EDIT:
Many of you have voiced your opinion on how the notion of adjusting units on their preconceived notion of being "elite" is not very well suited and biased towards marines only.

Going forward, this will be a discussion regarding adjustment to wounds & toughness of currently overpriced units to better reflect their point costs. The title of the post has been changed to better reflect the aim of this post.


Original Post:
I dont have the math on me, but what would be a result of increasing all "elite" armies' models' wounds by 1?

Is this going to be game breaking or a solution in the long run in terms of balancing issues?

If you wanna bump up the cost a little, sure.

Do you really expect people to track remainders for each squad in said armies?

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
Do you really expect people to track remainders for each squad in said armies?

M.

Well most of the competitive choices in elite armies already have 2W's anyways. I dont think it'll overly raise the book keeping.

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

 skchsan wrote:


Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

Poor game design.

M.

Oh snap!
But yeah there's a major difference in durability with having 2W, intercessors last a lot longer against other basic infantry where there's no ap but throw in say a crisis suit with 3 plasma guns and it's only a little bit better.

So, which ones are the "elite" armies? You can't make a suggestion without even saying fully what that suggestion is.

I also believe blanket changes like this would only make the game worse. You need to get into details, rebalancing units one at a time, or you're getting nowhere. Quick fixes are mostly unrealistic and rarely fix anything.

I suppose elite armies can be defined as armies that have the least amount of models fieldable at average point games.

Cant speak for armies that dont yet have codex, but on avrage SM armies field average of 20~35 for competitive armies. AM's field about 50~70 models on average.

A naked scout is 11 ppm. Is it fair to say an "elite" army is one where your cheapest troop option is over 10 points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which i guess translates to marines and chaos marines.
Are they the only factions in the elite bracket?
Custodes, would they do any better with a fourth wound?
How about knights?
Necrons? I haven't even played against them and i feel like that's a bad idea...

 skchsan wrote:
I suppose elite armies can be defined as armies that have the least amount of models fieldable at average point games.

Cant speak for armies that dont yet have codex, but on avrage SM armies field average of 20~35 for competitive armies. AM's field about 50~70 models on average.

20 - 35 models for 2000 points? Well there's your problem.

 Insectum7 wrote:

20 - 35 models for 2000 points? Well there's your problem.

Current flyer spam SM lists go for 7~13 models. Scout/tac/tac/guilliman goes for 36~40 models.

Even if you were to fill your list to the brim with scouts and bare minimum HQs, AM and horde lists can outnumber and outgun them with 3x the guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
A naked scout is 11 ppm. Is it fair to say an "elite" army is one where your cheapest troop option is over 10 points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which i guess translates to marines and chaos marines.
Are they the only factions in the elite bracket?
Custodes, would they do any better with a fourth wound?
How about knights?
Necrons? I haven't even played against them and i feel like that's a bad idea...

I feel like armies like Eldar, DE, necron & AdMech are the middle ground armies that ends up with decent amount of models in a balanced, playable list. Tau is at a weird place right now imo. I feel like the New codex is going to shift some points around that battlesuits become more viable.

I think custodes and GKs will definitely be better off with extra wound. Leave the super heavies - the proposal is more for your non-vehicles to give them a bit more staying power to somewhat par up the wound pool a bit better.

Naaah, just make shooting less effective. By nerfing overpowered units or giving them an appropriate cost.

 fraser1191 wrote:
A naked scout is 11 ppm. Is it fair to say an "elite" army is one where your cheapest troop option is over 10 points?

A Harlequin player is 16ppm minimum. The most common loadout currently (embrace + fusion pistol) puts them at 30ppm.
I do consider Harlequins to be an elite army, but bumping them to 2W doesn't make much sense, fluffwise or gamewise.

Do remember certain bumps are stronger than others.

Going from 1 to 2 wounds doubles toughness vs standard anti-infantry weapons.

Going from 2 to 3 wounds doubles vs. 2 dmg weapons (plasma and autocannons mostly). Pretty strong for infantry with a save (termies and marines in cover).

Going 3 to 4 is less powerful. It means you gain double toughness vs damage 3 weaponry (mostly melee) and a 50% chance againgst D6 weaponry.

Raising wounds on anything else wont be feasible. Most characters are 5-6 wounds, keeping in one shot range for D6 weaponry (completely understandable).

fresus wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
A naked scout is 11 ppm. Is it fair to say an "elite" army is one where your cheapest troop option is over 10 points?

A Harlequin player is 16ppm minimum. The most common loadout currently (embrace + fusion pistol) puts them at 30ppm.
I do consider Harlequins to be an elite army, but bumping them to 2W doesn't make much sense, fluffwise or gamewise.

That's a fair point.
I'm guessing when he says elite army he's directly referring to marines as it seems to be what people want, which is 2W marines.
I'll also admit I'm in that boat myself

 skchsan wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

20 - 35 models for 2000 points? Well there's your problem.

Current flyer spam SM lists go for 7~13 models. Scout/tac/tac/guilliman goes for 36~40 models.

Sure, but those armies aren't exactly built around actual space marines. If you want them to feel more effective imo you have to bring more. If you only bring 20 guys and minimaly arm them, yeah, they're not going to be carrying the game for you.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

20 - 35 models for 2000 points? Well there's your problem.

Current flyer spam SM lists go for 7~13 models. Scout/tac/tac/guilliman goes for 36~40 models.

Sure, but those armies aren't exactly built around actual space marines. If you want them to feel more effective imo you have to bring more. If you only bring 20 guys and minimaly arm them, yeah, they're not going to be carrying the game for you.

No, these lists are actually the top tier list in the current competitive meta. I'd appreciate it if you didnt drag your 'I-get-better-mileage-out-of-my-tac-squad' argument into this thread.

I understand you elect not to participate in competitive tournaments, but competitive meta is often the basis/reference we look to see how the balance is in the game.

And as evidenced in the competitive meta, space marines field FAR less models than any other armies in the game. This is firther evidenced by advanced lists often make an imperial soup and bring in some cheap conscript squads to fill the wound gap/provide chaff. The reason why the top percentile SM players build flyer spam is because 1. GW let them with the new FOC and 2. they are far superior in terms of durability, dps, and mobility per pt efficiency than any other choices.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss way the meta might be balanced for the better, not to say "oh youre doing it wrong"

 skchsan wrote:
I suppose elite armies can be defined as armies that have the least amount of models fieldable at average point games.

Cant speak for armies that dont yet have codex, but on avrage SM armies field average of 20~35 for competitive armies. AM's field about 50~70 models on average.

I can build a nid list with less than 10 models at 2k points. Do nids qualify now?

My personal meta is very small. If I ran a bunch of flyers my friend would just shoot it out of the air with either a riptide or a broadside


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as marines go I'd say they could use the extra wound, and I'm talking about all marines. Chaos GK etc..

 Lance845 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I suppose elite armies can be defined as armies that have the least amount of models fieldable at average point games.

Cant speak for armies that dont yet have codex, but on avrage SM armies field average of 20~35 for competitive armies. AM's field about 50~70 models on average.

I can build a nid list with less than 10 models at 2k points. Do nids qualify now?

Haha I wouldnt mind seeing buffed nid MC list. But in all seriousness, it would be cool to see warrior based armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
My personal meta is very small. If I ran a bunch of flyers my friend would just shoot it out of the air with either a riptide or a broadside


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as marines go I'd say they could use the extra wound, and I'm talking about all marines. Chaos GK etc..

Yeah my personal meta is really small too, and it spams plasma scions in valks. It always turns into a game of "paper cat" & "glass cannon mouse"

Would Scouts still be 1W?

M.

Give all combinations of ADEPTUS ASTARTES/HERETIC ASTARTES INFRANTY/BIKER +1 wound. Helps line infantry and doesn't help the stuff that's already good.

Scouts can be 2 wounds too since they are already 11 points with a Bolter, 15 with a Sniper and a whopping 18 with sniper and camo cloak, it's not like they are hard to kill as it is. If people are angry about it make only the sergeant 2 wounds.

I would really like to hear about someone testing marines with an extra wound and see how it plays out.

 skchsan wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

20 - 35 models for 2000 points? Well there's your problem.

Current flyer spam SM lists go for 7~13 models. Scout/tac/tac/guilliman goes for 36~40 models.

Sure, but those armies aren't exactly built around actual space marines. If you want them to feel more effective imo you have to bring more. If you only bring 20 guys and minimaly arm them, yeah, they're not going to be carrying the game for you.

No, these lists are actually the top tier list in the current competitive meta. I'd appreciate it if you didnt drag your 'I-get-better-mileage-out-of-my-tac-squad' argument into this thread.

I understand you elect not to participate in competitive tournaments, but competitive meta is often the basis/reference we look to see how the balance is in the game.

And as evidenced in the competitive meta, space marines field FAR less models than any other armies in the game. This is firther evidenced by advanced lists often make an imperial soup and bring in some cheap conscript squads to fill the wound gap/provide chaff. The reason why the top percentile SM players build flyer spam is because 1. GW let them with the new FOC and 2. they are far superior in terms of durability, dps, and mobility per pt efficiency than any other choices.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss way the meta might be balanced for the better, not to say "oh youre doing it wrong"

So you're going to balance basic space marines around data from a non-standard meta using armies without a focus on basic space marines. Im sorry, but I think thats the wrong approach.

While surviveability and 'dps' look nice and are easy to mathhammer out, I'd argue that there are some key elements missing. An obvious one is multi-wound weapons, which can hurt a vehicle more than a squad of infantry. The most an expensive Lascannon hurts a marine squad is killing one guy. Building "mass of power armor bodies" armies is a whole different philosophy than "spam the vehicle" armies, capitalizing on minimizing heavy antitank fire and capitalizing on long-game resiliency.

Also, have flyer spam armies still been winning big tourneys? I thought that was back in August prior to the change where they couldn't hold objectives any more. In a similar vein, have we really been considering the relationship between marines and conscripts now that conscripts have taken several nerfs over the past months? If you're going to use tourney data, how up to date is the data you're drawing on here? With the increasing nerfs to coscripts, basic space marines are much more favorable.

Also, what counts as 'elite'? Just space marines? Are we giving Aspect Warriors an extra wound? How about Necrons? Are Primaris going up to 3 and Tyranid Warriors up to 4?

 skchsan wrote:
I dont have the math on me, but what would be a result of increasing all "elite" armies' models' wounds by 1?

Is this going to be game breaking or a solution in the long run in terms of balancing issues?

Firstly - Define the Elite Armies and the units within them that are getting this bonus

I assume you are thinking of:

Eldar Aspect Warriors, Exarchs, Pheonix Lords,
Nercon Lychguard
Imperial Guard Veterans and Militarium Tempestus
Adepta Sororitas
Wyches, Succubus, Hekartixes
Harlequins
etc
etc

Not just a lets boost Marines - right?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I dont have the math on me, but what would be a result of increasing all "elite" armies' models' wounds by 1?

Is this going to be game breaking or a solution in the long run in terms of balancing issues?

Firstly - Define the Elite Armies and the units within them that are getting this bonus

I assume you are thinking of:

Eldar Aspect Warriors, Exarchs, Pheonix Lords,
Nercon Lychguard
Imperial Guard Veterans and Militarium Tempestus
Adepta Sororitas
Wyches, Succubus, Hekartixes
Harlequins
etc
etc

Not just a lets boost Marines - right?

Right. I feel like 'elite' units across the game doesnt feel elite enough. Theyre overpriced liabilities where spending few more points and bringing BIG guns or spending less per model and bringing larger units seems more prudent list building.

As for the proposed list of units subject to upgrade, I will try to draft it up over the weekend.

 skchsan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I dont have the math on me, but what would be a result of increasing all "elite" armies' models' wounds by 1?

Is this going to be game breaking or a solution in the long run in terms of balancing issues?

Firstly - Define the Elite Armies and the units within them that are getting this bonus

I assume you are thinking of:

Eldar Aspect Warriors, Exarchs, Pheonix Lords,
Nercon Lychguard
Imperial Guard Veterans and Militarium Tempestus
Adepta Sororitas
Wyches, Succubus, Hekartixes
Harlequins
etc
etc

Not just a lets boost Marines - right?

Right. I feel like 'elite' units across the game doesnt feel elite enough. Theyre overpriced liabilities where spending few more points and bringing BIG guns or spending less per model and bringing larger units seems more prudent list building.

As for the proposed list of units subject to upgrade, I will try to draft it up over the weekend.

I asked the same question.
But then I also ask is an elite army one where your cheapest troop option is 10+ points.
Apparently harliquins are 16 points and me and the guy who said that agree they shouldn't have 2 wounds for fluff reasons

"an elite army one where your cheapest troop option is 10+ points."

So Space Marines are Elite (11 point Scouts) but Chaos Space Marines are not (4 Point Cultist)?

 alextroy wrote:
"an elite army one where your cheapest troop option is 10+ points."

So Space Marines are Elite (11 point Scouts) but Chaos Space Marines are not (4 Point Cultist)?

So loyalist marines get two wounds and csm stay at one? Am I reading that right?

 skchsan wrote:
Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

They don't?

A single Marine-fired Bolter shot has a nearly 30% chance of killing a Guardsman (2/3 Hit * 2/3 Damage * 2/3 bypass Armor).

A single Guardsman-fired Lasgun shot has a ~6% chance of killing a Space Marine (1/2 Hit * 1/3 Damage * 1/3 bypass Armor).

The kill chances in Close Combat are exactly the same for a Marine with no Close Combat Weapon versus a Guardsman with no Close Combat Weapon. It takes nearly 6 Guardman to be as destructive as a single Space Marine. They do have the advantage of having 6 wounds to 1, but maybe that is why a Space Marine is only 3 times as expensive as the Guardsman.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
"an elite army one where your cheapest troop option is 10+ points."

So Space Marines are Elite (11 point Scouts) but Chaos Space Marines are not (4 Point Cultist)?

So loyalist marines get two wounds and csm stay at one? Am I reading that right?

I'm pretty sure this was already gone over.
Stating that what ever you do to a loyalist marine you do for chaos.
They are two aide of the same coin after all

And now Necron Warriors are even more garbage, as Silver Tide is done better by a wide margin by playing Loyalist Marines.

Dire Avengers go from half the durability to a quarter the durability of a Marine, for 1ppm less.

Fire Warriors fighting as line troops, with their superior guns, lose firefights with Marines even while getting the alpha. By a wide margin.

Marines play like IG. But better. Who cares if they have 30 Infatry. Those 10 Marines just stand there and return fire. Because they're Guardsmen++ instead of Marines. They could advance then charge to kill them faster, but why bother?

My Imperial Guard list has 3 IG models at ~1850.

Are IG an elite army?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My Imperial Guard list has 3 IG models at ~1850.

Are IG an elite army?

Admittedly, +1 Wound to a Baneblade isn't much.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My Imperial Guard list has 3 IG models at ~1850.

Are IG an elite army?

Admittedly, +1 Wound to a Baneblade isn't much.

True.

 alextroy wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

They don't?

A single Marine-fired Bolter shot has a nearly 30% chance of killing a Guardsman (2/3 Hit * 2/3 Damage * 2/3 bypass Armor).

A single Guardsman-fired Lasgun shot has a ~6% chance of killing a Space Marine (1/2 Hit * 1/3 Damage * 1/3 bypass Armor).

The kill chances in Close Combat are exactly the same for a Marine with no Close Combat Weapon versus a Guardsman with no Close Combat Weapon. It takes nearly 6 Guardman to be as destructive as a single Space Marine. They do have the advantage of having 6 wounds to 1, but maybe that is why a Space Marine is only 3 times as expensive as the Guardsman.

It's not a true apples-to-apple comparison when comparing them on model by model basis. A better depiction of comparison shows as such:

1x marine @ 13 ppm = 13 pts | 3.25x guardsmen @ 4 ppm = 13 pts

1x Marine's bolter on guardsmen: 67% to hit, 67% to wound, 67% wound not saved = 0.30 damage inflicted
3.25x Guardman's lasgun on marine: 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% wound not saved = 0.18 damage inflicted

Another comparison at 52pts as you can't have a 1/4 of a guardsmen:

4 marine @ 13 ppm = 52 pts | 13 guardsmen @ 4 ppm = 52 pts

4x Marine's bolter on guardsmen: 67% to hit, 67% to wound, 67% wound not saved = 1.19 damage inflicted
13x Guardman's lasgun on marine: 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% wound not saved = 0.72 damage inflicted

In sum, marines damage output performs about 1.64 times better than guardsmen point for point, but a single marines would need 11 turns to successfully shoot & destroy a group of 3.25 guardsmen, while it would take 6 turns for 3.25 guardsmen to kill 1 marine. (theoretically)

.50*.33*.33 is about .05, not .18.

0.05 * 3.25 ~= 0.18.

While this thread wasn't started to compare guardsmen and marines like many of the posts.

But if I were to take this particular case and applied the "give +1 W to 'Elite" units" idea, a single marine with 2W will require 11.08 turns from 3.25 guardsmen, while it takes 10.97 turns for a marine to kill the 3.25 guardsmen.

Would Primaris Marines go up to 3W?

And would people consider increasing the weapon damage for heavy weapons (e.g. Autocannons) that already do multiple damage?

So in essence, you'd have most weapons stay the same (1 damage small arms), but certain weapons could go up to 2 (Heavy Bolters) and still further weapons could go up by 1 as well (Autocannons to 3, Baneblade cannons to 4) and then you could change the 1d6 damage weapons to 2d3, essentially giving them a +1 as well (e.g. a Lascannon goes up to 2d3, so it is guaranteed to kill a Space Marine, instead of doing 1 damage).

The below list is the initial list for the proposed +1W upgrades:

Space Marines (less characters w/ +4W)
-Power armor
-Terminator armor & variants (including Custodes, GK)
-Primaris armor (Mark X, was it?)
-Gravis armor & variants
-Centurion armor

CSM (less characters w/ +4W)
-Power armor
-Terminator armor
-Oblits/mutilators

AdMech – not very experienced with this army/playstyle so this is just a rough proposal
-Battle servitors
-Electro-priests

Ork
-All non-‘boy’ orks (lootas/burnas/bustas/gitz/commandos/nobs)
-Killa kans

Necron - this one is opening a huge can of worms but here it goes
-Lychguard/praetorians
-Immortals/death marks
-Warriors

Tau
-Crisis
-Broadside
-Stealth

CWE
-Aspects (avengers/banshees/scorpions/spiders/dragons/reapers/hawks)

DE
-Incubi
-Wrack
-Scourge
-Mandrake

Tyranid
-Warriors/shrikes
-Hive/tyrant guard
-Bio/Pyrovores

The idea of those Aspect Warriors going up 1W/model just feels wrong.

Yeah crisis suits have 3 wounds I don't know about them getting a 4th.
But I suppose that if marines get an extra wound for pretty much everything I guess it's a fair trade off.
Bolters should have ap -1.
It wouldn't be broken or anything. For the most part it just counteracts cover, and then if they have stuff out of cover they pay for it.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Yeah crisis suits have 3 wounds I don't know about them getting a 4th.

Astra Militarum commanders have 3 wounds :p

M.

The general rationale behind the proposed list is to identify & characterize primary types of infantry/non-vehicle units in the game - namely:
-light infantry (1W)
-'medium' infantry (2W)
-heavy infantry (3W)
-super heavy infantry (4W)

Then for characters:
-non-HQ characters (5W)
-HQ characters (6W)

Obviously for armies that have a lot of minor 'characters' are adjusted (or not adjusted) accordingly (i.e. commisars)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Would Primaris Marines go up to 3W?

And would people consider increasing the weapon damage for heavy weapons (e.g. Autocannons) that already do multiple damage?

So in essence, you'd have most weapons stay the same (1 damage small arms), but certain weapons could go up to 2 (Heavy Bolters) and still further weapons could go up by 1 as well (Autocannons to 3, Baneblade cannons to 4) and then you could change the 1d6 damage weapons to 2d3, essentially giving them a +1 as well (e.g. a Lascannon goes up to 2d3, so it is guaranteed to kill a Space Marine, instead of doing 1 damage).

I am on the boat for increasing all 1d6 weapons to 2d3.

What about Scions? They certainly feel elite and more in the medium class of infantry, rather than just light

 skchsan wrote:

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

You are taking two individual models out of the greater context of their factions. What does "3 times better" mean anyway? 18"inch movement? 3 wounds? It doesn't make sense to compare indiviual models in that way.

 Bobthehero wrote:
What about Scions? They certainly feel elite and more in the medium class of infantry, rather than just light

Scions are only elite in comparison to the chaff that makes up the rest of their army's infantry. They'd be chaff units in any of the elite armies (SM, Necrons, etc).

I am pretty sure they're better than Ork boys with different weapons, yet they all get an extra wound for reasons.

 Hollow wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

You are taking two individual models out of the greater context of their factions. What does "3 times better" mean anyway? 18"inch movement? 3 wounds? It doesn't make sense to compare indiviual models in that way.

It was more or less a figure of speech using vague examples. It wasnt supposed to be math verified, factual statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
I am pretty sure they're better than Ork boys with different weapons, yet they all get an extra wound for reasons.

Ork proposals were roughly based on their models and comparative sizes - those 'non-boys' models looked bigger much in line with nob models. It is directed at nob sized models only.

Adepta Sororitas?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Adepta Sororitas?

I think for their pt value, they're good where they are. Repentia squad may benefit from +1W for their melee only battle role.

Wait, so the ultra-light Swooping hawk gets 2w, but you're leaving Sisters at 1w?

Its not so much elite armies (why are Orks in this? But Sisters and Scions aren't?) as much as armies that could use a boost, I guess.

 skchsan wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Do you really expect people to track remainders for each squad in said armies?

M.

Well most of the competitive choices in elite armies already have 2W's anyways. I dont think it'll overly raise the book keeping.

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

Because they are 2x as durable are better in CC and have better weapon options.

.3267 wounds per turn for 3 guardsman 2 attacks each vs MEQ

.5749 wounds per turn for 1 SM with w attacks vs GEQ

This doesn't seem like much, but If the SM gets off the charge he will likely kill all 3 guradsman if he gets a kill the first turn.

Same goes for shooting. The numbers are literally exactly the same while within rapid fire range. .3267 and .5749. Again it all comes down to who goes first.

A superior commander that positions his troops so they can get the first shot off and then charge will win every single game no matter what.

Its part of the reason why some people think mobility is the most important stat in the game right now, which I happen to agree with.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

They don't?

A single Marine-fired Bolter shot has a nearly 30% chance of killing a Guardsman (2/3 Hit * 2/3 Damage * 2/3 bypass Armor).

A single Guardsman-fired Lasgun shot has a ~6% chance of killing a Space Marine (1/2 Hit * 1/3 Damage * 1/3 bypass Armor).

The kill chances in Close Combat are exactly the same for a Marine with no Close Combat Weapon versus a Guardsman with no Close Combat Weapon. It takes nearly 6 Guardman to be as destructive as a single Space Marine. They do have the advantage of having 6 wounds to 1, but maybe that is why a Space Marine is only 3 times as expensive as the Guardsman.

It's not a true apples-to-apple comparison when comparing them on model by model basis. A better depiction of comparison shows as such:

1x marine @ 13 ppm = 13 pts | 3.25x guardsmen @ 4 ppm = 13 pts

1x Marine's bolter on guardsmen: 67% to hit, 67% to wound, 67% wound not saved = 0.30 damage inflicted
3.25x Guardman's lasgun on marine: 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% wound not saved = 0.18 damage inflicted

Another comparison at 52pts as you can't have a 1/4 of a guardsmen:

4 marine @ 13 ppm = 52 pts | 13 guardsmen @ 4 ppm = 52 pts

4x Marine's bolter on guardsmen: 67% to hit, 67% to wound, 67% wound not saved = 1.19 damage inflicted
13x Guardman's lasgun on marine: 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% wound not saved = 0.72 damage inflicted

In sum, marines damage output performs about 1.64 times better than guardsmen point for point, but a single marines would need 11 turns to successfully shoot & destroy a group of 3.25 guardsmen, while it would take 6 turns for 3.25 guardsmen to kill 1 marine. (theoretically)

It would take about 5 turns, not 11.

2*.66*.66*.66=.5749

.5749*5=2.874

 skchsan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Adepta Sororitas?

I think for their pt value, they're good where they are. Repentia squad may benefit from +1W for their melee only battle role.

Then you need to stop pretending this has anything to do with "elite" status and say its a pure re-balancing due to your perceived problems with the system.

I can't see how you can add a wound to all Marines and Aspect Warriors - both of whom have all their codex bonuses and not adjust points but not do the same to Sororitas who get one relic and 2 stragems ?

-light infantry (1W)
-'medium' infantry (2W)
-heavy infantry (3W)
-super heavy infantry (4W)

Sororitas are at least medium infantry by your own table?

Why are Dark Eldar Wyches and their upgrades not getting this?

Scions are hardly Chaff.

They shoot as well as a Space Marine, with better guns than a space Marine. For less points than a space marine.




But you forgot to Include Ogyrns in any case.

And Eldar do definately not deserve to be as durable as SM, and Necrons would be much better represented by +T than +1 Wound.

Was working with pt values from battle scribe for eldar and didnt realize how much of the unit pt is from weapons themselves.

As for sisters comments, I feel that 9 pt for baseline sisters and 11 pts for celestians lay on the same line of logic for scouts. 9-11 pt boltgun platforms are fairly valued IMO. I feel they may benefit better with point reduction, say in the 7-8 for sisters and 9-10 for celestians.

I agree with the T bonus on necrons.

Will consider it into future revision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Adepta Sororitas?

I think for their pt value, they're good where they are. Repentia squad may benefit from +1W for their melee only battle role.

Then you need to stop pretending this has anything to do with "elite" status and say its a pure re-balancing due to your perceived problems with the system.

I can't see how you can add a wound to all Marines and Aspect Warriors - both of whom have all their codex bonuses and not adjust points but not do the same to Sororitas who get one relic and 2 stragems ?

-light infantry (1W)
-'medium' infantry (2W)
-heavy infantry (3W)
-super heavy infantry (4W)

Sororitas are at least medium infantry by your own table?

Why are Dark Eldar Wyches and their upgrades not getting this?

I believe the perceived notion being 'elite' and my opinion on balance is one and the same.

Current army building is restircted to largely "bring as many cheap wounds as you can to cover your big guns", "spam the big scary guys", and "kill or be killed in turn 1 glass cannon" kinds of builds.

What this proposal is aiming for is giving better play time for the middle guys that are overpriced

I agree that my proposal is largely biased and doesnt cover the minorities in equal manner. I am only experienced with SM and variants, tau, tyranids, orks and necrons that I have played with/against in the past. I actually would love constructive inputs on other armies that are currently poorly represented in my list.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Thousand-Son-Sorcerer - again, the post isn't about comparing guardsmen to marines or any other comparisons. The 'guardsman to marine' comparison is a figure of speech, that when something is costed X-much higher, it should function X-much better.

The math was just for fun, to show how guardsmen stack up to marines for the purpose of the post. It is not in any way claiming one is better than the other. The calculation was made at 24" range with no rapid fire double tap. Yes, if you bring them in rapid fire range your math is right.

AGAIN, this is a post regarding +1W as a means to compensate for overpriced units in the game, which so happens to be referred to as "elite" in my post. This is because it is easier to mess around with characteristics than trying to re-price things through a home brew rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Its part of the reason why some people think mobility is the most important stat in the game right now, which I happen to agree with.

Then why aren't all bike armies winning tournaments?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
2*.66*.66*.66=.5749

.5749*5=2.874

if you really want to be nitpicky about numbers, you can't use rounded number for the calculations.
It should be 1*2*2/3*2/3*2/3=.5926
3.25/.5926=5.4844 turns to kill 3.25 guardsmen

While if same points worth of guardsmen got double tap,
3.25*2*1/2*1/3*1/3=.3611
1/.3611=2.7692 turns to kill 1 marine

Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

 skchsan wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Do you really expect people to track remainders for each squad in said armies?

M.

Well most of the competitive choices in elite armies already have 2W's anyways. I dont think it'll overly raise the book keeping.

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

Because they have 5 times the options, nearly impervious leadership, and can stack passive bonuses to a 2+ armor save and 2+ BS

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

Thats what i am not seeing either - although he is then looking at a pt reduction for Sororitas.

To be fair I am just not experienced enough with the game to reset balance in this way but I think I might have reacted better with a different phrasing of the OP and not referencing Elite armies at all.

Doubling the wounds of the Marine armies in particular could be extremely powerful - especially if other similar forces are not equally blessed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

Sister's have been the hardest to make proposals for since they're so under provisioned by the index/codex. As far as revisions go, I feel like a +1T would do them more justice than a +1W, so they shoot like a scout, save like a marine, but melee like a guardsmen as portrayed by their WS 3+. In terms of given system that sisters operate in, sisters seem like they're supposed to be half AM, half SM where it's kind of like SM's with orders, but currently they are just carapace armor veterans with bolters.

Again, while I do refer to point costs as the basis for my proposal here and there, the primary aim of this proposal is to how to adjust the characteristics to better reflect their point cost, rather than adjusting points for what they're worth.

 skchsan wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

Sister's have been the hardest to make proposals for since they're so under provisioned by the index/codex. As far as revisions go, I feel like a +1T would do them more justice than a +1W, so they shoot like a scout, save like a marine, but melee like a guardsmen as portrayed by their WS 3+. In terms of given stats, sisters seem like they're supposed to be the middle ground between a MEQ and a GEQ, but currently they are just carapace armor veterans with bolters.

Again, while I do refer to point costs as the basis for my proposal here and there, the primary aim of this proposal is to how to adjust the characteristics to better reflect their point cost, rather than adjusting points for what they're worth.

Ok a little confused here - normal Sororitas have WS 4+ like guardsmen, Celestians and Seraphim have WS 3+ but they are 11pts a model. If you add 1 W to a tac Marine at 13pts then you look at a Celestain (even with the +1 T) at 11pts

The Tac marine gets +1W, +1S, Chapter Tactics, ATSKNF, more wepaon options, plenty of strategems

The Celestain gets +1A (at str 3) amd 6++

Sisters are supposed to be at the pinancle of non-enchanced humans - so whereas they are not Astartes or Skitarii or Orgryns, they are only matched by Scions in terms of training but are also blessed with power armour and blessed by the Emperor (sheild fo Faith) In actual fact i think their current stat line reflects them well.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

Because most of those differences don't matter. Weapon options super don't matter because they make them cost even more.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

Because most of those differences don't matter. Weapon options super don't matter because they make them cost even more.

So they should be free? Because they don't matter?

You just assert that certain things "never matter" and then get those things for free?

Well, in that case, the IG statline of Str 3, Ld 6, and WS 4+ don't matter so they should be 1-2ppm at most.

But what fluff reason do Sisters have to be T4? And if you want balance over fluff, why not play chess?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

Because most of those differences don't matter. Weapon options super don't matter because they make them cost even more.

So they should be free? Because they don't matter?

You just assert that certain things "never matter" and then get those things for free?

Well, in that case, the IG statline of Str 3, Ld 6, and WS 4+ don't matter so they should be 1-2ppm at most.

Not free, but not +4 ppm. As I've stated 11 ppm, or +2 is more fair in how 8th ed works. And most of that is the +1 T. But listing non-free weapon options as a reason to cost more is fallacious for sure.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

Because most of those differences don't matter. Weapon options super don't matter because they make them cost even more.

So they should be free? Because they don't matter?

You just assert that certain things "never matter" and then get those things for free?

Well, in that case, the IG statline of Str 3, Ld 6, and WS 4+ don't matter so they should be 1-2ppm at most.

Currently as the game stands, unless you pay for premium melee weapons, all the melee stats are simply extra lasgun/bolter shot at melee.

Again, as far as weapon options go, especially the ones worth paying for, they come at an additional cost. Think of it as why AM powerfists cost less than SM powerfists - because it performs at a lesser degree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
But what fluff reason do Sisters have to be T4? And if you want balance over fluff, why not play chess?

Yeah, realized justifying sisters is starting to go off on a tangent and going nowhere productive. Lets remain within the boundaries of "major" factions for now, yeah?

Bharring wrote:
But what fluff reason do Sisters have to be T4? And if you want balance over fluff, why not play chess?

Hyperbole. And there's always starcraft. Nowhere in the fluff does it say "BA can't win a battle against most other factions in the universe", but this was true for 6th and 7th. Terminators have been unusable crap for two decades, but never saw it in the fluff.

Wait are Sororitas not a major faction?

Also, 11PPM for Sororitas buys you +1 Attack and WS 3+.

I would be okay with 11PPM marines if they replaced ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics with the once-per-turn-regardless-of-how-many-units-you-have Act of Faith, went down to T3 and S3 but got one extra attack.

As it stands, trading 1 CC attack for 1 toughness is an obvious choice, without even taking into account the morale re-roll and chapter tactics. So 11PPM is out of the question, IMO, unless you make Sororitas Celestians cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
But what fluff reason do Sisters have to be T4? And if you want balance over fluff, why not play chess?

Hyperbole. And there's always starcraft.

I don't want balance over fluff. I want it explained to me why Marines should get WAAAAAAYYYY better stats than Celestians, and better special rules, for the same price.

They're not WAAAY better stats. They're stats I would largely not pay for in a system where I could construct my own units.

Unless you are raven guard, chapter tactics are a joke. ATSKNF is also a joke. It's all about killing at range. That's it.

So 33% better strength, 33% better toughness, re-roll morale, and ignores cover / re-roll for the special weapon to hit and wound / -1 to hit >12" / being able to fall back and shoot

are all worth exactly the same as not having those things at all?

The -1 to hit is the only chapter tactic worth discussing. The others are trash.

Strength doesn't matter. Free.
Toughness matters somewhat. +1/2 pts
Reroll morale. Free, as it is irrelevant
Most chapter tactics. Trash. RG tactic should probably make their units cost more, but this is GW. Altioc Eldar should cost considerably more, but don't.

Want those stats to matter? Make shooting units cost more or less lethal.

Yeah, realized justifying sisters is starting to go off on a tangent and going nowhere productive. Lets remain within the boundaries of "major" factions for now, yeah?

Bit Sororitas and Astartes are easy to compare becuase they have so many simularities - armour, base weapons, balastic accuracy, but are not as tough or strong.

They're not WAAAY better stats. They're stats I would largely not pay for in a system where I could construct my own units.

That would be a bad bad thing for balance would it not. People getting better stuff for no difference in pts?

Unless you are raven guard, chapter tactics are a joke. ATSKNF is also a joke. It's all about killing at range. That's it

As others have said - there are good CT's especially if you are an Index army and don't have them.

I never envied CT as a BA player. I just envied the cost adjustments. CT are largely crap. Only one helps vs mass shooting, which is what matters.

Martel, if you think the difference between T3 and T4 alone is worth only half a point, I'll tell you to try playing 45 point Guardsmen squads who are T4 and get back to me.

I meant +1 or +2.

The reality is that marines could be Str 12, with little effect on how they perform on the table top. Low numbers of attacks with no AP are not a threat no matter the strength value.

Martel732 wrote:
I meant +1 or +2.

The reality is that marines could be Str 12, with little effect on how they perform on the table top. Low numbers of attacks with no AP are not a threat no matter the strength value.

You realize +1 point is 12ppm and +2 is 13 ppm, right?

Essentially exactly where they are, or at least within <10%.

Maybe try 12 ppm, then. They do not perform like 13 ppm models. ESPECIALLY against the IG. And Tyranids.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe try 12 ppm, then. They do not perform like 13 ppm models.

I'd be okay with 12ppm tactical marines.

After all, that frees up ~0 points in most SM lists, since they don't use tacticals at all.

But 12PPM I could see, especially if they gave up ASTNKF and turned it into a Warlord Trait option like Sororitas have.

ASTKNF is truly useless in 8th, and as such should be free. But sure, take it away. Won't be missed. Just like in 6/7th, my guys are dying to shooting, not failing morale.

Martel732 wrote:
ASTKNF is truly useless in 8th, and as such should be free. But sure, take it away. Won't be missed. Just like in 6/7th, my guys are dying to shooting, not failing morale.

I'll see what the local SM players say to 12ppm marines without ATSKNF.

Also, try 13 ppm ASM with jump packs instead of 16 ppm. They're actually usable. Take away ATSKNF as well. No one cares.

So then what differentiates a GEQ and MEQ to justify the 2.5x~3x base cost?

Marines only have +1WS, +1BS, +1T, +1S, and +2 sv

Are they really worth that much more where the only real difference those stats make is how S3 affects T4's?

Martel732 wrote:
Also, try 13 ppm ASM with jump packs instead of 16 ppm. They're actually usable. Take away ATSKNF as well. No one cares.

Why 13 and not 15? If we're only taking away 1ppm for tacs, why not 1ppm with ASM? Unless you think jump packs are overcosted...

Because jump packs on ASM are overcosted they are delivering a paltry amount of killing power. Even 130 pts for 10 of these guys is a super stretch to me. They're REALLY bad.

 skchsan wrote:
So then what differentiates a GEQ and MEQ to justify the 2.5x~3x base cost?

Marines only have +1WS, +1BS, +1T, +1S, and +2 sv

Are they really worth that much more where the only real difference those stats make is how S3 affects T4's?

Well let's look at it with Sisters as a middle step.

Space Marine over a Sister is: 2 Special Rules (3 with Combat Squads but that's derpy), +1T, +1WS, +1STR; so if we go with 13ppm then that's +4 points for 2 special rules and 3 stats. Call ATSKNF the same as acts of faith, and it's +1 point per stat and special rule.

Sororitas are 9ppm, and over guard have +2 save, +1 Ld, Acts of Faith, and +1BS. By the same logic (1ppm per stat point and special rule), then guardsmen should be 5ppm cheaper - or 4ppm

Guardsmen are 5ppm or 6ppm models in practice, though. That's one reason IG are so incredibly hard to beat. The other is access to so much cheap ignore LoS. In 8th, 5 ppm guardsmen and 12 ppm marines sound about right, actually. Would make it more challenging for the IG to table the marines.

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen are 5ppm or 6ppm models in practice, though. That's one reason IG are so incredibly hard to beat. The other is access to so much cheap ignore LoS. In 8th, 5 ppm guardsmen and 12 ppm marines sound about right, actually. Would make it more challenging for the IG to table the marines.

This is disingenuous. I thought you were all about math, and now you're using table-top performance instead of math to price your troops.

Which is it?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
So then what differentiates a GEQ and MEQ to justify the 2.5x~3x base cost?

Marines only have +1WS, +1BS, +1T, +1S, and +2 sv

Are they really worth that much more where the only real difference those stats make is how S3 affects T4's?

Well let's look at it with Sisters as a middle step.

Space Marine over a Sister is: 2 Special Rules (3 with Combat Squads but that's derpy), +1T, +1WS, +1STR; so if we go with 13ppm then that's +4 points for 2 special rules and 3 stats. Call ATSKNF the same as acts of faith, and it's +1 point per stat and special rule.

Sororitas are 9ppm, and over guard have +2 save, +1 Ld, Acts of Faith, and +1BS. By the same logic (1ppm per stat point and special rule), then guardsmen should be 5ppm cheaper - or 4ppm

But what about orders? And AM's regimental doctrines?

I never said that. All point values must be empirically determined in a game like this. Math comes in with predicted performance
of units once those values are determined.

Any give whole can be less than or greater than the sum of its parts. And that's the marine problem; they've always been far less than the sum of their parts. Which makes breaking down point values for each ability relatively futile. I still think they play like 11 ppm models. I don't care what other units cost in that assessment. They're quite bad.

skchsan wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
So then what differentiates a GEQ and MEQ to justify the 2.5x~3x base cost?

Marines only have +1WS, +1BS, +1T, +1S, and +2 sv

Are they really worth that much more where the only real difference those stats make is how S3 affects T4's?

Well let's look at it with Sisters as a middle step.

Space Marine over a Sister is: 2 Special Rules (3 with Combat Squads but that's derpy), +1T, +1WS, +1STR; so if we go with 13ppm then that's +4 points for 2 special rules and 3 stats. Call ATSKNF the same as acts of faith, and it's +1 point per stat and special rule.

Sororitas are 9ppm, and over guard have +2 save, +1 Ld, Acts of Faith, and +1BS. By the same logic (1ppm per stat point and special rule), then guardsmen should be 5ppm cheaper - or 4ppm

But what about orders? And AM's regimental doctrines?

Orders are special rules on the HQ models, not special rules inherently possessed by Guardsmen. Regimental Doctrines I didn't consider; I presume they are matched by Shield of Faith, and in that case we'll have to include Combat Squads to balance the Tactical Marines or make Tactical Marines 12ppm like I mentioned.

Martel732 wrote:I never said that. All point values must be empirically determined in a game like this. Math comes in with predicted performance
of units once those values are determined.

So how do you balance units empirically when there is such variance in unit type? For example, Space Marines with Guilliman are fairly priced, imo, because Guilliman is so cheap. But without Guilliman, they are fairly bad, and should probably be 12ppm, or less if sisters get cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I never said that. All point values must be empirically determined in a game like this. Math comes in with predicted performance
of units once those values are determined.

Any give whole can be less than or greater than the sum of its parts. And that's the marine problem; they've always been far less than the sum of their parts. Which makes breaking down point values for each ability relatively futile. I still think they play like 11 ppm models. I don't care what other units cost in that assessment. They're quite bad.

Or, perhaps they're fairly priced?

What data are you using to say they're bad?

Guilliman should have two costs. One with UM, and one without UM.

Having played against a new sisters player more recently, the acts of faith mechanic is far better than most CT imo. Sisters, in some ways, play more powerfully than marines. Especially with access to all those stormbolters.

"What data are you using to say they're bad?"

Their relative contribution in my matches compared to other troops. It's all perception, granted. But it's my most fair assessment. I don't think they are fairly priced with the current rule set and choices available to other armies. CQC is weaker than ever, marines are slow, Rhinos are expensive, etc.

How a marine is 4 pts more than a firewarrior in a shooting based edition blows my mind.

Martel732 wrote:
Guilliman should have two costs. One with UM, and one without UM.

Having played against a new sisters player more recently, the acts of faith mechanic is far better than most CT imo. Sisters, in some ways, play more powerfully than marines. Especially with access to all those stormbolters.

"What data are you using to say they're bad?"

Their relative contribution in my matches compared to other troops. It's all perception, granted. But it's my most fair assessment. I don't think they are fairly priced with the current rule set and choices available to other armies.

In your own local meta and used by your own local hand, while Insectum insists they're fairly good in his own perception. Which perception do we use?

And I agree that 1 unit compared to 1 unit, AOF is better.

But the problem AOF has that CT doesn't have is scalability. 1 AOF is worth far more at 500 points than it is at 5000, while chapter tactics is fairly reliable at all points levels.

Plus, you don't have to roll for CTs like you do Acts of Faith.

SM have more access to storm bolters than sisters.

Lastly: I agree, with the 2 points costs thing. In fact, I think the whole base balancing mechanism of the game should be revamped, as points are not a great way to do it. How do you point something with the Macro rule that can one-shot a Warhound Titan but only kills ~4 conscripts? If we're going to deviate from GW's usual way of doing something, then I suggest we throw points out altogether.

EDIT to reply to your edit:
An SM is 4 ppm more than a Fire Warrior because the Fire Warrior has +1 strength on it's gun (should be 14ppm), but -2 Weapon Skill (12 ppm), -1 Save (11ppm), -1 Strength (10ppm), -1 Toughness (9ppm), -1 LD (8ppm).

So they are perhaps too expensive, if we go by our formula. And that matches up; Tau are doing less good in tournaments than Marines.

Dude had a lot of characters that kept giving him more. His guys (or girls) were cheaper AND getting more actions per phase. It was crazy hard to deal with.

Most CT simply don't have a significant impact on the game. The UM one is almost completely useless as bad as CQC is. I'd much rather have non-scaling AoF than scaling crap.

I don't think the mathematical formula approach works at all, though. How does the firewarrior play? A lot better than a marine, that's how.

Martel732 wrote:
Dude had a lot of characters that kept giving him more. His guys (or girls) were cheaper AND getting more actions per phase. It was crazy hard to deal with.

Those characters are 40ppm for a Space Marine statline (with 3 wounds) and an Act of Faith but only on a 4+ (so completely unreliable).

Imagifiers actually actively harm a Sororitas army, if you believe the SOB tactics thread, and in fact are only slightly more useful now because they die a lot and our new stratagem is neat for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Dude had a lot of characters that kept giving him more. His guys (or girls) were cheaper AND getting more actions per phase. It was crazy hard to deal with.

Most CT simply don't have a significant impact on the game. The UM one is almost completely useless as bad as CQC is. I'd much rather have non-scaling AoF than scaling crap.

I disagree based on my own experience and perceptions, which is as much evidence as you have .

Maybe marines are worse than I thought, then. It was a brutal game in which I was never truly competitive. Although the sisters got first turn, which is another barrel of fish.

You're free to disagree, but you'll likely never convince me marines are worth 13 ppm unless some major point changes to things like manticores happens. Of course, that doesn't matter as GW sets the points. I predict that primaris gets all the love from here on out to slowly squeeze out the old marines.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Orders are special rules on the HQ models, not special rules inherently possessed by Guardsmen. Regimental Doctrines I didn't consider; I presume they are matched by Shield of Faith, and in that case we'll have to include Combat Squads to balance the Tactical Marines or make Tactical Marines 12ppm like I mentioned.

There's lack of considerations in the weight of value for each stat you're valuing at +1 pt per stat. By an extension of your logic, then a land raider should only cost 42 points more than a guardsman since it has +4 M, -2 WS, +1 BS, +5 S, +5 T, +17 W, +2 Sv, +3 Ld and +3 for special rules and +1 for CT.

Each stats have different weight. The reason why I started this thread, by focusing initially on wound count revision then broadened the discussion to toughness as well is because these two values are more relevant (as opposed to melee stats) and are of least weight in the game currently.

Why they have the least weight in the game is because:
-proliferation of high strength weapons along with the new to wound roll system means most 'properly matched weapons to targets' are wounding on +3's anyways.
-most weapons having multiple damage system - a plasma, the game's current go to weapon for MEQ's, when overcharged, threatens T4 1W and T4 2W's at the same rate.

This thread escalated WAY TOO QUICKLY once you guys made it to another 'lower the cost of marines' argument.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe marines are worse than I thought, then. It was a brutal game in which I was never truly competitive. Although the sisters got first turn, which is another barrel of fish.

You're free to disagree, but you'll likely never convince me marines are worth 13 ppm unless some major point changes to things like manticores happens.

I think in certain situations Marines are absolutely worth 13ppm, and in other situations are worth like 5, lol.

 skchsan wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Orders are special rules on the HQ models, not special rules inherently possessed by Guardsmen. Regimental Doctrines I didn't consider; I presume they are matched by Shield of Faith, and in that case we'll have to include Combat Squads to balance the Tactical Marines or make Tactical Marines 12ppm like I mentioned.

There's lack of considerations in the weight of value for each stat you're valuing at +1 pt per stat. By an extension of your logic, then a land raider should only cost 42 points more than a guardsman since it has +4 M, -2 WS, +1 BS, +5 S, +5 T, +17 W, +2 Sv, +3 Ld and +3 for special rules and +1 for CT.

Each stats have different weight. The reason why I started this thread, by focusing initially on wound count revision then broadened the discussion to toughness as well is because these two values are more relevant (as opposed to melee stats) and are of least weight in the game currently.

Why they have the least weight in the game is because:
-proliferation of high strength weapons along with the new to wound roll system means most 'properly matched weapons to targets' are wounding on +3's anyways.
-most weapons having multiple damage system - a plasma, the game's current go to weapon for MEQ's, when overcharged, threatens T4 1W and T4 2W's at the same rate.

This thread escalated WAY TOO QUICKLY once you guys made it to another 'lower the cost of marines' argument.

Yes, this is why you can't use a formula. It has to be empirical.

 skchsan wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Orders are special rules on the HQ models, not special rules inherently possessed by Guardsmen. Regimental Doctrines I didn't consider; I presume they are matched by Shield of Faith, and in that case we'll have to include Combat Squads to balance the Tactical Marines or make Tactical Marines 12ppm like I mentioned.

There's lack of considerations in the weight of value for each stat you're valuing at +1 pt per stat. By an extension of your logic, then a land raider should only cost 42 points more than a guardsman since it has +4 M, -2 WS, +1 BS, +5 S, +5 T, +17 W, +2 Sv, +3 Ld and +3 for special rules and +1 for CT.

Each stats have different weight. The reason why I started this thread, by focusing initially on wound count revision then broadened the discussion to toughness as well is because these two values are more relevant (as opposed to melee stats) and are of least weight in the game currently.

Why they have the least weight in the game is because:
-proliferation of high strength weapons along with the new to wound roll system means most 'properly matched weapons to targets' are wounding on +3's anyways.
-most weapons having multiple damage system - a plasma, the game's current go to weapon for MEQ's, when overcharged, threatens T4 1W and T4 2W's at the same rate.

This thread escalated WAY TOO QUICKLY once you guys made it to another 'lower the cost of marines' argument.

The problem is that you based your entire assertion on giving certain stats "weightiness in the game" and then ignored that the game changes from state-to-state, so whats "weightier" on an ITC table may be completely irrelevant on a Zone Mortalis table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My fundamental issue with empirical balance:

Situations can make units seem WAAAAAY better or worse than they are.

E.G. Marines sitting still getting pounded by artillery all game are probably worth ~3ppm, as they're only paying to distract the artillery and accomplishing nothing else.

OTOH

Marines in close combat with a guard squad pinned against a hallway wall in a cityfight scenario are probably a bit better than 3ppm....

The vast majority of states will heavily favor shooting. The vast majority of states will favor the list that can spam the most cheap bodies as a shield against any possible kind of assault list or deep strikes. IG can autowin against almost any assault based list for around 500 pts, as well as neuter any list that tries to use deep striking.

Martel732 wrote:
The vast majority of states will heavily favor shooting. The vast majority of states will favor the list that can spam the most cheap bodies as a shield against any possible kind of assault list or deep strikes. IG can autowin against almost any assault based list for around 500 pts, as well as neuter any list that tries to use deep striking.

I think this is true in the ITC scenarios.

Have you played Zone Mortalis-style games with SM vs IG? Or Cityfight? Or Stronghold Assault?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The vast majority of states will heavily favor shooting. The vast majority of states will favor the list that can spam the most cheap bodies as a shield against any possible kind of assault list or deep strikes. IG can autowin against almost any assault based list for around 500 pts, as well as neuter any list that tries to use deep striking.

I think this is true in the ITC scenarios.

Have you played Zone Mortalis-style games with SM vs IG? Or Cityfight? Or Stronghold Assault?

We don't play those for the most part. For me, they might as well not exist.

No matter how many buildings you put out, IG are still ignoring LoS. That's.. pretty good.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The vast majority of states will heavily favor shooting. The vast majority of states will favor the list that can spam the most cheap bodies as a shield against any possible kind of assault list or deep strikes. IG can autowin against almost any assault based list for around 500 pts, as well as neuter any list that tries to use deep striking.

I think this is true in the ITC scenarios.

Have you played Zone Mortalis-style games with SM vs IG? Or Cityfight? Or Stronghold Assault?

We don't play those for the most part. For me, they might as well not exist.

No matter how many buildings you put out, IG are still ignoring LoS. That's.. pretty good.

Depending, of course, on a whole variety of things.

And yeah, if you only play the pre-set ITC boards then I can see why you'd think Marines are undercosted, because those boards are fairly favorable to guard. In tight cityfight-style or ZM corridors, it's easy to split up the huge and unwieldy Imperial Guard force and cut it apart piecemeal, using the superior force concentration of an expensive army to bring a greater number of points to bear in a small area where the IG can't really reach or get away.

Their artillery is about the only thing they have going for them in that scenario, but it's still not enough, in my experience.

You probably won't believe me, but my foot sororitas army supported by 2 Malcadors beat an IG army with 50 infantry, 30 conscripts, a bunch of officers and commissars, and a whole metric fuckton of artillery (the rest) in a city-fight scenario at 2k points in a local campaign by exploiting my better force concentration and my opponent's psychology about certain units that made my opponent focus his artillery firepower in inefficient ways.

I believe you. If the IG screws up target selection, they can lose. You play against people from 3rd ed, that's hard to count on. They always know which marine thing to nuke first. It would be a bit more tolerable if marine shooting platforms weren't quite so pricey and IG were paying more to ignore LoS. Predators are still way too expensive compared to what IG and Eldar have, imo.

Martel732 wrote:
I believe you. If the IG screws up target selection, they can lose. You play against people from 3rd ed, that's hard to count on. They always know which marine thing to nuke first.

So use that thing as a decoy.

If your plan revolves around the unit they know they have to nuke, then start making that unit irrelevant to your battle plan. That way, they'll nuke it, and then be surprised when that shooting phase was wasted and didn't meaningfully impact the game.

That's what I did. The Malcadors were my anti-tank lynchpin, and my opponent knew it. I talked about it all day. When it came time to shoot, he shot my Malcadors, and rightly so.

I lost all of my AT firepower and never killed his artillery. But he spent enough shooting phases dicking around with units that he just had to shoot (he KNEW he had to shoot them!) that he lost the objective war.

They won't fall for it. Too many games. It's never a certain unit that they are nuking. It's whatever will make it hardest for me to win. Because they have infinite choices via ignore LoS and I have very few choices, ie the target they give me. They also know that if it becomes a slog for objectives, they've got 150 obj sec bodies and I have 40 tops. Marine anti-tank is expensive, and so kills slowly, so they don't necessarily need to prioritize that. They have every conceivable advantage, because CQC is so weak in 8th.

Martel732 wrote:
They won't fall for it. Too many games. It's never a certain unit that they are nuking. It's whatever will make it hardest for me to win. Because they have infinite choices via ignore LoS and I have very few choices, ie the target they give me. They also know that if it becomes a slog for objectives, they've got 150 obj sec bodies and I have 40 tops.

Yes but your 40 can take on that 150, in a straight fight (because of your superior ability to position, it should never be a straight fight), so all you have to do is make the artillery choose the wrong targets.

And it sounds like if your opponents are completely immune to bad decisions, then they're just perfect players and you should be honoured that they beat you, though it's unfortunate that these flawless people don't have the opportunity to play at major events, as I've seen even the top-tables people at e.g. NOVA get target priorities wrong and fail to understand their opponent's battle plan until it was too late.

They're not immune, but the their margin of error is MUCH larger than for marines. If they panic on one manticore, they've got 2 more in the pocket. Also marines just don't HAVE that many targets. Small model count and all that. IG vs Tyranids is a much more compelling matchup. Marines are just too easy for them.

The 40 can't take on the 150 in the time frame that I need them to. Especially if they have tac marines amongst them. They kill geqs SO slowly. If they mob the objective first, I have no way to get them off in a reasonable amount of time. Remember fall backs only have to be ~1".

IG has access to orders that make them faster than marines, so they actually win the positioning war all things being equal.

Martel732 wrote:
They're not immune, but the their margin of error is MUCH larger than for marines.

The 40 can't take on the 150 in the time frame that I need them to. Especially if they have tac marines amongst them. They kill geqs SO slowly. If they mob the objective first, I have no way to get them off in a reasonable amount of time. Remember fall backs only have to be ~1".

This is a matter of debate. I ran 4 10-girl sisters squads at that game in Cityfight and, with help from some retributors and one of the damaged Malcadors, they took the conscripts down to like 4 models in one turn, then started chopping away at the infantry squads in CC until they were all dead.

At the end I had only 4 Sisters left standing on the objective, but my opponent had nothing.

Remember, in CC you get to fight twice each Battle Round, plus one shooting phase if you have pistols (which Sororitas do, and so do Marines). Plus, a Canoness with an Eviscerator fairly efficiently deleted ~4-5 guardsmen per fight phase, unless they fell back.

EDIT to match your EDIT:

That's not true at all, because speed is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about model count. In Cityfight, it's much easier for 40 models to fight 40 models than it is for 150 models to fight 40 models, not because the 150 are too slow but because the 150 are too big. There's no order in the AM codex that makes their units able to stand atop one another.

Maybe in Cityfight. But I'm never doing Cityfight.

When I do get IG in CQC, what happens is that they score the maelstrom objective for three turns, and then I don't get it until the end of the game. Winning the war long-term for a maelstrom objective doesn't help, only for an eternal war objective. For eternal war objectives, they will nuke me off with artillery or scions. This is true whether I engage in CQC or not, as they can always fall back automatically allowing the artillery to destroy me.

A marine kills 1.2 pts of guardsmen every combat phase, 2.4 pts on the phases where they can use their pistols. That's still less than one guardsmen per two phases. Too slow. Again, I expect more of a 13 ppm model.

Okay.

So in those situations maybe Tacs are 11ppm. But that is not the same situation everywhere.

Maybe mix it up a bit instead of getting tabled. Honestly if I were in your position I would be begging my playgroup to use some of the cooler scenarios like cityfight or to build maps like Zone Mortalis or use some of the battlezone rules.

40k is ultra boring playing Eternal War and Maelstrom on ITC tables forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it would be boring even if it were balanced.

There is no situation where the tacs kill the guardsmen any faster. Now, they beat guardians to death at the same rate, but there were half as many guardians to begin with, so that's twice as fast point-wise. Maybe marines are worth 13 ppm vs guardians, but none of my opponents are using them atm.

Seems like to me if the models are not worth 13 ppm in the base scenarios in the book, they are overcosted.

Martel732 wrote:
There is no situation where the tacs kill the guardsmen any faster. Now, they beat guardians to death at the same rate, but there were half as many guardians to begin with, so that's twice as fast point-wise. Maybe marines are worth 13 ppm vs guardians, but none of my opponents are using them atm.

Seems like to me if the models are not worth 13 ppm in the base scenarios in the book, they are overcosted.

Cityfight and stronghold assault are base scenarios in the book, and so are a ton of others.

Honestly your meta sounds boring. Even if the game were balanced, you would still get trashed by these better players playing the same scenarios on essentially the same boards over and over and over again.

I'll look into it, I guess.

Are they players better, or is the IG better? These were the Eldar playes from last edition, I might add.

I don't have ANY of these problems against other marines.

One way to find out is to do an Army swap with one of the Guard players.

I did that several times in 7th. I'm undefeated as 7th ed eldar.

Martel732 wrote:
I did that several times in 7th. I'm undefeated as 7th ed eldar.

Then it is probably the armies and not the players.

Though some might say that choice of army is a player choice that determines success in the game just like list building, but I don't think it should imo

I accept that as true in gw games.

I suppose it is my fault for bringing up the guardsmen to marines comparison.

As far as stat value/weight goes, it really doesn't matter whether a certain mission has higher terrain count, has special rules, etc. Certain units have better performance because how they interact on the board & terrain, and how the special rules of the subset mission rules affects the particular units and not how it makes certain characteristic more valuable than other.

In general the stat values are roughly

M > BS > T > Sv > W > A > WS > S > Ld where:

1. M - No other stats can come into play if you're not in range. Alternatively, used to block LOS to deny effectiveness of opponent's turn.
2. BS - linearly scaling stat that determines how well you allocate ranged wounds in a game that's predominantly shooting. Higher priority than rest because it is the first stat used (after M) before any other stats come into play.
3. T - exponentially scaling stat that determines effectiveness of ranged/melee weapons. Higher priority than Sv because sufficiently high T negates the need to even take a saving throw.
4. Sv - linearly scaling stat that determines how well you resist the damage. Higher than W because of multi damage weapons.
5. W - determines how many times you can fail the Sv roll step. Below T and Sv because it only comes into play once the two are resolved and failed.
6. A - multiplicative stat that scales WS.
7. WS - linearly scaling stat that only comes into play in fight phase. Less than BS because the game is currently shooting heavy.
8. S - exponentially scaling stat that only comes into play in fight phase. Less than BS because the game is currently shooting heavy.
9. Ld - Least important because it takes place at the end of player turn. Last used stat in a turn, only comes into play if the opponent was insufficient in wiping the squad.

Do you feel otherwise?

Yes.

1) M is useless if you're in a closed ruin without the Infantry keyword, is more useful if you have Fly, and is also fairly useful if you're Infantry. Conversely, it's important for weapon ranges (as you note) but also denying enemy non-infantry cover bonuses, opening or closing charge lanes, and scoring objectives when necessary.

2) BS is only used if you have LOS, except for some weapons, and cannot be used on a unit that is in combat or just fell back from close combat, unless it has the Fly keyword or another special rule. Its utility for 90% of units depends on the M stat, as you mention, but also the CC stat - a monster shooting unit that is also a monster CC unit is better than a monster shooting unit period. The ability to fight one's way out of close combat without falling back makes this stat better, therefore it benefits from the other CC stats. Conversely, this stat is relatively useless if you are trapped in a cycle of combat and falling back for most units, so again, close combat ability affects this stat almost as much as movement does.

3) T is compared to the enemy's strength, and is of utility against every weapon type the enemy has - however, its relationship to save is more complicated than you let on. A unit with a low toughness (say, 1) with an un-modifiable 2+ save is tougher than a unit with a high toughness (say, 5) with no saves available ever. The relationship between save and toughness is similar to the relationship between strength and AP - having both high is much better than having one or the other high, and is considerably better than having both low.

4) Sv is about as important as toughness. The difference is that in Toughness, a +1/-1 may or may not affect the enemy's roll, while a +1/-1 save always has an effect on the enemy's durability, except in cases where there is a special rule (e.g. the Armageddon Steel Legion vehicle doctrine or the Lucius forge world doctrine).

5) Wounds is arguably just as important as Str. and T, depending on what weapons are being fired. A Baneblade with 1 wound is RIDICULOUSLY less durable than a Baneblade with 26 (its current) wounds, even if you double the toughness and increase the save to a 2+.

6) Attacks does not scale with WS. It's conceivable to have a monstrous combat unit that is scary because of high attacks rather than high WS - e.g. a Baneblade is actually fairly scary in combat because it has a high Attacks (9), high Strength (9), high AP (-2), and middling damage (d3) even though it is only WS5+. Conversely, it is conceivable to have a high WS but not be very good at combat.

7) WS: The same as BS and is only "less important" because of the assertion that the game is shooting heavy. The game is only as shooting heavy as the players allow it to be with terrain placement, scenario design, board size, and other important factors (e.g. what armies they've chosen to play).

8) Str: depends heavily on the movement, WS, and Attacks stat to be relevant. Could be made more important, but it is currently subordinate to the Movement stat, especially. However, it is conceivable to have a unit with monstrous strength (e.g. an Imperial Knight's reaper chainsword) with middling attacks - depending on the target, this is very important. It's why units like Knights often choose between a str: user and str:x2 weapon.

9) LD has the opportunity to be the most destructive stat. A LD 0 unit suffers D6+ total casualties as additional casualties every turn, more than doubling the damage that the unit suffers. A LD10, unit conversely, has to lose at least half it's number before suffering any casualties at all.

I agree with most of your points. However, these are strategies to make certain characteristic less effective, and not necessarily less important.

Note the S characteristic only refers to the S of the unit, not the weapon. This is because weapons, ranged or melee, are S modifiers and not innate characteristics of the units.

As you know, the game now comprises of 6 phases:
Movement > Psychic > Shooting > Charging > Fighting > Morale

We will exclude Psychic phase as it operates in its own mechanics and stats. Of the remaining 5 phases, [Movement], [Shooting], and [Fighting] actively utilizes the model's given [Characteristics]. Charging utilizes flat 2d6 for charging distance, irrelevant to the the [Characteristics] of the unit/model, and overwatch happens on flat roll of 6 with modifiers. [Morale] phase also utilizes [Characteristics], but this is a unit value as opposed to model value, with the exceptions for single model units.

Having said, the my argument is that the value/weight of characteristics are ultimately determinant upon the order of operations. To put it in a different perspective, lets look at the values from least to most important

9. Ld - POTENTIALLY most destructive, but it doesn't come into play if (in the order of operations): 1. enemy couldn't get in range, 2. enemy failed to hit in shooting phase, 3. enemy failed to wound in shooting phase, 4. you made the save in shooting phase, 5. your model didn't get removed in shooting phase, 6-7. enemy failed to hit in fight phase, 8. enemy failed to wound in fight phase, 9. you made the save in the fight phase.

8. S - only comes into play in fight phase, which doesn't come into play if: 1. you couldn't get into charge range, 2-5. you have models within charge range after resolving steps 2-5, 6-7. you passed to hit rolls.

6-7. A/WS - A is the stat that multiplies you chances to successfully hit with your WS. These two stats don't come into play if: 1. you couldn't get into charge range, 2-5. you don't have models within charge range after resolving shooting steps 2-5.

5. W - utilized when: 1. enemy units got in range to shoot, 2. enemy successfully hit, 3. enemy successfully wound, 4. you failed your saving throw

etc etc.

While I agree with you on the point that the stats are intermingled with each other in a more complex sense than I have laid out. However, you have to recognize that there is a sequence of dependencies of stats.

Melee stats become worthless if all of the eligible targets have been removed from play. Obviously, you can purposely not wipe the squad so you can charge at them.
As for the comments on regarding T & Sv relationship, arguably T1 w/ 2+Sv does have slightly better performance comparable to T8 w/ 0Sv (.1388 vs .1667, respectively) because of natural 1's auto fail. Otherwise, T only has a few mechanics that can decrease it while Sv's are modified on every possible level.