be Greater then 6. This would also allow the AP of the weapon to matter in all instances, not just those it negates entirely, as they could become a penalty to that Roll. Allowing for AP 3 weapons to negate an Armour Save of 3 as they currently do, but it stops the phenomenon of a bolter suddenly being as useless as a lasgun whenever the enemy decided to put on their Carapace on that day.

It might not increase the survivability of the Marine above what it is currently, but it will make the weapons they carry far more effective against all targets instead of being over-powered against a handful and useless against the rest.

Addendum:
Actually, the more I think on this the more it could be used to increase the survivability of Units that are currently getting their **** handed to them due to weight of fire even though it makes no sense, like Terminators facing Auto-Guns. With the numbers counting upwards, and the AP being a penalty on the Save, it becomes possible to make certain weapons useless against certain Units in the same ways certain Weapons are useless against certain Vehicles... they simply can not get past the Save. While care needs to be taken to ensure a troop choice does not become immune to other troop choices, it is something that easily can be done with a 1-10 system for both Armour Save and Armour Piercing. This would ensure Units that are clearly 'Heavy-Infantry' need to be dealt with by Units carrying weapons specifically designed for that purpose. Of course, it means re-tooling every Model and Weapon profile, and that would require Errata for older books, so I won't hold my breath.

Example:
Terminators would be a +7 Armour Save, making them completely immune to weapons that do not have a -2 AP or greater penalty.

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++
TWC - 2+/3++
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++
Skyhammer - 3+
Cents - 2+
IKs - 4++
Wind riders - 3+/4+
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

None of those are a fair comparison. Most of those are Inv saves, not armour, those units are known best for damage output or special rule advantages (like Cents and Psykers), and not one of them is a Troops Choice.

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++
TWC - 2+/3++
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++
Skyhammer - 3+
Cents - 2+
IKs - 4++
Wind riders - 3+/4+
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

None of those things are good because of their saves. They are good because of their stats/special rules/shooting. They just happen to have those saves. If I could get double the wind riders with a 6+ save, I would because of the firepower bump.

In fact, the 3+ save is the still the achilles heel of the Wraithknight in a way.

The 3+ save is actually the best part of a basic marine now, but in the end it ends up not being worth it because they can't cause enough damage to the enemy.

Necron warriors have 4+ and immortals have 3+. I think people chooses immortals if they are not using transports.

Disclaimer: I do not have necrons.

My understanding was Immortals paid a lot for that 3+.

(And Windriders, in that list, actually are troops...)

Which seems most likely:
-Everything and its sister has a 3+ these days
-3+s being so common on that list being a coincidence
-Or, the survivability helps, but isn't the primary driving force, of what is OP these days.

I'd bet on the last one, but the first is up there too.

Just compare the survivability of a Fire Dragon to a Kalabite!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There aren't a lot of good analogues for most of the list that lack said saves, that I could come up with.

"-Or, the survivability helps, but isn't the primary driving force, of what is OP these days. "

This.

"(And Windriders, in that list, actually are troops...) "

I threw up in my mouth a little when reminded of this.

Sometimes I wonder if people even play this game. Marines aren't durable enough?

Jesus, I feel sorry for the poor Orks, Tau, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Sororitas, Inquisition, and all the other armies who lack MEQ. They must be ridiculously flimsy, if a Marine isn't durable enough.

It's been said, but it is a points cost thing. You can get 20 guardsman for the same cost as 10 space marines. While that matchup is more or less even, the guard have a huge advantage in value against ap 1,2,&3, as strength will negate toughness boost, and AP makes armor worthless.

Since no one but beginners fight only troops, a case can be made that tactical marines lack in points efficiency.

a lot of people are probably complaining about 3+ save not being good because they have awful luck with rolling saves(common problem) or volume of fire....Which will wreck any armor save.

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
a lot of people are probably complaining about 3+ save not being good because they have awful luck with rolling saves or volume of fire....

This is certainly one of the problems. My SoB get around it by going mini-Horde (at the least 70+ models at 1500) and just ignoring casualties while taking out key enemy units. It's true that a 3+ save fails a lot even if you get it, but you also get the funny victories like a 5-girl Dominion Squad taking out their target on outflanking and then proceeding to rout a pack of Fenrisian Wolves and Thunderwolves in CC...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if people even play this game. Marines aren't durable enough?

Jesus, I feel sorry for the poor Orks, Tau, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Sororitas, Inquisition, and all the other armies who lack MEQ. They must be ridiculously flimsy, if a Marine isn't durable enough.

Durability is meaningless without efficacy. Base marines can't get enemy models off the table, which is why they fail as "elite" troops. They must suffer the full wrath of their opponent turn after turn. Give the marines some weapons to do some damage, and suddenly their durability/pt plummets. I'm largely ignoring the rapeage caused by AP 1/2/3 weapons as well here. I'm just focusing on wound spam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
a lot of people are probably complaining about 3+ save not being good because they have awful luck with rolling saves(common problem) or volume of fire....Which will wreck any armor save.

There is no such thing as luck over the long run. Marines fail exactly 1/3 of all their saves. Volume of fire exploits this phenomenon and also denies any benefits from cover worse than 2+

I'd say T4 and 3+ is about average survivability with all the 2+ saves running around. MEQs are very common in the game, seeing as how there are only 2 stats in the game that is used for troops, that is 3 and 4.

 triplegrim wrote:
I'd say T4 and 3+ is about average survivability with all the 2+ saves running around. MEQs are very common in the game, seeing as how there are only 2 stats in the game that is used for troops, that is 3 and 4.

Numerically speaking, it's actually above average. The problem is the models who have T4 3+ pay a lot of points for offensive power and weapons that make a mockery of those two stats, particularly the Toughness.

As a mainly IG player I look at those 3+ saves with great envy. On the other hand I can pick up ten guardsmen and its not breaking the bank or even a sweat.

With my venture into Admech I've had my first encounter with having a 3+ save with Kastelans and breachers. I have to say I enjoy the 3+ very much, the 2+ on a dominus and datasmiths is almost godlike for me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if people even play this game. Marines aren't durable enough?

Jesus, I feel sorry for the poor Orks, Tau, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Sororitas, Inquisition, and all the other armies who lack MEQ. They must be ridiculously flimsy, if a Marine isn't durable enough.

I don't know what your tables look like, but locally, Str 6+ and Ap 2 is very common.
This means that, against every single solider in the lists you posted, they are wounded on a 2+ (so T4 does nothing), and possibly don't get a save beyond cover (where everyone gets the same save, so that 3+ is useless).
The T4 is only beneficial for ID tests. Armies try to avoid taking less then T4 troops that can be ID'ed (even nid warriors are considered terrible because they ID to Str 8). This is why you don't see Guard heavy weapon teams.

Meanwhile offensively, per point, everyone is pretty close to the same.
If Orks could drop to T3 for -3pts per model, would they? -2? How much is that upgrade worth really?

I suppose if your tables are pretty fluffy then you may not see the issue. Our tables are mostly guys who play WMH and like more...cutthroat lists. Marines are pretty bad in that environment.


The problem is really the all or nothing nature of 40k. If I roll a 1, it always fails regardless of save. If I'm guard, every 1 cost me ~5 points, in marines its ~14 (13?). In other games, you rolling a high number when I have high armor means less damage then when I have low armor.

This thread is a frustrating but pertinent example of the tunnel-vision horde faction players frequently have when discussing game balance.

the only real solution to the problem is a roll back on the power creep. I started playing at the tail end of 3rd edition and beginning of 4th edition. A Space Marine was awesome then. The problem for them in the more recent editions is the huge increase in ROF weapons and AP1-3 weapons.

Running into a Lascannon or its equivalent was RARE where as now we have weapons that make Lascannons look weak by comparison. It boils down to GW making stupid decisions to increase sales on a temporary basis.

I don't understand how the 3+ 4++ of the 1K sons is not relevant here? Anything that is AP3 or lower, I get to take a 50% save against.....How is that not winning. lol

 sub-zero wrote:
I don't understand how the 3+ 4++ of the 1K sons is not relevant here? Anything that is AP3 or lower, I get to take a 50% save against.....How is that not winning. lol

because they are expensive models and they don't put out much dakka in return for their great invul save.

So is the problem with marines their durability or their offensive output?

What would increase their durability? 2+ save? T5? They can already get armywide FNP.

A reduction of fire-power across the entire board is the only way to make 3+ saves cost-effective and relevant again. Anything else just contributes to the arms-race nature of power creep.

A general downsizing of the lethality in 40K doesn't just help MEQ either. Orks, IG and ground-pounding melee armies are all suffering in the meta due to the prevalence of high strength, high rof firepower.

As someone who uses a lot of Aspect Warriors, I can tell you firsthand how useful a 3+ save is. T4 would be even better, as it means that most anti-infantry firepower wounds you on a 4+ instead of a 3+ or 2+. When under fire, a 3+ save is the best most infantry models can hope for.

The problems lie in the power creep of the game. While AP3 or lower is still uncommon, every army has the means to make a mockery of even Space Marine armour. The other problem is sheer volume of fire; the easiest way to kill MEQ is to force them to make lots of saves. Combine this with undercosted means of delivering S6/7 fire, and whole armies can crumble. Camping cover is a good idea, but puts you on the same level as units without the glorious 3+. This is where things like Drop Pods and Rhinos (with the occasional Land Raider) come in to give the infantry some protection against mid-strength spam.

Tactical Marines a bad, but only in comparison to other units (Scouts, Scatbikers, Bikes, etc.) They have decent damage output against infantry, and can take a variety of upgrades to deal with any other threat. Krak Grenades mean they can hurt vehicles and MC's, while pistol+CCW gives them a solid amount of attacks on the charge. Combine this with Combat Squads and ATSKNF, and you have units that will stick around on the board a long time.

Most of the complaints about marine survivability come from MEQ players. If they played other armies, I can guarantee that they would quickly get some perspective about the merits of T4 3+ infantry. That and the importance of always staying in cover.

 carldooley wrote:
If people learned how to play\started out with armies like orks or guard, this sort of thread would be rarer.

If people had time and money to get 100+ models for a 1250 pt game, paint them all up and than get wiped out in 2 turns every time they meet scatbikes...

 koooaei wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
If people learned how to play\started out with armies like orks or guard, this sort of thread would be rarer.

If people had time and money to get 100+ models for a 1250 pt game, paint them all up and than get wiped out in 2 turns every time they meet scatbikes...

I have yet to lose when i field my green tide but by the same token I haven't fielded them against Scat bikes and I can only assume they would be tabled quickly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So is the problem with marines their durability or their offensive output?

What would increase their durability? 2+ save? T5? They can already get armywide FNP.

Durability is very good with T4 Sv3+ ATSKNF but it has cost. Terminators are Sv2+/5++ but cost makes them worse than tacticals. Damage output and speed are weakness (wind riders are excellent). Bike troops in vanilla codex are far better than tacticals (sv3+ T5 Speed 12, great dmg output).

However I like tacticals, they are resilient home objectives keepers.

The game would certainly be a lot better if someone took the nerfhammer to the top, say, 10% of the game.

Even as is, though, typically its S6 or AP3 for massed fire, not both. Part of the problem is that most of the threats are hard targets, and its not that relatively expensive in a lot of cases to bring the big guns instead of small arms. So everyone min/maxxes towards big guns. So survivability vs small arms becomes less important. So those who pay for it get pissed that those who don't comparatively pay less.

Also recall that an SM Captain or SM takes a 4++ against a Plasma Gun, or a 3+ against a grenade or Wraith or power maul or whatever, and just loses a wound if they fail. A commissar, Farseer, Archon, or whatever fails a save and outright dies.

Also, I was just trying to point out above was that the game *is* more about saves than wounds. That doesn't mean everything with a decent save is decent. It just means things with decent saves seem to outperform things with more HP (how many times have I heard people bitch about 3-4 Rhinos dying faster than one Wave Serpent?).

If you compare an SM to a Guardsmen, SM can look terrible. Guardsmen are great at soaking wounds. Its what they do. So of course they cost less per wound soaked than the comparatively better offense and adaptability of an SM. SMs cost almost 3x the price, and frequently don't have three times the durability (S6+ AP6/- means the SM is only twice as durable, for instance). But what about Kalabites? Guardians? Fire Warriors? Against most other non-Horde troops, SM have more survivability/pt against most attacks (needs s6+ *and* AP3 to not be true).

If small arms made a comeback - as unlikely as that seems - the strengths of the SM statline might be more apparent.

Finally, another thing people often dismiss is their assault threat. Nobody will let most of their vehicles sit within assault range of even a naked tac squad. Because they can kill it. Same for almost all non-CC units in the game. Even many of the units Tacs outshoot. So, while this means that CC won't happen most of the time, it means the SM player sets the terms. Tremendous board control advantage.

Tacs are bad only because the game is broken.

Bharring wrote:

Finally, another thing people often dismiss is their assault threat. Nobody will let most of their vehicles sit within assault range of even a naked tac squad. Because they can kill it. Same for almost all non-CC units in the game. Even many of the units Tacs outshoot. So, while this means that CC won't happen most of the time, it means the SM player sets the terms. Tremendous board control advantage.

This. So much. I can't count the number of times I've lost 200-300+ points to a tactical squad simply because I have no good melee defense.

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++T5 W2, resurrection protocols.
TWC - 2+/3++ T5 W2
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++ T8 W6
Skyhammer - 3+ Toughness is irrelevant, Alpha strike unit
Cents - 2+ T5 W2 and invisibility very often.
IKs - 4++ AV13/12
Wind riders - 3+/4+ Staying power is unnecessary. It's all about the firepower here. 36" range is their armor.
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+ Alpha strike, T6

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

The save is a toughness multiplier on top of otherwise VERY tough models....and only the invul saves really matter. If you are tough enough that it makes basic weapons need a 5 or 6 to wound, the save is just insult to injury, and makes you shift to a more efficient weapon class for dealing with the threat, namely S6+ and AP2 to both get through the toughness and ignore the normal saves.

 Carnage43 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++T5 W2, resurrection protocols.
TWC - 2+/3++ T5 W2
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++ T8 W6
Skyhammer - 3+ Toughness is irrelevant, Alpha strike unit
Cents - 2+ T5 W2 and invisibility very often.
IKs - 4++ AV13/12
Wind riders - 3+/4+ Staying power is unnecessary. It's all about the firepower here. 36" range is their armor.
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+ Alpha strike, T6

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

The save is a toughness multiplier on top of otherwise VERY tough models....and only the invul saves really matter. If you are tough enough that it makes basic weapons need a 5 or 6 to wound, the save is just insult to injury, and makes you shift to a more efficient weapon class for dealing with the threat.

Soooo you're saying if you took their saves away or made them a 6+ these units would still be the best in the game?

 Selym wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Finally, another thing people often dismiss is their assault threat. Nobody will let most of their vehicles sit within assault range of even a naked tac squad. Because they can kill it. Same for almost all non-CC units in the game. Even many of the units Tacs outshoot. So, while this means that CC won't happen most of the time, it means the SM player sets the terms. Tremendous board control advantage.

This. So much. I can't count the number of times I've lost 200-300+ points to a tactical squad simply because I have no good melee defense.

Kill them before they get that close like every other Xeno list.

"Tacs are bad only because the game is broken."

But they're still bad. Quit tap dancing around the reality of the situation. And tacs have been bad for a long, long, LONG time.

"If small arms made a comeback - as unlikely as that seems - the strengths of the SM statline might be more apparent. "

No one is going to do that with things like Wraithknights and Riptides running around. And IK for sure, who are literally immune to small arms.

" it means the SM player sets the terms"

In practice, this doesn't happen, the SM just get shot to death from medium/long range.

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Finally, another thing people often dismiss is their assault threat. Nobody will let most of their vehicles sit within assault range of even a naked tac squad. Because they can kill it. Same for almost all non-CC units in the game. Even many of the units Tacs outshoot. So, while this means that CC won't happen most of the time, it means the SM player sets the terms. Tremendous board control advantage.

This. So much. I can't count the number of times I've lost 200-300+ points to a tactical squad simply because I have no good melee defense.

Kill them before they get that close like every other Xeno list.

Easier said than done. To get a good defence going, I'll need another £300. And it would make an unfluffy/unfun list.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
As someone who uses a lot of Aspect Warriors, I can tell you firsthand how useful a 3+ save is. T4 would be even better, as it means that most anti-infantry firepower wounds you on a 4+ instead of a 3+ or 2+. When under fire, a 3+ save is the best most infantry models can hope for.

If you judge most by volume in the rule books, sure. If you judge most by mostly what gets taken....
Don't Eldar get psuedo rending on their weapons? How often does that matter against orks compared to marines?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

The problems lie in the power creep of the game. While AP3 or lower is still uncommon, every army has the means to make a mockery of even Space Marine armour. The other problem is sheer volume of fire; the easiest way to kill MEQ is to force them to make lots of saves. Combine this with undercosted means of delivering S6/7 fire, and whole armies can crumble. Camping cover is a good idea, but puts you on the same level as units without the glorious 3+. This is where things like Drop Pods and Rhinos (with the occasional Land Raider) come in to give the infantry some protection against mid-strength spam.

While land raiders help against mid strength spam, rhinos explode. Drop pods are nice for the suicide squad but aren't effective against many armies that plan for it and can counter punch hard. Remember, a rhino is less survivable then a chimera (though it does cost less, the squads with transports are comparable). Necrons and other armies have even better transports.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Tactical Marines a bad, but only in comparison to other units (Scouts, Scatbikers, Bikes, etc.) They have decent damage output against infantry, and can take a variety of upgrades to deal with any other threat. Krak Grenades mean they can hurt vehicles and MC's, while pistol+CCW gives them a solid amount of attacks on the charge. Combine this with Combat Squads and ATSKNF, and you have units that will stick around on the board a long time.

You can't say they are bad when compared to other troop units (2 of the 3 you listed from the same dex!) and then say they are decent.
Their output is terrible. That's the problem. If they had more special weapons or bolters were better you'd see them used more.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Most of the complaints about marine survivability come from MEQ players. If they played other armies, I can guarantee that they would quickly get some perspective about the merits of T4 3+ infantry. That and the importance of always staying in cover.

I do play other armies, including orks and nids. I still think that MEQ is less survivable point per point.
Marines staying in cover makes them nearly the equivalent to any other troop choice in the game (and against str 6+, exactly equivalent) while costing 1.5-3x more points. If marines had +1 cover save it would be different, but they don't.

"Easier said than done. To get a good defence going, I'll need another £300. And it would make an unfluffy/unfun list."

I guess it depends on what you find fun. At this point, winning a couple games with BA would be novel. It's gotten to the point where I've quit trying to assault because my marines WILL die before they get to that range. And the BA first turn assault formation is just bad.

Bharring wrote:
The game would certainly be a lot better if someone took the nerfhammer to the top, say, 10% of the game.

Anyone remember when the Psyfleman Dreadnought was the best long-range anti-tank in the game?

It seems so long ago.

I (barely) remember the days when Genestealers were cheese.

 vipoid wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The game would certainly be a lot better if someone took the nerfhammer to the top, say, 10% of the game.

Anyone remember when the Psyfleman Dreadnought was the best long-range anti-tank in the game?

It seems so long ago.

Bah, that was like yesterday.

 Selym wrote:
I (barely) remember the days when Genestealers were cheese.

I remember when the thing everyone was whining about was Imperial Guard Leafblower armies.

 Melissia wrote:

 Selym wrote:
I (barely) remember the days when Genestealers were cheese.

I remember when the thing everyone was whining about was Imperial Guard Leafblower armies.

I missed out on that :C

Here's to hoping that power creep brings it back!

Mechanicus do have a S6 AP5 Haywire 36" Rapid Fire gun on a basic troop, but that basic troop costs 50 points and has BS3 (which admittedly it can raise for one turn).

Heavy Arc Rifles are not good at everything. They are mediocre against everything against vehicles.

Equivalent points of bolter marines are superior against MEQ than an Arc Rifle Breacher is within 24", and a lot more durable.

Alcibiades wrote:
Mechanicus do have a S6 AP5 Haywire 36" Rapid Fire gun on a basic troop, but that basic troop costs 50 points and has BS3 (which admittedly it can raise for one turn).

Just as an idea, 2 Scourges with Haywire Blasters are 52pts.

They're a FA choice, only 4 of them can have haywire at all, their weapons are 24" S4 AP4 Assault 1, and they're T3 with 4+ saves.

 vipoid wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Mechanicus do have a S6 AP5 Haywire 36" Rapid Fire gun on a basic troop, but that basic troop costs 50 points and has BS3 (which admittedly it can raise for one turn).

Just as an idea, 2 Scourges with Haywire Blasters are 52pts.

They're a FA choice, only 4 of them can have haywire at all, their weapons are 24" S4 AP4 Assault 1, and they're T3 with 4+ saves.

And they are jump troops that can deep strike and have BS4, plus a small inv save and likely FNP. Breachers also have a 4+ save (EDIT: whoops, that's Destroyers.) And 2 wounds -- just like the two scourges!

A breacher will take 1/2 x 5/6 = 5/12 x 2 = 5/6 HPs off a vehicle; the Scourges will take 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9 x 2 = 1 1/9.

But this is another issue. We were not discussing scourges vs. breachers, but about a wespon being "good against everything." Heavy arc rifles are not good against everything. They are good against vehicles. Against anything else they are mediocre. Statistically they do the same damage to T6 3+ as a radium carbine does.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++T5 W2, resurrection protocols.
TWC - 2+/3++ T5 W2
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++ T8 W6
Skyhammer - 3+ Toughness is irrelevant, Alpha strike unit
Cents - 2+ T5 W2 and invisibility very often.
IKs - 4++ AV13/12
Wind riders - 3+/4+ Staying power is unnecessary. It's all about the firepower here. 36" range is their armor.
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+ Alpha strike, T6

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

The save is a toughness multiplier on top of otherwise VERY tough models....and only the invul saves really matter. If you are tough enough that it makes basic weapons need a 5 or 6 to wound, the save is just insult to injury, and makes you shift to a more efficient weapon class for dealing with the threat.

Soooo you're saying if you took their saves away or made them a 6+ these units would still be the best in the game?

They would still be good because their saves aren't the selling point of the units in question. The save is just frosting on their cake. They would have less resilience if you dropped their saves yes, but they would still be fairly good at their jobs. The wraiths and twc would be the heaviest hit by removing their armor, because they need to cross the table before doing damage. Most of the other units listed show up and accomplish their job immediately without taking enemy fire.

Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better.

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better.

Really? I mean, I know sisters can take a lot of Heavy Flamers but I can't think of many instances where I see AP 4. Its usually 5+ or 3-. It could be I don't look at AP4 (or 5+ tbh) as anything special so I'm getting confirmation bias, but I like to think I'd notice a vast difference.

Akiasura wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better.

Really? I mean, I know sisters can take a lot of Heavy Flamers but I can't think of many instances where I see AP4..

Not JUST heavy flamer,s but also heavy bolters. If more enemies were 4+ saves, I'd take a ton more heavy bolters, and take my enemies out at long range before having to worry about flamers to begin with. As it is they're not that useful because too many 3+ saves, so no one really thinks about them (heavy flamers are used more often because flamer template and ignores cover saves). But drop a lot of 3+ units to 4+ and suddenly heavy bolters rip them new arseholes regularly, and become far, FAR more worth it.

And that's just the ones Sisters have. My IG can have even more AP4 firepower.

Most people don't realize when their weapons are AP4 it seems.

A lot of armies have loads of 4+. Including the dreaded Necron Warriors and all of the feared Skitarii

Alcibiades wrote:
A lot of armies have loads of 4+. Including the dreaded Necron Warriors and all of the feared Skitarii

Irrelevant, as we're talking about 3+ saves, and I raised the point that if more armies that were 3+ had their saves lowered to 4+, AP4 weapons-- which are quite abundant-- would become a lot more used. So tell me. Would you not be more willing to appreciate the firepower of heavy bolters if marines couldn't take their armor saves against them?

I appreciate Heavy Bolters anyway. Mmmm... Imperial Guard Tanks...

Alcibiades wrote:

And they are jump troops that can deep strike and have BS4, plus a small inv save and likely FNP. Breachers also have a 4+ save (EDIT: whoops, that's Destroyers.) And 2 wounds -- just like the two scourges!

Being jump infantry really only serves to compensate for their poor range. Yeah, they can move faster than destroyers, but they also have to be 12" closer to do anything.

With regard to wounds, there's a great deal of difference between 2 T3 wounds and 2 T5 wounds.

Alcibiades wrote:

A breacher will take 1/2 x 5/6 = 5/12 x 2 = 5/6 HPs off a vehicle; the Scourges will take 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9 x 2 = 1 1/9.

So, the scourges are slightly better at stripping HPs. But, what about if the opponent has no vehicles (or they've all been destroyed). How do they fare then?

Also, don't forget that against AV10, the Destroyers are penetrating on 5s.

Alcibiades wrote:

But this is another issue. We were not discussing scourges vs. breachers, but about a wespon being "good against everything." Heavy arc rifles are not good against everything. They are good against vehicles. Against anything else they are mediocre. Statistically they do the same damage to T6 3+ as a radium carbine does.

But that's the thing - you're not comparing them to the competition.

As above, please compare their effectiveness against MEQ or T6 3+ to the single shot S4 AP4 haywire gun the scourges get. Because that was the entire point - in that weapons that were effective only against a very limited range of targets are now becoming much more useful against other targets.

Sure.

One breacher with a Heavy Arc Rifle against MEQ, two scourges with haywayer blasters against MEQ,

Breacher is 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/36 x 2 = 5/18 = 0.28

Two scourges is 2/3 x 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/9 x 2 = 2/9 = 0.22

Scourges with haywire are almost identical against MEQ, range issues aside.

Huh, I'll admit that's a lot closer than I thought it would be.

Dude

If heavy arc rifles are "good against everything," then so are haywire blasters, which are only marginally worse against MEQ.

They are NOT good against everything, they are mediocre against everything except vehicles. Against a carnifex it takes 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/12, 4 wounds, 48 SHOTS BY A HAR TO KILL ONE

 Melissia wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
A lot of armies have loads of 4+. Including the dreaded Necron Warriors and all of the feared Skitarii

Irrelevant, as we're talking about 3+ saves, and I raised the point that if more armies that were 3+ had their saves lowered to 4+, AP4 weapons-- which are quite abundant-- would become a lot more used. So tell me. Would you not be more willing to appreciate the firepower of heavy bolters if marines couldn't take their armor saves against them?

Turn it around. Would Windriders still be amazeballs if they only had a 4+ save? The answer is yes.

Windriders would still be amazing but not nearly as durable at 4+ because much more weaponry would force jink. Hell even the pathetic GKs would hard counter a full windrider force. The fact that they would still be no brainer good is just a testament to how fukt up they are currently in terms of balance.

It always warms my heart when I see these marine saves are crap topics. Coming from many many chapters of marines to multiple xenos armies over the years its so apparent just what a crutch 3+ armour, ATSKNR and grenades are. Not to mention drop pods. Cost was really the equalizer but now thats mostly out the window along with breaking other rules like relentless in power armour or assault from reserves.
Fwiw though I lump eldar and crons into the same category since they are basically marines +1.

 Melissia wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better.

Really? I mean, I know sisters can take a lot of Heavy Flamers but I can't think of many instances where I see AP4..

Not JUST heavy flamer,s but also heavy bolters. If more enemies were 4+ saves, I'd take a ton more heavy bolters, and take my enemies out at long range before having to worry about flamers to begin with. As it is they're not that useful because too many 3+ saves, so no one really thinks about them (heavy flamers are used more often because flamer template and ignores cover saves). But drop a lot of 3+ units to 4+ and suddenly heavy bolters rip them new arseholes regularly, and become far, FAR more worth it.

And that's just the ones Sisters have. My IG can have even more AP4 firepower.

So...2 options? 2 doesn't seem vast, imo.
Heavy bolters put more shots down field, true, but it seems the best option for the more competitive armies out there involve an extremely high ap and just use ROF and high str. I don't see as much low ap spam in the xenos armies...its really more of an imperial thing. I wonder if Grav didn't work against tanks, would you still see it taken as much?

Honestly I don't know if heavy bolters would be worth it even then. Eldar and Necrons have 4+ saves and are the strongest armies in the game, yet nobody takes heavy bolters (Granted, their best units don't use 4+ saves....). HBs need another strength or a special rule to be worth it. Part of this is that if you have a 4+ save and are in cover, you only drop to a 5+ at worst. That's a difference, sure, but not as big as 2+ to 5+ or 3+ to 5+.


Edit:
@Bharring, I'm not sure about my non-imperial armies, since they don't get played as much, but in my imperial armies AP4 is pretty limited. Maybe...3 or 4 weapons? Most of them on not great platforms either.

The real problem with the heavy bolter is that it doesn't melt vehicles like the scatterlaser. AP 4 certainly has its uses, but its not as valuable as glancing out AV 11/12 reliably.

"but not nearly as durable at 4+ because much more weaponry would force jink"

Maybe then they'd actually be remotely fair.

" ATSKNR and grenades are. Not to mention drop pods."

Of those, only drop pods really matter. The new paradigm for 7th ed power lists is to table.

A 3+ is definetly good, the problem for SMs is its welded to a above average body. Being above average is very points inefficient. Especially while a SM is carrying such a puny weapon. The humble bolter compared to top tier army weapons is such a fracking joke. Gaus, shuriken & pulse make a mockery of bolters.

Anywho....adding in to the mix Rend, fau-Rend, MC attacks & stomp from super heavy walkers & your looking at a enormous range of 1, 2, & 3+ ap weapons. All of these options and the many others are, point for point, way more efficient for an army than MEQ. Please remember that a scat bike or Iknight can be used to take on armor as well, while MEQ cant do much except thump guardsmen.

@Aki - what Xenos, out of curiosity?

When I field ally 4+ bodies, it frequently goes like this:

Opponent - Ok, take X armor saves
Me - isn't that AP4?
opponent - Really?
*someone looks it up*
Me - removes models from table (or takes cover/invuln)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some SM AP4 weapons:

-Assault Cannon
-Autocannon
-Heavy Bolter
-Heavy Flamer
-Krak Grenades
-Power Maul
-Force Staff

And that's just the reasonably common stuff.

None of those are common because they suck.

Well, that's because its 3+ that you need to crack usually, not 4+.

And what in this game is more ubiquitous than a Krak Grenade? It may suck, but it is common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To put it more clearly:
Those weapons excel at removing things that *aren't* t4 3+ or better. And so nobody cares about them. Because generally, without a 3+ or t4 or better, its not hard to remove anyways.

They certainly do a number on Fire Warriors or Dire Avengers, though.

...a unit can throw ONE Krak grenade. So a unit of 5 where each unit pays for Krak grenades actually doesn't get to use them. Don't try to play it off and it isn't like they get to use them in melee against infantry.

Assault cannons cannot be massed, except on two platforms that are not good. Razorbacks and Terminators.

Force Staff is melee and on a Librarian so that person is using it wrong.

Power Mauls are much more common than the above, but not as common as Power swords. Also melee again. I'm not sure where Power mauls would be standard on a unit except Grimauldus, Chaplains etc.

Heavy Flamers cannot be taken en masse. Actually I'm having a hard time thinking what can take them besides Sternguard and Devs. Why would you give up special ammunition though?

Heavy Bolter, this is as common as Devastators, which until recently was not at all. Even now though with Skyhammer they take Grav. Much more common as a sponson on a vehicle.

Autocannon, used to be the most common, was pretty good. It still IS a good ranged weapon. Solid all around is frequently twin-linked native. But nothing except goddamn Predators have it (This is also where Heavy Bolters can be found) and most armies don't build around armor anymore.

Bharring wrote:
@Aki - what Xenos, out of curiosity?

Necrons have warriors and flayed ones.
Eldar have Aspect warriors, most of them have a 4+
Tau have Fire warriors
Dark Eldar I think have a few? Our DE player stopped playing a while ago and has moved on.

Orks and Nids do not, they tend to have worst saves.

Note that, with all of these armies, none of these units are considered competitive for the most part (Fire warriors aren't bad, but their defense is the range of their guns). You also mention a few of them later, so I assume you're aware of them?

Bharring wrote:

When I field ally 4+ bodies, it frequently goes like this:
Opponent - Ok, take X armor saves
Me - isn't that AP4?
opponent - Really?
*someone looks it up*
Me - removes models from table (or takes cover/invuln)

Okay? Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that you have 4+ models and forget what weapons are Ap4? Or that the cover save is usually good enough that you don't mind losing the armor save?

Bharring wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some SM AP4 weapons:

-Assault Cannon
-Autocannon
-Heavy Bolter
-Heavy Flamer
-Krak Grenades
-Power Maul
-Force Staff

And that's just the reasonably common stuff.

I wouldn't call most of those reasonably common, but earlier 2 options were considered vast so it could very well be semantics.
Assault cannons aren't available on many platforms that want to take them, or that are useful at all.
I can possibly see the Autocannon being taken, but its more for the TL Str 7 shots against armor, rather then the AP.
Heavy bolters are never taken. They need a rule, more shots, or another strength. Something.
Heavy Flamer I see taken sometimes in BA or Sisters but not often in imperial armies.
Krak grenades are the only ones I would consider common (Common being, you may see 4 per army at 1500) and I don't see them used much except against tanks (where their AP doesn't matter much).
Power maul? Only if forced. Swords and Axes are taken more frequently, though I personally like the maul.
Force Staff can, I believe, only be taken by 1 HQ choice. Not really common.

None of this addresses the fact that marines lose 2 points of armor if attacked by the more commonly taken AP 1/2/3 weapons, and often cost 1.5-2x the cost of another solider.

Okay? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I feel you're being disingenuous here.

The point was, quite obviously, that most people-- his opponents, most notably-- play MEQ or better,and forget that AP4 is even relevant... as most of the time, it's not, because most armies are MEQ. So most marine players, yourself included, forget that 3+ saves are REALLY FETHING GOOD.

As someone who doesn't play marines, but DOES play both Guard and Sisters, I can confirm that 3+ saves make a HUGE difference in survivability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
Heavy Flamers cannot be taken en masse. Actually I'm having a hard time thinking what can take them besides Sternguard and Devs. Why would you give up special ammunition though?

Every single squad of Sisters probably has a heavy flamer unless they have two meltaguns. It's kind of how they're built.

 Quickjager wrote:
Heavy Bolter, this is as common as Devastators, which until recently was not at all. Even now though with Skyhammer they take Grav. Much more common as a sponson on a vehicle.

Imperial Guard takes a lot of them on their vehicles, and can take them on their infantry squads. If 3+ saves weren't so common, they'd actually be a lot more common to be taken.

 Quickjager wrote:
But nothing except goddamn Predators have it (This is also where Heavy Bolters can be found) and most armies don't build around armor anymore.

... Imperial Guard can take them, both in infantry squads and on sentinels. They're not bad light anti-tank, putting out a greater volume of fire than most other anti-tank weapons.

After saying that, I have to ask-- you realize that things other than Space Marines exist, right?

He said SM, not Sisters of Questionable Existence and Imperial Guard. Come on that was just 4 posts back, sorry you can't take the time to read.

 Quickjager wrote:
He said SM, not Sisters of Questionable Existence and Imperial Guard. Come on that was just 4 posts back, sorry you can't take the time to read.

I did read, but just because people like to try to alter the conversation and move the goalposts doesn't mean I have to give a damn.

Lol whatever, he said SM, I replied with the perspective of the SM armory. If you can't realize that then you really shouldn't be jumping into a argument you don't want to be part of.

 Melissia wrote:

Okay? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I feel you're being disingenuous here.

Rest assured that is not the case. You can call him out on asking what xenos have 4+ saves and then later mentioning such units, or referring to force staves of all weapons as common as being disingenuous, but nothing I said was anything of the sort.

 Melissia wrote:

The point was, quite obviously, that most people-- his opponents, most notably-- play MEQ or better,and forget that AP4 is even relevant... as most of the time, it's not, because most armies are MEQ. So most marine players, yourself included, forget that 3+ saves are REALLY FETHING GOOD.

What exactly is better then MEQ? TEQ? Because in actual game play, TEQ are terrible, by and large.
Caps lock, and your hostility, will not make you correct. 3+ saves are not good when the point cost is as high as it is for such. They are in a similar, but better, boat than the previously mentioned TEQ find themselves in.

 Melissia wrote:

As someone who doesn't play marines, but DOES play both Guard and Sisters, I can confirm that 3+ saves make a HUGE difference in survivability.

And I play nids and orks as well as marines. I find that my orks and nids can foot slog across the board and reach enemy lines against all but the most competitive lists (though I do make it across against Necron formations, it just doesn't help much), but my marines do not. They just don't have the numbers. There is a reason that, for a long time, spamming ork boyz has been viable but spamming foot marines has not. Not since 5th anyway.
Again, caps lock doesn't make you right.
Also, you are appealing to authority here. Other posters have mentioned how much higher marines are costed, how they benefit little from cover when compared to other armies, and other points.
Your argument boils down to "I play 2 whole armies, none of which are marines".

 Melissia wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
Heavy Flamers cannot be taken en masse. Actually I'm having a hard time thinking what can take them besides Sternguard and Devs. Why would you give up special ammunition though?

Every single squad of Sisters probably has a heavy flamer unless they have two meltaguns. It's kind of how they're built.

Right, how does this effect 3+ saves? Sisters would do more damage against marines if they had a 4+ save, sure, but are they taking 2 meltas to shoot 3+ saves currently?
No one plays sisters locally...no one has in years actually. This is an honest question, but a melta against a marine seems like a bad buy.

 Melissia wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Heavy Bolter, this is as common as Devastators, which until recently was not at all. Even now though with Skyhammer they take Grav. Much more common as a sponson on a vehicle.

Imperial Guard takes a lot of them on their vehicles, and can take them on their infantry squads. If 3+ saves weren't so common, they'd actually be a lot more common to be taken.

Would they? You'd move from a 4+ save to a 4/5+ cover save. That's not a big leap in defense.

 Melissia wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
But nothing except goddamn Predators have it (This is also where Heavy Bolters can be found) and most armies don't build around armor anymore.

... Imperial Guard can take them, both in infantry squads and on sentinels. They're not bad light anti-tank, putting out a greater volume of fire than most other anti-tank weapons.
They are awful anti-tank weapons. 36" range and a low strength. You really want to be str 6/7 to pop medium tanks. IG tanks aren't fast enough to get the side or rear armor shots either.

It depends on how you are using the word most. My most common opponent is Eldar, and let me assure you, the HB seems god awful next to the scatter laser.

 Melissia wrote:

After saying that, I have to ask-- you realize that things other than Space Marines exist, right?

The conversation clearly moved to marines. Now who's being disingenuous?

I feel that for the vanilla SM codex CTs usually makes up for any lack of cost per ppm.

Consider Ravenguard. Tactical squads ( or assault squads as they would want) get a pretty good chance of a 3+ cover save.

Imperial Fists and Ultramarines get a pretty good damage boost from rerolls. Salamanders get a damage boost to flamers and meltas too.

Iron hands gets stacking FNP and IWND.

The garbage SM units are really the GK, and BA ones IMO.

 Melissia wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better.

Really? I mean, I know sisters can take a lot of Heavy Flamers but I can't think of many instances where I see AP4..

Not JUST heavy flamer,s but also heavy bolters. If more enemies were 4+ saves, I'd take a ton more heavy bolters, and take my enemies out at long range before having to worry about flamers to begin with. As it is they're not that useful because too many 3+ saves, so no one really thinks about them (heavy flamers are used more often because flamer template and ignores cover saves). But drop a lot of 3+ units to 4+ and suddenly heavy bolters rip them new arseholes regularly, and become far, FAR more worth it.

And that's just the ones Sisters have. My IG can have even more AP4 firepower.

And THEN you realize how EASY it is to get a cover save. That's another issue with the 3+ save: you can pay less and just stick to cover. You're paying through the nose for that 3+, and that's easy to get to fail with weight of fire. You'd think the 5+ and 4+ would be the same way until you play with decent terrain.

Cover should never have been a save. It just nerfs the models that pay for saves in the first place.

Why is my guys in 3+ not benefiting from my Aegis? Why is he as survivable as a Ork now? I can tell you that Ork isn't crouching behind the wall, he is standing on top of it yelling WAAAAAAGGGGHH! I can tell you the SM is standing behind it with his bolter ready.

Cover should always have been a "save" like FNP. All of a sudden Marines (every infantry model really) become better and encourages terrain to be more prevalent. Flamers become more useful and have an actual tradeoff with Plasma and Grav.

I'd be cool with that, but you'd still have to make jinking ' either or' for armor or bikes get better again which is not necessary.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I'd be cool with that, but you'd still have to make jinking ' either or' for armor or bikes get better again which is not necessary.

Bikers already lose a lot of firepower unless they're Ravenwing.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I don't understand how the 3+ 4++ of the 1K sons is not relevant here? Anything that is AP3 or lower, I get to take a 50% save against.....How is that not winning. lol

because they are expensive models and they don't put out much dakka in return for their great invul save.

They are expensive at 23 pts. per model, but in terms of dakka, anything not in terminator armor is killed with no armor save allowed thanks to my inferno bolt ammo. Pair that with a 3+ 4++ and I'd say they are worth the points.

 sub-zero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I don't understand how the 3+ 4++ of the 1K sons is not relevant here? Anything that is AP3 or lower, I get to take a 50% save against.....How is that not winning. lol

because they are expensive models and they don't put out much dakka in return for their great invul save.

They are expensive at 23 pts. per model, but in terms of dakka, anything not in terminator armor is killed with no armor save allowed thanks to my inferno bolt ammo. Pair that with a 3+ 4++ and I'd say they are worth the points.

No, they're not. Not even close.

 sub-zero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I don't understand how the 3+ 4++ of the 1K sons is not relevant here? Anything that is AP3 or lower, I get to take a 50% save against.....How is that not winning. lol

because they are expensive models and they don't put out much dakka in return for their great invul save.

They are expensive at 23 pts. per model, but in terms of dakka, anything not in terminator armor is killed with no armor save allowed thanks to my inferno bolt ammo. Pair that with a 3+ 4++ and I'd say they are worth the points.

They have basically a 50 pt crappy aspiring sorcerer tax and their ap3 is only decent when they are in rapid fire range and their target isn't getting a cover save

Tacticals are 14p (T4, Sv3+) and scouts are 11p (T4, Sv4+). Which one is better and is more common?

Chaos have Plague marines, 24p each. They are excellent unit (sv3+ but T5 and FNP), five can take two special weapons. PM are what elites should be.

 sub-zero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I don't understand how the 3+ 4++ of the 1K sons is not relevant here? Anything that is AP3 or lower, I get to take a 50% save against.....How is that not winning. lol

because they are expensive models and they don't put out much dakka in return for their great invul save.

They are expensive at 23 pts. per model, but in terms of dakka, anything not in terminator armor is killed with no armor save allowed thanks to my inferno bolt ammo. Pair that with a 3+ 4++ and I'd say they are worth the points.

AND once again I must repeat myself on how easily you can acquire a cover save. They might as well be firing Bolters for most intents and purposes. A Chaos Space Marine squad with 2 Plasma Guns will more easily kill Marines for the cost of 6 Rubrics. Outside of cover, at max range, x5 Rubrics and their Sorcerer (who doesn't even have a frickin Bolt Gun) kill about 1.6 Marines. At max range, x9 Vanilla Marines, and their Champion + 2 Plasma Guns, kill exactly 2 Marines.
When we get into 12" and under, x5 Rubrics and their Sorcerer will kill 3.6 Marines. That's a significant improvement. However, the same Vanilla loadout I gave earlier at the same range kills exactly 4.

That's not even taking into account TEQ (.3 compared to 1.5 at max range), GEQ (2.2 compared to 4.6 at max range), or Fire Warriors (2.2 compared to 2.9 at max range).

So spreading nonsense about Rubrics being "worth the points" is literally ignorant of numbers. None of these numbers took into account cover either, which could easily cut losses in half. The thing they should be GOOD against fails to a Vanilla squad. We could throw in Psychic Powers, though we don't know what we'll get, or Warp Charges, where 10 more points gets you a new CAD with a Sorcerer and 2 Cultist squads, but that's an entirely different topic.

My cheapass Rhino also completely foils your 23 pt losers. That's more expensive than sternguard!

Sternguard are 22 ppm, and get special ammo and 2 attacks each. Despite the lack of an Invuln, they are outright better than TSons.

Off the top of my head, 4+ armour saves are sported by

Necron Warriors, Flayed Ones
All Skitarii
Mechanicus Destroyers
Tomb Blades w/o Shieldvanes
All Imperials in carapace (SM scouts, carapace veterans, Bullgryns, Scions)
Fire Warriors
Tau Drones of all sorts
Tyranid Warriors, Pyrovores, Biovores
'Ard Boyz
Scourges
Harpies and Hive Crones
Banshees, Dire Avengers, Swooping Hawks

Is that right?

@Alec,
My question was really more idle curiosity about what armies you played, I am very familiar with a lot of 4+ save units. Many of my favorite weapons (Assault Cannons, Heavy Flamers, Grenade Packs, Ion Rifles) are AP4

To clarify other points:
I had limited that list to SM. The intention was just to show what options the army most discussed under this topic has.

Their relative lack of attraction comes from why they aren't "good". I was arguing that they weren't "good" in large part due to only handling weaker saves.

And my point in that anecdote was, as suggested, pointing out that AP4 and worse is AP "Doesn't Matter" to most people. Because, typically, it doesn't.

To rehash the core of what I was saying:
Look at the Baleflamer. Look at the Heavy Flamer. Baleflamers on moderately-expensive Helldrakes are scary as feth. Heavy Flamers on cheapo Land Speeders are meh.

The Baleflamer is a Torrent, and the Helldrake is more survivable and mobile, but the cost difference is huge.

Their killiness, though, only varies as you move from T3 4+ to T4 3+. So, if that weren't a substantial jump, wouldn't the Heavy Flamer on the spammable Land Speeder be much, much better than the comparably expensive Baleflamer? Other differences exist, but not enough for that points difference.

Similarly with most of the other weapons there.
Why throw a Krak when you dont care much about one more 4+ guy? (Also, most of the time if you can throw a Krak, you can assault. And most targets lose to Marines. Heck, for DAvengers, don't you only need 3-4 Marines to make it in to kill 10 equally-expensive DAs? Less if you're BA, or assaulting Tau?)

Why take a Heavy Bolter that kills on 2s with no save, when you don't care about 2-3 more dead 4+ wearers?

Why take a Heavy Flamer when most things you care about still get their 3+ armor?

(Assault Cannon is different. Equal to or better than both the Lascannon * and * Scatter Laser against all targets in 24" range, but its platforms generally suck)

So I'm saying that these weapons would be good if 3+ (and T4) weren't so much better than 4+ (and t3).

maybe we should play AP as an armor modifier? Or perhaps anyone who thinks 3+ is an awful save should consider other things that contribute to the survivability of the model? 'Oh I want Iridium Armor to become standard equipment so that my suits gain a 2+ save and T5.' Actually, no I don't. My suits are plenty survivable already with an engagement range of 36" and JSJ.

And access to FNP, whether from Stim Injectors or Ethereal support.
And access to Stealth & Shrouded from Shadowsun.
And larger threats than themselves like Riptides.

Give power armour a 5+ FnP, give Plague Marines 3+ FnP

 Selym wrote:
Give power armour a 5+ FnP, give Plague Marines 3+ FnP

What? No!
the point was that you can build your lists one of two ways. you can take nothing but Power Armored Space Marines, which while it doesn't make the individual model any more durable, it will make your opponent want to tear his\her hair out (unless (s)he's bald). Or you can field other threats on the field, which will make the targeting of your PASM an actual choice, 'Do I target the squishy PASMs or do I target the thing that will wreck my force (IK, Vindicator, Terminators, Centurions, etc). You seem to think that we should make them more durable by themselves, I say that if you want them more durable, bring some support to the table.

Unless you want FNP to be intrinsic to an armor save, (ex: 2+ gets 4+FNP, 3+ gets 5+FNP, 4+ gets 6+FNP,) in which case that is something that I could get behind.

Bharring wrote:
@Alec,
My question was really more idle curiosity about what armies you played, I am very familiar with a lot of 4+ save units. Many of my favorite weapons (Assault Cannons, Heavy Flamers, Grenade Packs, Ion Rifles) are AP4

Favorites aside (personally my favorite weapons are the nid weapons. So fluffy!) none of the AP 4 weapons outside of heavy bolters/flamers are even available to most armies in amounts that can be considered "common".

Bharring wrote:

To clarify other points:
I had limited that list to SM. The intention was just to show what options the army most discussed under this topic has.

Their relative lack of attraction comes from why they aren't "good". I was arguing that they weren't "good" in large part due to only handling weaker saves.

Fair point. I think the reason they aren't good is that as your save gets weaker, cover becomes more attractive. Guard lose no armor moving into cover, orks actually gain armor. 4+ saves lose a point, marines lose 2...cover is actually more attractive the weaker your save, meaning weapons that ignore the lower saves but don't ignore cover are useless.
After all, if my stormbolters are AP 5 and you are in 5+ cover, does it really matter where your save comes from?

Bharring wrote:

And my point in that anecdote was, as suggested, pointing out that AP4 and worse is AP "Doesn't Matter" to most people. Because, typically, it doesn't.

Is this because AP4 weapons are not widely taken/available to most armies, or because 4+ saves are not common? Or both?

Bharring wrote:

To rehash the core of what I was saying:
Look at the Baleflamer. Look at the Heavy Flamer. Baleflamers on moderately-expensive Helldrakes are scary as feth. Heavy Flamers on cheapo Land Speeders are meh.

The Baleflamer is a Torrent, and the Helldrake is more survivable and mobile, but the cost difference is huge.

Their killiness, though, only varies as you move from T3 4+ to T4 3+. So, if that weren't a substantial jump, wouldn't the Heavy Flamer on the spammable Land Speeder be much, much better than the comparably expensive Baleflamer? Other differences exist, but not enough for that points difference.

Heldrakes haven't been good since the nerf. They are still okay, mainly because they are in the incredibly bad CSM dex, but meta wise they aren't a strong unit anymore.
What made them powerful was that you could drop strong flamer templates where you wanted turn after turn and be on an immensely difficult to kill flyer base. If land speeders were flyers, I'd take them over heldrakes.
Keep in mind that Chaos has a weapon that is an AP 3 flamer as well, and that was not taken as commonly as the heldrake. It was still seen, but not as much as the black mace or other kits available to lords. This suggests that while AP 3 flamers are good, it was the immense toughness and ability to pick any target on the board that made the drake so good.

Bharring wrote:

Similarly with most of the other weapons there.
Why throw a Krak when you dont care much about one more 4+ guy? (Also, most of the time if you can throw a Krak, you can assault. And most targets lose to Marines. Heck, for DAvengers, don't you only need 3-4 Marines to make it in to kill 10 equally-expensive DAs? Less if you're BA, or assaulting Tau?)

Well 4 marines get what, 3 attacks on the charge? Only 6 will hit, so no, I don't think 4 marines kill 10 avengers.
You don't throw a krak because of the short range, only getting one shot for each marine, and most times you are better off charging (if only so you don't get charged). If the enemy is going to get a cover save, kraks are useless.

Bharring wrote:

Why take a Heavy Bolter that kills on 2s with no save, when you don't care about 2-3 more dead 4+ wearers?

Heavy bolters only kill on 2's against T3 troops. You'd most likely still get a cover save, so a heavy bolter might as well read "possibly -1 save". Not to mention the 36" range on what is usually immobile platforms. When the platform can move and shoot, you do see HBs taken.
I would care about killing 2-3 more Avengers/Tau if that was remotely close to, on average, what a heavy bolter does.
In reality its 3 shots, 2 hit (assuming marines) ~1.7 wounds, ~1.1 after cover saves. Do I care about killing 1 guy in a horde army? No.

Bharring wrote:

Why take a Heavy Flamer when most things you care about still get their 3+ armor?

Heavy flamers are still taken by some armies. Most armies just don't have access to heavy flamers on platforms that can make good use of them. This is a shooty edition, and a short ranged weapon on a platform that can't move fast is garbage.

Bharring wrote:

(Assault Cannon is different. Equal to or better than both the Lascannon * and * Scatter Laser against all targets in 24" range, but its platforms generally suck)

Agreed. If assault cannon were available to marines or scouts, you'd see it taken more often.

Bharring wrote:

So I'm saying that these weapons would be good if 3+ (and T4) weren't so much better than 4+ (and t3).

And we are saying that there are many reasons these weapons aren't taken.
Compare any of those weapons to a scatter laser. More shots, higher strength (so the T4 doesn't matter much), lower AP. Still seen as the most powerful weapon in the game currently (well, them and D-weapons).

 carldooley wrote:

Unless you want FNP to be intrinsic to an armor save, (ex: 2+ gets 4+FNP, 3+ gets 5+FNP, 4+ gets 6+FNP,) in which case that is something that I could get behind.

That's a better idea than the one I was having. But then you'll need to rethink the PM's schtick, and rework the guys who already have FnP.

Inability to stack saves definitely diminishes the value of higher AP values.

(I had meant beat 10 DAs, not kill. 3 Marines vs 10 DAs? 10x1/2x1/3x1/3 is about half a dead Marine, then 2.5x2x1/2x2/3x/1/2 kills about 1 DA, so you only need 3 Marines to make it into CC to beat 10 DAs - certainly won't kill them in one round unless they sweep, which is probably something like 12% on the first round.)

I think AP4 being AP "Doesn't Matter" not because either people don't take a lot of 4+ or because people don't take a lot of AP4, but because they don't generally factor it in, because targets with a 4+ don't take noticeably more AP- shots to kill than AP4- shots, whereas AP3 can take up to 3 times as many shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Krak Grenades outperform Bolt Pistols on all targets, and Boltguns on some.

You can charge after throwing a grenade.

Its not a major weapon, but it has its uses. More so on vehicles than on 4+ save models, though.

Akiasura wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Bharring wrote:

(Assault Cannon is different. Equal to or better than both the Lascannon * and * Scatter Laser against all targets in 24" range, but its platforms generally suck)

Agreed. If assault cannon were available to marines or scouts, you'd see it taken more often.

That USED to be true, when Psycannons (which are, for all intents and purposes, assault cannons with +1S) had an Assault profile and a Heavy profile. Now that they are salvo, they're never taken on Power Armor bodies. I assume that an exclusively Heavy profile would make them even less desirable on marines and scouts.

The problem with SL is you can pay 27ppm for them on relentless jetbikes.

If you could pay 27ppm for Heavy Bolters on jetbikes, I'm sure you would.

ScatterBikes are broken.

That said, when you pay over 100 pts for an AV12 transport with just a Scatter Laser and a sidearm, its not so scary. Better than an individual Heavy Bolter, certainly. But not so points efficient at drowning MEQs.

Look at it this way:
For Eliteish units:
SLs kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(1/3) = 20/27 Marines/round, or 280/27 (just over 10 pts)
SLs kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(1/2) = 20/18 DAs/round, or 260/18. Over 14 pts/round.

For Hordes:
SLs kill same numbers of Necron Warriors as Marines, for just under 10pts of them/round. Not a big differnece. But that's playing to Necron strengths, so should be better.
SLs kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) Guardsmen. 40/27. Guardsmen only lose about 7.5 points. Doing what Guardsmen do best. Dying.
SLs kill Guardians at the same rate, but at 9ppm. That's 13 points lots a round. Kalabites too (even with FnP, same numbers).
SLs kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(1) T-shirt save Orks (6ppm?). That's 40/18. That's 13.3 points?

So yes, Scatter Laser bikes drown Marines in wounds. Marines lose. That's not because the 3+ is bad. Its because Scatter Bikes are absurdly good.

Marines do better at receiving SL fire than other elite infantry - see the Dire Avengers listed above. Even against elite-ish GEQs (Guardians, Kalabited), Marines do much better.

Comparing them to hordes of course changes things.

Marines are marginally more efficient per point at soaking the firepower than Necron Warriors. Where Necron Warriors are designed to take firepower even more than SMs. So the Silver Horde comes out ahead.

And Guardsmen. SM players just love Guardsmen. The unit best designed to shrug at the losses from stuff like Scatter Lasers actually does outperform Marines in this regard. Congrats, Guardsmen are better Guardsmen than marines! Surprising, isn't it? They take about 25% fewer losses pointswise! Which is good. Why should SM be better per point at what Guardsmen are designed to do?

Finally, we come to your standard Ork. Losing 40% more than Marines, per point, does not mean they soak fire *better*.

It may feel like the 3+ fails too much when Scatter Lasers flood the table. Guardsmen may even be better at soaking their firepower. But compared to almost all other troops, that 3+ does work. If SL shoot Marines off the table with their 3+, most every other troop in the game without a 3+ gets shot off faster and harder, even per point.

"ScatterBikes are broken. "

But legal. So that doesn't help us much.

Marines haves too many units that don't have enough offense. That's the real sin here, not the 3+ save. It makes the 3+ save look bad because you must endure a large fraction of enemy firepower turn after turn because you can't take them off the board. It forces marines to use the drop pod as a crutch. I guess there's the Gladius now for free transports.

"If you could pay 27ppm for Heavy Bolters on jetbikes, I'm sure you would. "

Actually, I might not. That's how bad the gap is between the heavy bolter and scatterbike. That one less str makes it FAR less versatile.

"Its because Scatter Bikes are absurdly good. "

Arguably making 3+ armor bad now. Everything is relative. I've faced scatterbikes the last 3 out of 5 games. People use what works. Scatterbikes are the new standard for success.

Bharring wrote:
Inability to stack saves definitely diminishes the value of higher AP values.

Agreed. Having played Necromunda and Mordenheim, having a modifier makes armor nice but not important. Cover being penalties to hit is excellent as well. I wish 40k played like this, since it would open up the game a lot more. WMH uses this system and it makes the game a lot more tactical.

Bharring wrote:

(I had meant beat 10 DAs, not kill. 3 Marines vs 10 DAs? 10x1/2x1/3x1/3 is about half a dead Marine, then 2.5x2x1/2x2/3x/1/2 kills about 1 DA, so you only need 3 Marines to make it into CC to beat 10 DAs - certainly won't kill them in one round unless they sweep, which is probably something like 12% on the first round.)

Right, fair enough. Kill seemed odd. I would imagine, from experience, it takes about 4 rounds of combat for marines to sweep DA unless they are one of the more combat heavy chapters.
Honestly considering fleet I don't see how marines charge DA's. Then again, I don't see many DAs at all on the table considering scatbikers, so I can't say I'm experienced with them.

Bharring wrote:

I think AP4 being AP "Doesn't Matter" not because either people don't take a lot of 4+ or because people don't take a lot of AP4, but because they don't generally factor it in, because targets with a 4+ don't take noticeably more AP- shots to kill than AP4- shots, whereas AP3 can take up to 3 times as many shots.

Well, people with 4+ take 2x as many shots if they get their save. Granted, 3+ saves mean a 50% increase in saves made when compared to a 4+, but 2x seems to me to be noticeably more.

Bharring wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Krak Grenades outperform Bolt Pistols on all targets, and Boltguns on some.

You can charge after throwing a grenade.

Its not a major weapon, but it has its uses. More so on vehicles than on 4+ save models, though.

You don't often fire before charging because of the random charge distances. You may kill enough models that you are no longer in charge range.
What targets do they out perform bolters against? I would think against most targets 2 shots is better than 1. Though we both know no one takes marines for their terrible bolters.

 sub-zero wrote:


They are expensive at 23 pts. per model, but in terms of dakka, anything not in terminator armor is killed with no armor save allowed thanks to my inferno bolt ammo. Pair that with a 3+ 4++ and I'd say they are worth the points.

Thousand Sons seem good against AP3 and better. But they're paying for that 4+ invulnerable save and against massed AP4+ shooting the die just as easily as a 14pt tactical marine.

My Fire Warriors don't care about the 4+ as they never have to get through it. I just make you roll enough 3+ saves that you fail them.

In the current meta of ranged firepower more cheaper bodies is better than an invulnerable save which won't be used.

Unless you go the Plague Marine route or high toughness and feel no pain. Feel No Pain is superior to an invulnerable save because it is less situational, you get to take it alongside any other save unless it is against instant death. If the opponent is throwing massed fire against you then you have your 3+ armour save then your 5+ FNP. If they're throwing AP3- then you get 5+ FNP etc.

 carldooley wrote:
Or perhaps anyone who thinks 3+ is an awful save should consider other things that contribute to the survivability of the model? 'Oh I want Iridium Armor to become standard equipment so that my suits gain a 2+ save and T5.' Actually, no I don't. My suits are plenty survivable already with an engagement range of 36" and JSJ.

I think I'm in partial agreement. I certainly don't think that we should be just giving more units invulnerable saves, FNP etc. because their armour saves aren't working (like all the people who want terminators to be T5, 2 wounds and immune to small-arms fire). This kind of one-upmanship is the whole reason the game is such a mess.

Instead, we should really be looking to tone down a lot of weapons, and also the game in general. For example, D-weapons and Apocalypse Templates should not exist within the standard game. Put them back in apocalypse and leave them there. Same goes for Super Heavies, Gargantuan creatures and the like.

I'd probably use plasma as a jumping-off point. Plasma weapons are S7 AP2, and pay for that with a drawback that can damage or kill the user. So, if a weapon is going to be the same strength (or stronger) as plasma, then you'd expect an appropriate drawback or cost. Obviously there's some leeway, but when some armies are suffering a drawback for S7 AP2, at the same time another is suffering no drawback for S10 AP2 D-weapons, something is seriously wrong. The game could also do with a massive reduction in Ignores Cover. Flamers aside, most weapons with this rule should really be reducing cover - not ignoring it outright.

At the same time, many defences in this game need to be toned down as well. No saves - especially invulnerable or cover saves - need to be rerollable. Nor do we need this stacking cover save and jink nonsense, which often has units getting 3+ or 2+ over saves whenever they want them. Also, a 3++ should be incredibly rare - not a standard upgrade. Same goes for Eternal Warrior and, to a lesser degree, FNP. Finally, fire whoever wrote the rules for Invisibility and burn all his work (it's the only way to be sure ).

Alk -
(For academic purposes) - Krak Grenades will outperform Boltguns on the following:
-Anything with a 4+
-t3 multi-wound models (kill aspect warriors/guardians/fire warriors with boltgun rounds, then throw a krak when the Exarch/Farseer/Etherial is the closest one left - odds are you aren't killing it, but its a big deal if you do!)
-Anything T5+ it either ties or outperforms
-Any AV10-12, especially if open topped

So it happens. Not sure its even half the time, but it can make a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vipid - I very, very much agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Aki - both Termies and Tacs suffer a lot from not stacking saves. On the other hand, how much fun would trying to kill shrouded TH/SS Termies behind an Ageis be?

I'd think stacking saves implemented with armor save modifiers would make a lot of things more interesting, but those threads in Proposed Rules, while fun, never go anywhere.

Bharring wrote:
Alk -
(For academic purposes) - Krak Grenades will outperform Boltguns on the following:
-Anything with a 4+

So with boltguns its going to be 20 shots, 2/3 hit, 2/3 wounds (T3), 4+ save is ~4.5 wounds. Against T4 its 3.3, so grenades are slightly ahead here.
Grenades are 10 shots, 2/3 hit, 5/6 wound, 5+ cover (I believe you get cover from grenades, I could be wrong) for 3.6 wounds. T4 or 3 doesn't matter.
So anything was wrong, unless grenades ignore cover (which makes them way better).

Bharring wrote:

-t3 multi-wound models (kill aspect warriors/guardians/fire warriors with boltgun rounds, then throw a krak when the Exarch/Farseer/Etherial is the closest one left - odds are you aren't killing it, but its a big deal if you do!)

Fair enough.

Bharring wrote:

-Anything T5+ it either ties or outperforms

10 grenades, 2/3 hit, 2/3 wounds, 3+ save (I don't know many units that have a T5+ that don't have a 3+ save) is 1.44 wounds. Without the 3+ and 5+ cover it becomes 2.87, which is good.
20 bolters is 1.44 against T5 and a 3+ save, so it ties. Against T6 its .726 for bolters and 1.089 for grenades, so they pull ahead here. Granted 10 guys putting 1 wound on something is...garbage.
Just to give you an idea, 2 plasma guns will be 1.452 against T5 and 1.15 against T6 (assuming 5+ cover). So the entire squad firing most likely does 2 wounds.

Bharring wrote:

-Any AV10-12, especially if open topped

No one denied its good against tanks, though you usually use grav, plasma, or melta for that.

Bharring wrote:

So it happens. Not sure its even half the time, but it can make a difference.

Well, its T6 units, so that is mainly MC and nurgle bikers. Not exactly common.
T4 4+ saves troops include...necrons? I think just necron warriors and flayed ones.
T3 multiwound is mainly HQs , so is by definition not common.
AV 10-12 sure, that's relatively common. Though usually you are using long range mid strength weapons for that, or podding meltas.

Calling it anywhere close to half the time feels like a huge exaggeration, imo.

Bharring wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vipid - I very, very much agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Aki - both Termies and Tacs suffer a lot from not stacking saves. On the other hand, how much fun would trying to kill shrouded TH/SS Termies behind an Ageis be?

Probably as much fun as any death star, which have become somewhat common in this game.
Then again, TH/SS termies behind an Aegis can't attack anything without leaving the Aegis so....kinda useless? The problem with marines is they don't have the offensive firepower to be scary. This is mainly due to the fact that the bolter is crap.
2 Plasma guns do as much work as 10 guys tossing grenades at their best targets. Against many targets, the special weapons equal the entire squad, sometimes surpassing it.

Bharring wrote:

I'd think stacking saves implemented with armor save modifiers would make a lot of things more interesting, but those threads in Proposed Rules, while fun, never go anywhere.

With one exception I'm aware of, involving the Druchii, GW does not make FAQs based on player suggestions. I'd be surprised if they went anywhere.

Akiasura wrote:

Bharring wrote:

I'd think stacking saves implemented with armor save modifiers would make a lot of things more interesting, but those threads in Proposed Rules, while fun, never go anywhere.

With one exception I'm aware of, involving the Druchii, GW does not make FAQs based on player suggestions. I'd be surprised if they went anywhere.

And that exception was a long time ago.

Aki - in most situations, if you're within 8", you have a good chance of having no cover.

If there is a secondary save (cover, invuln), that certainly changes things. I considered writing "with no secondary save" for the units with 4+s, but didn't feel the need.

Boltguns and Krak actually tie for T5 and T7, but for T6, 8, and 9, Krak again takes the lead. If you're relying on Krak to bring down a Wraithknight. You're in a world of trouble. But it can, if you're really desperate.

You can also only throw one Krak grenade per unit.

I think all the above is validly summarized as "and sometimes outperforms boltguns". It still outperforms the pistol where it can be used.

All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They are optional. Guardsmen don't have them.
Orks.
Dark Eldar.
Craftworlders.
Termies.

But then those aren't Tactical Marines. They aren't kitted to have an option for nearly anything, instead of beoling optimized for a specific role.

Martel732 wrote:
All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They're free, isn't that good enough?

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They're free, isn't that good enough?

Not if I could get a discount for NOT having them. I'd love to sell back the pistol, WS, S, and frag grenades as well. All pretty useless in 7th.

Martel732 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They're free, isn't that good enough?

Not if I could get a discount for NOT having them. I'd love to sell back the pistol, WS, S, and frag grenades as well. All pretty useless in 7th.

Have you considered Sisters of Battle?

Martel732 wrote:
Marines haves too many units that don't have enough offense. That's the real sin here, not the 3+ save. It makes the 3+ save look bad because you must endure a large fraction of enemy firepower turn after turn because you can't take them off the board. It forces marines to use the drop pod as a crutch. I guess there's the Gladius now for free transports.

This is spot-on.

On another note, a failing of 40k (and many other games) is the linear nature of weapon progression. With most weapons, a big weapon is always more effective than a smaller weapon regardless of the target. So other than for point values and unit restrictions, there are very few reasons to take bolters instead of meltaguns. There's no reason to take meltaguns instead of grav cannons. Et cetera (maybe not NO reason, but if the upgrade was free, everyone would take 5 grav canons per 5 models).

A better system would be if nearly all weapons had different effectiveness versus different grades of armor. So a tank's main gun should not be very effective at targeting infantry (it shouldn't even hit except by fluke), but should be very effective at targeting or destroying another tank. Infantry with a specialist weapons should be more points-efficient against armor, but less points-efficient against regular infantry. So taking 5 grav guns/melta guns/plasma guns/hand flamers should not be better than taking 5 bolters in 95% of scenarios. Air units should be highly vulnerable to antiair, with some highly effective against soft targets, others highly effective against armored targets, and some highly effective against air.

There should also be specialist infantry units that have a GOOD chance at taking down a really big unit at a disproportionately low cost, but with very poor means of defending itself.

Instead, mostly, we have "specialist = better, basic = cannon fodder", and that's just not a way any rational commander would outfit a squad The thing is, a tactical marine squad actually makes sense, the way it's imagined. It should revolve around a heavy weapons guy who can take out big targets, but where the regular marines with bolters can defend that fella. Instead, in this scenario, what we have is the heavy weapons guy can't really take out anything worth the value of the entire squad, and the rest of the squad sits around until something scarier comes and squashes them.

So what we end up doing is saying "screw the heavy weapons guy, have them pop out of a pod and focus on having them pod and focus on specialist damage".

If weapons were more specific as to what they were good against, we'd see a larger variety of battleforces.

Bharring wrote:
Aki - in most situations, if you're within 8", you have a good chance of having no cover.

....why? What does proximity of the unit have to do with anything involving cover?
If I position fire warriors in cover, they probably aren't leaving it unless they might get assaulted.

Could be true for units that want to assault you I suppose, but most of those units are so fast the grenades don't even come into the equation.

Bharring wrote:

If there is a secondary save (cover, invuln), that certainly changes things. I considered writing "with no secondary save" for the units with 4+s, but didn't feel the need.

When you have the "right" amount of cover, its rare for units not to get a cover save. If units don't get a save, then against 5+, bolters really take off. Rarely does this happen, ime.

Bharring wrote:

Boltguns and Krak actually tie for T5 and T7, but for T6, 8, and 9, Krak again takes the lead. If you're relying on Krak to bring down a Wraithknight. You're in a world of trouble. But it can, if you're really desperate.

True, Kraks are garbage. So why bring them up as a commonly seen weapon? Its true that marines are forced to take them, but outside of tanks, I rarely see them used.

Bharring wrote:

You can also only throw one Krak grenade per unit.

Wait, per model or per unit? I assumed a ten man unit each throwing the grenade, and 10 guys rapid firing bolters. This isn't realistic, true, but it makes the math easier to work with.
If its per unit I don't know why they were brought up at all, since they are then god awful.

Bharring wrote:

I think all the above is validly summarized as "and sometimes outperforms boltguns". It still outperforms the pistol where it can be used.

You could argue that sometimes should be shifted to rarely, but that wasn't the original point when you brought them up.
The point was that if 4+ saves were more common, you'd see AP4 weapons used. We explored grenades. It turns out that, compared to bolters, they still don't do great against 4+ save infantry. This is mainly due to cover.
So...yeah, most AP 4 weapons are crap outside of Heavy flamers and assault cannons. Autocannons are average but still decent. The rest are terrible on their own.

You could try Epic: Armageddon's shot types.

Each gun would have one of three to-wound values. When firing at infantry, your gun would have to use an Anti-Infantry value, when firing at a tank, it had to use the Anti-Tank value, and for fliers, an Anti-Aircraft value.

Most rifle-type weapons only had an AI value, and thus could only target infantry. Most heavier weapons either only had an AT value, or a fairly bad AI value, and only specific weapons had an AA value (which on occasion also had an AI or AT value, depending on the unit role).

This meant that you couldn't take your pure tank-hunting formation, and have it wipe out an infantry company with Lascannons. In fact, you'd get wiped out by the infantry, as they could engage in assaults, and fk you up with statistical advantages.

Implementing that system into 40k would make shooting much much easier and more balanced.

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They're free, isn't that good enough?

Not if I could get a discount for NOT having them. I'd love to sell back the pistol, WS, S, and frag grenades as well. All pretty useless in 7th.

Have you considered Sisters of Battle?

Was thinking the same thing

Krak grenades are meant to be used in assaults against vehicles and monstrous critters, not hurled at opposing infantry, which would be ridiculous.

Also, Martel, you may not realize this, and if you do you may not care, but you're coming across as a blowhard know-it-all and general jerk. TONE IT DOWN FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Quit discriminating against blood angels. It isn't their faul they have the black rage.

I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

Depends how you look at it, I guess.

For example, whilst I joked above that he should be playing SoB, there is an important point to be made regarding that.

Compared with SMs, SoB have -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, no ATSKNF and no Chapter Tactics. They also have no access to Grav, plasma, lascannons or missiles.
In return they get a 6++ and Acts of Faith.

So, what discount do SoB get over marines for trading away so much stuff? -1pt.

Now, granted, this isn't an ideal comparison, but it's about as close as we can get to his request (unless someone knows a better unit to juxtapose?).

The point I'm trying to make is that trading away marines' WS, strength, frag grenades etc. probably wont lead to the discount he seems to think it will. The reason for this is the exact same reason he's willing to trade them away - they're not worth much at the moment. Hell, I doubt frag grenades are even factored into their costs anymore (they were back in 5th, but after their significant price-drop in 6th, I highly doubt that this remained the case).

I almost never notice frag grenades anyway.
My group keeps forgetting that they do anything. Unless it's kill team. Then the marines are spamming those small blasts at me.

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

Depends how you look at it, I guess.

For example, whilst I joked above that he should be playing SoB, there is an important point to be made regarding that.

Compared with SMs, SoB have -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, no ATSKNF and no Chapter Tactics. They also have no access to Grav, plasma, lascannons or missiles.
In return they get a 6++ and Acts of Faith.

So, what discount do SoB get over marines for trading away so much stuff? -1pt.

Now, granted, this isn't an ideal comparison, but it's about as close as we can get to his request (unless someone knows a better unit to juxtapose?).

The point I'm trying to make is that trading away marines' WS, strength, frag grenades etc. probably wont lead to the discount he seems to think it will. The reason for this is the exact same reason he's willing to trade them away - they're not worth much at the moment. Hell, I doubt frag grenades are even factored into their costs anymore (they were back in 5th, but after their significant price-drop in 6th, I highly doubt that this remained the case).

I guess inq stormtroopers male a better comparison since they can be tooled out in all kinds of manners

 mathaius90 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

Depends how you look at it, I guess.

For example, whilst I joked above that he should be playing SoB, there is an important point to be made regarding that.

Compared with SMs, SoB have -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, no ATSKNF and no Chapter Tactics. They also have no access to Grav, plasma, lascannons or missiles.
In return they get a 6++ and Acts of Faith.

So, what discount do SoB get over marines for trading away so much stuff? -1pt.

Now, granted, this isn't an ideal comparison, but it's about as close as we can get to his request (unless someone knows a better unit to juxtapose?).

The point I'm trying to make is that trading away marines' WS, strength, frag grenades etc. probably wont lead to the discount he seems to think it will. The reason for this is the exact same reason he's willing to trade them away - they're not worth much at the moment. Hell, I doubt frag grenades are even factored into their costs anymore (they were back in 5th, but after their significant price-drop in 6th, I highly doubt that this remained the case).

I guess inq stormtroopers male a better comparison since they can be tooled out in all kinds of manners

I think that you 2 are missing the point here. Space marines have had several updates and point drops over the years while SoB only had one update, to take away options from the Witch Hunters Codex with no corresponding drop in points. If Sisters did get a new codex, they would likely be updated (though getting a flyer with torrent weapons might be entertaining. . .) and would get a hefty point drop as well.

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

Depends how you look at it, I guess.

For example, whilst I joked above that he should be playing SoB, there is an important point to be made regarding that.

Compared with SMs, SoB have -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, no ATSKNF and no Chapter Tactics. They also have no access to Grav, plasma, lascannons or missiles.
In return they get a 6++ and Acts of Faith.

So, what discount do SoB get over marines for trading away so much stuff? -1pt.

Now, granted, this isn't an ideal comparison, but it's about as close as we can get to his request (unless someone knows a better unit to juxtapose?).

The point I'm trying to make is that trading away marines' WS, strength, frag grenades etc. probably wont lead to the discount he seems to think it will. The reason for this is the exact same reason he's willing to trade them away - they're not worth much at the moment. Hell, I doubt frag grenades are even factored into their costs anymore (they were back in 5th, but after their significant price-drop in 6th, I highly doubt that this remained the case).

I agree that we don't have a better unit to compare to, but SoB are so outdated that its hard not to see the flaws in such an endeavor.
It'd be like comparing Chaos Dwarves with Dwarves in Fantasy.

 mathaius90 wrote:

I guess inq stormtroopers male a better comparison since they can be tooled out in all kinds of manners

Their statlines are even further from SMs though.

 carldooley wrote:

I think that you 2 are missing the point here. Space marines have had several updates and point drops over the years while SoB only had one update, to take away options from the Witch Hunters Codex with no corresponding drop in points. If Sisters did get a new codex, they would likely be updated (though getting a flyer with torrent weapons might be entertaining. . .) and would get a hefty point drop as well.

SoB actually got 2 WD updates - one in 5th and then a second one in 6th (which was, IIRC, after the 6th edition SM book and its various price drops).

Regardless, that really wasn't the point I was making. There seemed to be an assumption that SMs are paying significant points for stuff like WS, S and frag grenades - and SM players would happily trade those for a good point reduction. What I was saying was that trading those three might not even net them a single point off the cost of a SM - precisely because they're the least valuable things to SMs, and unlikely to have much impact on their cost. It's entirely possible that SMs aren't even paying for them at all.

At the very least, it's something you have to consider - especially since there's no formula for calculating a unit's cost.

Akiasura wrote:

Wait, per model or per unit? I assumed a ten man unit each throwing the grenade, and 10 guys rapid firing bolters. This isn't realistic, true, but it makes the math easier to work with.
If its per unit I don't know why they were brought up at all, since they are then god awful.

Unit can throw one grenade, rest of them can shoot their weapons. But if I am correct, each model can make close combat attack with grenade instead normal attack. That is why they have kraks.

 Draco wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Wait, per model or per unit? I assumed a ten man unit each throwing the grenade, and 10 guys rapid firing bolters. This isn't realistic, true, but it makes the math easier to work with.
If its per unit I don't know why they were brought up at all, since they are then god awful.

Unit can throw one grenade, rest of them can shoot their weapons. But if I am correct, each model can make close combat attack with grenade instead normal attack. That is why they have kraks.

Incorrect, they may use Kraks only against Vehicles, Walkers, MC, and I suppose GC now. Kraks are effectively useless against other infantry.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Draco wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Wait, per model or per unit? I assumed a ten man unit each throwing the grenade, and 10 guys rapid firing bolters. This isn't realistic, true, but it makes the math easier to work with.
If its per unit I don't know why they were brought up at all, since they are then god awful.

Unit can throw one grenade, rest of them can shoot their weapons. But if I am correct, each model can make close combat attack with grenade instead normal attack. That is why they have kraks.

Incorrect, they may use Kraks only against Vehicles, Walkers, MC, and I suppose GC now. Kraks are effectively useless against other infantry.

Good to know.

In CC. The thrown one can hurt infantry as normal.

That said, Krak grenades are a distraction that won't die. Of was listed as one of several AP4 weapons.

(Although how could I forget TFCs, Whirlwinds, and Sternies?)

Back on topic:
So we're saying
-SLs kick ass because they kill 20/27ths of a MEQ.
-Heavy Bolters are absolute gak because they kill not much more than 1 T3 4+ or worse.
-t4 3+ isn't worth anything because they die just as fast as t3 4+.

Do you see where I have issues with that understanding?

Bharring wrote:

-t4 3+ isn't worth anything because they die just as fast as t3 4+.

If that were the case, why is there a numerical distinction between the two?

I am going to throw my 2 pence in now:

There is nothing wrong with Marines. You have T4 and a 3+ save. You are amazingly good. Your codex is one of the top three.

Stop whining and LEARN TO PLAY

Or even better: Get the Imperial Guard codex and play as these oh so overpowered Imperial Guard for a single week. You will be begging to get back to your T4 3+ save ATSKNF LD 9 GW buttmon-poster boys.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Stop whining and LEARN TO PLAY

Really? 'STFU and L2P'?

How helpful.

" You are amazingly good. Your codex is one of the top three. "

Let me give you the BA codex and see how much your T4 3+ save does for you.

Not all marines have skyhammer.

Not all marines have invis grav cents.

Not all marines have Tiggy.

Not all marines have the jerk that picks his powers.

Not all marines have decent chapter tactics.


I can take the IG codex and massacre mono BA. I guarantee it. T4 3+ isn't making the vanilla dex good. It's all the other crap. Like dozens and dozens of grav shots.

"-SLs kick ass because they kill 20/27ths of a MEQ. "

20/27 X 40 scatter lasers per Eldar army is a lot of dead marines every turn. 36" firepower that the marines have zero chance of returning at that range. Or a lot of dead vehicles that can't return meaningful fire at that range as well. You can't do that with heavy bolters.

"-Heavy Bolters are absolute gak "

You should have stopped there, but you refuse to see utter brokenness of the Eldar and how marines are reduced to a handful of trick to compete, and even not all chapters have those tricks.

Or rather he can see the brokenness of Eldar but doesn't see why marines are the worst off because of it.

SLs kills more T3 4+ bodies than they kill T4 3+ bodies.

And before you go "they kill more pts though", I'm sorry Tactical marines are generalists, but that's the way it is. You have to pay points to be able to have X or do Y. Why should marines get X or Y for free on their generalists while other, more specialist armies have to upgrade a specialist unit for a cost to make them generalists?

I play Orks and GK, I know what I am saying when I state...

Power Armor is too expensive.

Wounds are better than Armor saves, you can easily estimate how many losses you will take and not be inconvenienced by a bit of bad luck. It allows a player to approach the game from a more mathematical PoV.

Do I NEED a save against shooting? Go stand in cover w/ the objective.
Does the opponent not have good shooting? Start walking at him.

In a game like 40k Specialist always are better than Generalist. Points efficiency is the number one concern.

Cheap units (Grots) hold backfield objectives or screen high-value units (Lootas).
Specialist units (Tankbustas, Flamer Boyz) want fast vehicles so they can do their job before they are focused.
Expensive units ('Nauts) are to create an anchor for your army to move around.
Generalists units (Tacticals) act as none of the above, but rather you hope to mass enough of them to bring to bear enough force concentration to overwhelm a point.

The BEST Tactical Marines are Ultramarines in Gladius. Because they get free army points that hope to reach that force concentration.

However the best Power Armor unit (IMO) are the Siege Assault Vanguard Tactical Marines w/ Mantlets. 3+ rerollable armor save, the upgrade is for the whole squad for 50 points. This makes them more survivable than terminators. As a bonus they may take two special weapons per squad making them an actually good fighting unit. This unit can defend any point on the battlefield well against anything but AP3. A friend runs them as Raptors so when they are stationary their bolters become Rending, quite evil. A nice 220 points for a squad w/ 2 meltas.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Or rather he can see the brokenness of Eldar but doesn't see why marines are the worst off because of it.

SLs kills more T3 4+ bodies than they kill T4 3+ bodies.

And before you go "they kill more pts though", I'm sorry Tactical marines are generalists, but that's the way it is. You have to pay points to be able to have X or do Y. Why should marines get X or Y for free on their generalists while other, more specialist armies have to upgrade a specialist unit for a cost to make them generalists?

Paying points for upgrades that don't matter seems like a non-upgrade to me.

"SLs kills more T3 4+ bodies than they kill T4 3+ bodies"

That's great, except no one uses T3 4+ with Eldar except DA in WS.

Um... when did I say the SL were shooting Eldar?

Firewarriors are T3 4+
Scions are T3 4+
Carapace Guard Vets are T3 4+

Eldar aren't the only army with T3 4+ models.

SLs also kill more T4 4+ than T4 3+
SLs also kill more T3 5+ than T4 3+
SLs also kill more T3 6+ than T4 3+

So you'd rather cost 1 point less and lose that rule you call eternally useless; ATSKNF? You'd rather lose 1 of almost every stat for 1 point less and become SoB?

If you don't like playing a generalist army then play a specialist army instead and stop complaining your generalists pay for their rounded nature. At least a generalist is always useful to some degree, or would you rather rock up to a game with a specialist unit designed to wreck infantry only to find your opponent is playing a mechanised list, or is running a monstermash list?

Martel732 wrote:

"SLs kills more T3 4+ bodies than they kill T4 3+ bodies"

That's great, except no one uses T3 4+

-Scout Marines
-Carapace Veterans
-Tempestus

And it's proof that 3+ *does* mean something.

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

"SLs kills more T3 4+ bodies than they kill T4 3+ bodies"

That's great, except no one uses T3 4+

-Scout Marines
-Carapace Veterans
-Tempestus

And it's proof that 3+ *does* mean something.

It doesn't, because the cover save is that blasted easy to get.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

"SLs kills more T3 4+ bodies than they kill T4 3+ bodies"

That's great, except no one uses T3 4+

-Scout Marines
-Carapace Veterans
-Tempestus

And it's proof that 3+ *does* mean something.

It doesn't, because the cover save is that blasted easy to get.

Unless you don't have tons of money with which to fill a table.
Really, the most cover I've seen is in an apocalypse battle, where the center of the board had about 3 items per 2"x2". The normal amount I see is about less than half that.

And almost none of it is area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait. You're finding 3+ cover? Huh.

 Selym wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

"SLs kills more T3 4+ bodies than they kill T4 3+ bodies"

That's great, except no one uses T3 4+

-Scout Marines
-Carapace Veterans
-Tempestus

And it's proof that 3+ *does* mean something.

It doesn't, because the cover save is that blasted easy to get.

Unless you don't have tons of money with which to fill a table.
Really, the most cover I've seen is in an apocalypse battle, where the center of the board had about 3 items per 2"x2". The normal amount I see is about less than half that.

And almost none of it is area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait. You're finding 3+ cover? Huh.

You clearly miss the point, and probably on purpose.

The 3+ value is diminished because of how easily a 4+ save and higher unit can go to cover and not care about those weapons that would ignore their armor. The 3+ save ends up costing a lot. A Tactical Marine is about the same cost as 3 Guardsmen. When shooting at each other, the Guardsmen can benefit from cover, whereas the Marine will get no benefit. SURE Flamers exist, but that's an oddly specific situation, don't you think?
As a Space Marine, Chaos Space Marine, and Necron player, and one that played in a few tournaments and lives in a competitive environment, I can tell you the 3+ is HIGHLY overvalued in this forum. Along with grenades, though that's a different topic.

I think you're missing the point that a 3+ save is better than a 4+ or 5+ cover save, that T4 is better than T3, and that when the anti-tank weapons get pointed at you, you're still entitled to jump into that very same cover.

 Selym wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a 3+ save is better than a 4+ or 5+ cover save, that T4 is better than T3, and that when the anti-tank weapons get pointed at you, you're still entitled to jump into that very same cover.

Exactly. I think that half the whining that comes out of Marine players is down to the fact that they expect their troops to be 'da bestest because GW says so' and 'noone should be able to kill da marin' and certainly not 'puny gwardsman'. These are that players whom try to advance through the open, completely bypassing cover and taking it all on their armour and then get pissy when they start coming under AP3/AP2 fire.

As Melissa said at the beginning of this thread the T4 3+ save is actually incredibly good. However the problem is that around half the 40K players - maybe a bit more than that - play Space Marines. This means that most lists are geared up to fight these big nasty power armoured poster boys and this means a prevalence of AP3 and AP2 with a good liberal sprinkling of AP1. So naturally the player whom attempts to advance in the open dies a messy and bloody death as the enemy brings as much low AP weaponry to bare as is possible. And sadly it seems that an awful lot of players have forgotten that the vaunted poster boy Space Smurf is not immune to all gunfire, there are specialised AT weapons and even one or two specialised Heavy Infantry killers (plasma, Grav) that can kill them.
ALL Infantry need cover. Its simple basic bloody tactics but I so rarely see people with Space Marines optimising it.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Selym wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a 3+ save is better than a 4+ or 5+ cover save, that T4 is better than T3, and that when the anti-tank weapons get pointed at you, you're still entitled to jump into that very same cover.

Exactly. I think that half the whining that comes out of Marine players is down to the fact that they expect their troops to be 'da bestest because GW says so' and 'noone should be able to kill da marin' and certainly not 'puny gwardsman'. These are that players whom try to advance through the open, completely bypassing cover and taking it all on their armour and then get pissy when they start coming under AP3/AP2 fire.

As Melissa said at the beginning of this thread the T4 3+ save is actually incredibly good. However the problem is that around half the 40K players - maybe a bit more than that - play Space Marines. This means that most lists are geared up to fight these big nasty power armoured poster boys and this means a prevalence of AP3 and AP2 with a good liberal sprinkling of AP1. So naturally the player whom attempts to advance in the open dies a messy and bloody death as the enemy brings as much low AP weaponry to bare as is possible. And sadly it seems that an awful lot of players have forgotten that the vaunted poster boy Space Smurf is not immune to all gunfire, there are specialised AT weapons and even one or two specialised Heavy Infantry killers (plasma, Grav) that can kill them.
ALL Infantry need cover. Its simple basic bloody tactics but I so rarely see people with Space Marines optimising it.

The only thing I add to your post is that another way to bring down a marine in weight of fire, but who doesn't suffer it? It's a general problem.
I just mentally reviewed my last match (the 5th in my life) where I almost got tabled by a Ravenwing army, and I feel stupid because I was standing basically in the open with my bikers, forcing them to jink and lose firepower.

 mathaius90 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Selym wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a 3+ save is better than a 4+ or 5+ cover save, that T4 is better than T3, and that when the anti-tank weapons get pointed at you, you're still entitled to jump into that very same cover.

Exactly. I think that half the whining that comes out of Marine players is down to the fact that they expect their troops to be 'da bestest because GW says so' and 'noone should be able to kill da marin' and certainly not 'puny gwardsman'. These are that players whom try to advance through the open, completely bypassing cover and taking it all on their armour and then get pissy when they start coming under AP3/AP2 fire.

As Melissa said at the beginning of this thread the T4 3+ save is actually incredibly good. However the problem is that around half the 40K players - maybe a bit more than that - play Space Marines. This means that most lists are geared up to fight these big nasty power armoured poster boys and this means a prevalence of AP3 and AP2 with a good liberal sprinkling of AP1. So naturally the player whom attempts to advance in the open dies a messy and bloody death as the enemy brings as much low AP weaponry to bare as is possible. And sadly it seems that an awful lot of players have forgotten that the vaunted poster boy Space Smurf is not immune to all gunfire, there are specialised AT weapons and even one or two specialised Heavy Infantry killers (plasma, Grav) that can kill them.
ALL Infantry need cover. Its simple basic bloody tactics but I so rarely see people with Space Marines optimising it.

The only thing I add to your post is that another way to bring down a marine in weight of fire, but who doesn't suffer it? It's a general problem.
I just mentally reviewed my last match (the 5th in my life) where I almost got tabled by a Ravenwing army, and I feel stupid because I was standing basically in the open with my bikers, forcing them to jink and lose firepower.

Depends, weight of fire is... Neglible in some cases and killer in others. 50 Lasgun shots might kill one Marine. 50 Bolter shots will kill 4. 50 Pulse Rifle shots will murder around 6 or 7. And thats only at BS 3. If you increase the BS to 4 then the number of casualites increases too: Lasguns - still just 1. Bolters - 5 to 6. Pulse Rifles - Around 8.

Im glad to see I opened your eyes Cover is one of the most important aspects for all units but it is amazing how many people see some big flashy 3+/2+ save unit and forget this.

Well, that's a bit more marines for 50 lasguns shots
BS3 50*0.5=25
wound on 5s 25*0.33= 8.25
3+ armor 8.25*0.33= 2.7 unsaved wounds

But i see your point, weight of fire must also be cost efficient and actually effective

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

"SLs kills more T3 4+ bodies than they kill T4 3+ bodies"

That's great, except no one uses T3 4+

-Scout Marines
-Carapace Veterans
-Tempestus

And it's proof that 3+ *does* mean something.

...Yeah, if you think scouts are T3 4+, I can see how you could regard a 3+ as worthwhile.

"Cover is one of the most important aspects for all units but it is amazing how many people see some big flashy 3+/2+ save unit and forget this."

Cover means nothing against scatterlasers.

Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

I guess martel is saying that with a 3+/2+ you won't take the saves on the cover but on the armor.

Imo it would be cool if cover was an "in the way" test like lotrsbg. With a 4+ the shot goes though, otherwise it hits the cover

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am going to throw my 2 pence in now:

There is nothing wrong with Marines. You have T4 and a 3+ save. You are amazingly good. Your codex is one of the top three.

Stop whining and LEARN TO PLAY

While L2P isn't exactly helpful, at all, let's address your claim that the marine codex is one of the top 3.

While it is one of the top 3, how much of this is relevant to the standard power armor marine? It is the bikes, centurions, skyhammer, and HQ choices that makes the marine codex good. No competitive players are taking 4 squads of troops, like you see with Necrons, Tau, and Eldar.
Because the T4 3+ save, with the damage output, isn't worth it. You're better off taking other units, and it's been that way for 2 editions now.

I don't know why you hate marine players so much, but let's assume that they know what they are doing and actually come up with counter points instead of turning the caps lock over 9000, hm?

 master of ordinance wrote:

Or even better: Get the Imperial Guard codex and play as these oh so overpowered Imperial Guard for a single week. You will be begging to get back to your T4 3+ save ATSKNF LD 9 GW buttmon-poster boys.

I play Orks, Nids, Guard, Daemons...most armies. After my CSM, my Orks and nids are my most played factions.

So, arguably, I have more experience with weaker saves then you do. I am not begging to go back to my T4 3+ save in my CSM. In fact, in my CSM, I either take plague marines, min squads of cultists, or noise marines with blast masters. Only the noise marines have a T4 3+ save, and they just park in cover and send blast templates downfield, trying to avoid getting shot.
ATSKNF never comes up unless CC happens. Which it rarely does, and often I'd prefer wiping so I can shoot the enemy. Marines are bad against anything that wants to be charging them, and outside of formations, don't have an easy time charging if foot slogging.

Tacs are bad in that they aren't in the top 10% of the game.

But then so is 90% of the game.

So many units out there wish they were as good as Marines. Even if that doesn't mean being the best.

Bharring wrote:
Tacs are bad in that they aren't in the top 10% of the game.

But then so is 90% of the game.

So many units out there wish they were as good as Marines. Even if that doesn't mean being the best.

I really don't get people saying Tactical Marines are bad. They are pretty good at what they do, which is holding down a point while the more specialized units take care of their jobs. They can be kitted out to generally handle most threats, but they are obviously not meant to take on most units alone.

I guess people expect Tacs to be able to charge headlong into the enemy and survive?

I think they expect to hold their own against stuff like ScatterBikes, IKs, Skyhammers, and Grav Spam.

The bulk of the game can't. So when people look at the median, or even the third quartile, Tacs look great. But for those who want to plow people the way TFG FOTM players can with Eldar or the new SM stuff, but do so using Tacs, Tacs seem weak.

They don't care that Tacs outperform what you or I might field. They only care that Tacs can't outperform whatever is most broken this week, at its own game.

Bharring wrote:
I think they expect to hold their own against stuff like ScatterBikes, IKs, Skyhammers, and Grav Spam.

The bulk of the game can't. So when people look at the median, or even the third quartile, Tacs look great. But for those who want to plow people the way TFG FOTM players can with Eldar or the new SM stuff, but do so using Tacs, Tacs seem weak.

They don't care that Tacs outperform what you or I might field. They only care that Tacs can't outperform whatever is most broken this week, at its own game.

I think it depends on the meta one is in. Martel & Co. seems to have an over-the-top super competitive game, (which isn't necessarily a bad thing when everyone agrees to cheese together), while I seem to live in a more toned down/fluffy environment.

Coming from a very competitive MTG group I can understand both worlds, so in a competitive way tacticals are the worst thing in the world, while in the most "common" terms they perform quite good. My experience with tacticals isn't very vast, playing mostly bikes, but I'm looking to field a couple squads in pod/rhinos and maybe try my tactical termies. (competitive players, you may shiver for this last sentence )

I have to admit sometimes I feel bad for playing White Scars, but I know I like them and because of my background with mtg I like efficiency for my army too. I'm just trying not to go over the top too much.

I find tactical marines are *almost* a direct counter to everything my IG army can field. Infantry? Bolters and melee. Tanks? Get them sweet free Kraks in there, the LRBT's can't kill things fast enough.

 GangstaMuffin24 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Tacs are bad in that they aren't in the top 10% of the game.

But then so is 90% of the game.

So many units out there wish they were as good as Marines. Even if that doesn't mean being the best.

I really don't get people saying Tactical Marines are bad. They are pretty good at what they do, which is holding down a point while the more specialized units take care of their jobs. They can be kitted out to generally handle most threats, but they are obviously not meant to take on most units alone.

Which is why you see basic marines taken so often in Chaos, yes? Backfield objective holders are usually scouts or cultists hidden in cover. Nearly as survivable as the marines, but much less expensive. Against certain long range weapons (which, if they are sitting back and holding objectives, they will often only be hit by long range weapons) scouts, cultists, and marines are wounded on 2's and getting cover saves. Might as well throw more bodies on the field.

I'm not sure marines can take on everything. A fully kitted out marine squad is pretty expensive, let's see the damage they kick out?
8 bolters, 2 plasma guns do
Bolters, @ 24", Assuming T3 4+ save troops. 5.3 hits, 3.5 wounds, 1.75 killss. At rapid fire range that's just over 3 wounds.
2 Plasma gun, Same assumptions, 1.32 hits, 1.1 wound, no save.
So, at 24", against "weaker" infantry, we see ~3 kills being dealt. With cover, this is more like 2.5 kills being dealt. At rapid fire range, this doubles to 6 and 5, respectively. (I rounded up, its actually less then 6 and 5...more like 5.5).

With T3, 5+ save, it becomes 4.6 kills, 9 at 12" without cover. With cover it becomes 3.1 kills at 24", 6 at 12". So with cover, the difference between a 4+ and 5+ save is roughly 1 wound at rapid fire range

So, 10 marines at rapid fire range kill 6 guardsmen if they are in cover using their "standard" set up. If I do that over 4 rounds, I'll make my points back.

Firing against marines out of cover is
Bolters @ 24 is 5.3 hits, 2.65 wounds, 0.88 kills.
Plasma gun @ 24 doesn't change, 1.1 kills.

With cover, 5+ (most common imo), bolter stays the same and plasma is .73, or 1.6 kills total.
So roughly 2-1.5 kills. So the difference between a Marine and a Dire avenger at 24" is roughly one kill. .
The difference between a marine in cover and a guardsmen outside of cover is 1.5 kills, yet marines cost more then 1.5 a guardsmen in cost. And this is, mostly, against weapons that are supposed to be good at killing guardsmen.

 GangstaMuffin24 wrote:

I guess people expect Tacs to be able to charge headlong into the enemy and survive?

Or maybe people saying this play in more competitive settings then you do?

Hence why I said they can generally take on most things. I wouldn't expect them to really wipe any unit outright except maybe some grots.

And yeah, I don't really play in a competitive environment, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt.

The difference between 1.5 and 2.5 may only be 1, but its also 66% more.
That DA that's losing 66% more from your Plas squad (or 100% more from a naked Boltgun squad) costs exactly as much as a CSM.

Sure, guard are substantially cheaper than CSM, but 1.5 Guardians, Kalabites, Corsairs, Harlequins, or Pathfinders all cost more than a Marine.

A competitive setting is where Tacs don't do well, but 90% of the units in the game don't do well there. This is why there are two wildly different, but both effectively correct opinions. Tags don't often do well in competitive environments, but they still do well against or compared to a lot - I'd guess 80% - of the units in the game.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

It's the problem that the marines can't hurt the scatterbikes back.

90% of the game is less capable of hurting ScatterBikes than Marines.

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

It's the problem that the marines can't hurt the scatterbikes back.

Perhaps the problem is scatbikes rather than Marines?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

It's the problem that the marines can't hurt the scatterbikes back.

Perhaps the problem is scatbikes rather than Marines?

No, because tacs have had the same problem for a long time. They really can't get enemy models off the table. If you use them as back field scoring units, they aren't really contributing and your list gets torn apart piecemeal. They become a turn 4 or 5 casualty during the tabling process.

"- I'd guess 80% - of the units in the game."

The 80% that don't typically get used.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

It's the problem that the marines can't hurt the scatterbikes back.

Perhaps the problem is scatbikes rather than Marines?

No, because tacs have had the same problem for a long time. They really can't get enemy models off the table. If you use them as back field scoring units, they aren't really contributing and your list gets torn apart piecemeal. They become a turn 4 or 5 casualty during the tabling process.

I don't think that problem stems from a 3+ save, that's for sure. I know I'very had my tank company bum-rushed by foot Marines (including Tacticals) with one unit of DSing terminatora - Tactical Squads are certainly capable of removing Leman Russ battletanks from the table!

I once faced an IG list with 29 plasma guns. There was no bum rushing that list with tacs. Certainly in 5th, tac based lists were just leafblowered off the table. In 2nd, they died in place to CSM, Eldar, and Tyranids.

'I don't think that problem stems from a 3+ save, that's for sure"

The problem makes the 3+ look bad, because Eldar can remove half an enemy list in one turn of shooting. You don't even get to exploit Eldar "fragility" because they've killed you before you can even get into position to hurt them. Marines have to suck up turn after turn of the enemy list in a high-functioning state by default.,

Akiasura wrote:

Which is why you see basic marines taken so often in Chaos, yes?

CSM are a special case - they are in a codex so flawed that is nerfs itself on a turn-by-turn basis.

If Eldar are removing half your army from ScatterBikes in one round, they are killing 75%+ of many other armies in the same round.

Marines have to suck up the firepower, and don't have the numbers to do it. How do you think all the forces that are *worse* at sucking up that firepower feel?

The 3+ may not be enough for Marines to beat Scatter Bike spam, but its more - per point even - than many other armies get. And those other armies are often no better or worse at killing said bikes.

" How do you think all the forces that are *worse* at sucking up that firepower feel? "

Most lists have far more firepower than a non-grav cent marine list. Marines firepower problems really began to surface in 5th and they have only tangentially addressed the issue by making new "must have" models for space marines.

Note that BA even have access to FNP and it still doesn't change the outcome a slight bit. Durability in this game is overrated compared to remove models as a general rule. You have to get to TWC or Wraiths before durability becomes a thing.

A Silver Tide isn't going to put nearly as much, if any, firepower into Scatter Bikes T1, and are only marginally more survivable vs Scatter Bike spam.

A Green Tide style list actually loses more points per SL fired at it than Tac Marines, and puts less dakka out too.

A Swordwind list will do nearly as much damage as a foot PA-heavy SM list, but dies much, much faster. And most units have shorter range.

A Spirit Host style list has little that shoots past 12". So they may be a little more survivable per pt (3x the SL shots/casualty, but 32ppm+), but are certainly doing less damage to the Bikes.

Ubercompetitive armies - the type that only care about winning - will typically do better than SM Tacs (almost always), but that is only a small amount of options in this game. The majority of options do quite a lot *worse* than SM Tacs against Scatter Bikes. That 3+ really helps them there.

Foot PA-heavy armies don't have the greatest firepower, but are very, very durable compared to most other armies out there.

Martel732 wrote:
" How do you think all the forces that are *worse* at sucking up that firepower feel? "

Most lists have far more firepower than a non-grav cent marine list. Marines firepower problems really began to surface in 5th and they have only tangentially addressed the issue by making new "must have" models for space marines.

Note that BA even have access to FNP and it still doesn't change the outcome a slight bit. Durability in this game is overrated compared to remove models as a general rule. You have to get to TWC or Wraiths before durability becomes a thing.

The problem is that this lists with more firepower certainly don't have more firepower after losing 75% of their army to scatbikes. Then they are in the same boat as marines, except without the durability to last even past the next enemy shooting phase.

With regard to tacticals not being great, I think they're reflective of much bigger problems with the game in general:

1) Non-specialists are worthless. A lot of units these days - and troops in particular - tend to consist of '1 useful guy with a meltagun/plasmagun' and '4-10 ablative wounds that contribute nothing to the game'.

See, back in 5th, every army had to contain at least some infantry. So, even against mechanised list, bolters, lasguns and such still fulfilled a useful role by killing infantry once transports were cracked open. And, even that was a worst-case scenario - since you could easily have infantry that weren't in transports.

Nowadays, armies can (and frequently do) contain no infantry whatsoever. You can easily have whole armies that are outright immune to bolters and lasguns (along with most other small-arms fire). This is a horrible situation for a game to be in at all, but is even worse when it comes to troops. Elites and such can usually have (or come close to) 1:1 special weapons, but most troops are stuck with 1:5 or similarly inefficient ratios.

2) Troops frequently bring nothing to the table, other than inefficient firepower.

Once again, let's remember back in 5th, when only troops could score. You can argue that it's not the most elegant solution, but it served its purpose - it made troops useful in a way that had nothing to do with their statline or weapons. You were free to take minimal troops, but then you could only capture 2 objectives.

Nowadays, everything can score, meaning there's no reason to take troops (unless, of course, they have statlines and weapons that Fast Attack units would kill for - looking at you, Eldar...). The only reason to take them is as a tax to unlock one of the super-formations.

Troops should be fulfilling a core role, they should be important to every army - not a tax you have to pay before you're allowed to take anything good or useful.

 Selym wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a 3+ save is better than a 4+ or 5+ cover save, that T4 is better than T3, and that when the anti-tank weapons get pointed at you, you're still entitled to jump into that very same cover.

You're not listening again.
3+ is good, but not when you have to pay so much for it, especially when. Units that cost less can camp in cover and be more survival for the cost. 3 Guardsmen in cover for a 4+ cover save is more durable than 1 Marine with a 3+ Armor save or 4+ Cover save.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. If you played in a competitive setting maybe you'd get it.

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to tacticals not being great, I think they're reflective of much bigger problems with the game in general:

1) Non-specialists are worthless. A lot of units these days - and troops in particular - tend to consist of '1 useful guy with a meltagun/plasmagun' and '4-10 ablative wounds that contribute nothing to the game'.

See, back in 5th, every army had to contain at least some infantry. So, even against mechanised list, bolters, lasguns and such still fulfilled a useful role by killing infantry once transports were cracked open. And, even that was a worst-case scenario - since you could easily have infantry that weren't in transports.

Nowadays, armies can (and frequently do) contain no infantry whatsoever. You can easily have whole armies that are outright immune to bolters and lasguns (along with most other small-arms fire). This is a horrible situation for a game to be in at all, but is even worse when it comes to troops. Elites and such can usually have (or come close to) 1:1 special weapons, but most troops are stuck with 1:5 or similarly inefficient ratios.

2) Troops frequently bring nothing to the table, other than inefficient firepower.

Once again, let's remember back in 5th, when only troops could score. You can argue that it's not the most elegant solution, but it served its purpose - it made troops useful in a way that had nothing to do with their statline or weapons. You were free to take minimal troops, but then you could only capture 2 objectives.

Nowadays, everything can score, meaning there's no reason to take troops (unless, of course, they have statlines and weapons that Fast Attack units would kill for - looking at you, Eldar...). The only reason to take them is as a tax to unlock one of the super-formations.

Troops should be fulfilling a core role, they should be important to every army - not a tax you have to pay before you're allowed to take anything good or useful.

Armies that can be outright immune to lasguns and bolters have existed since the Armored Company list appeared in 3rd Edition - the current problem isn't the fault of things being immune to bolters.

2 DAs in cover is more durable than 1 Marine. But cost twice as much.

Guardians, Kalabites, Fire Warriors, Necron Warriors. Not all units without a 3+ are cheap horde units. Marines outlast most of those in 5+ cover per point easily.

That's whats so hard to grasp. Why Guardsmen, a unit who's biggest strength is soaking fire by dying, being cheaper/wound than Marines suddenly means Marines pay too much for that 3+.

-Players won't take infantry because vehicles = better
-Make upper limit of vehicles based on multiple factors (call it resource problems)
-Suddenly horde mode engaged

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a 3+ save is better than a 4+ or 5+ cover save, that T4 is better than T3, and that when the anti-tank weapons get pointed at you, you're still entitled to jump into that very same cover.

You're not listening again.
3+ is good, but not when you have to pay so much for it, especially when. Units that cost less can camp in cover and be more survival for the cost. 3 Guardsmen in cover for a 4+ cover save is more durable than 1 Marine with a 3+ Armor save or 4+ Cover save.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. If you played in a competitive setting maybe you'd get it.

How much do you think Marines pay for PA? A guardsman in CA with a Bolter and Krak Grenades is 9.5 points. That means 4.5 points buys you ATSKNF, +1 WS, +1S, +1 T, +1 LD, Chapter Tactics, a Bolt Pistol and a 3+ save.

If you assigned even a -single point- to all those options, Marines should be 17.5 points, which means some of them are free (or valued at less than a point and rounded down). So the PA save may not be what marines are paying for.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How much do you think Marines pay for PA? A guardsman in CA with a Bolter and Krak Grenades is 9.5 points. That means 4.5 points buys you ATSKNF, +1 WS, +1S, +1 T, +1 LD, Chapter Tactics, a Bolt Pistol and a 3+ save.

If you assigned even a -single point- to all those options, Marines should be 17.5 points, which means some of them are free (or valued at less than a point and rounded down). So the PA save may not be what marines are paying for.

Coincidentally, 17.5pts was about what marines cost in 5th.

Extrapolating from the maths that a SM is worth 17.5 pts via upgrading, and that they are currently seen to be overcosted at 14 points, we can learn that the superior forces are undercosted.