Martel732 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Space Marine tanks are more advanced"

They have sponsons. They are NOT advanced in any sense of the word. Sponsons went out of style in the 1930s.

And land wars went out of style in at least the 2010s, arguably earlier. Yet we have a game where that's the primary focus.

Land war never goes out of style. Everyone was fooled by the period between Napoleon and WWI, but it still came back.

Land war still exists the ranges just got longer and the weapons are 10 times more destructive.

Baneblades have remote controlled sponsons, at least the Mars forged ones, its possible Preds have that tech as well, but they're probably low on the priority procurement ladder.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.

It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.

Why would that be cool?

The LRBT is the big, slow, crude tank, whose crews are doctrinally trained to use them in grinding advances [heh] and to follow the orders of a superior officer.

The Predator is a fast, speedy, medium tank whose crews are probably riflemen first, tankers second, and who are trained to use them in lightning strike warfare and not grinding attrition warfare.

The Leman Russ is like the KV-2, and the Predator is like the Panzer IV.

The Panzer IV is a better tank than the KV-2. I'm sorry you don't see that.

Martel732 wrote:
Dunno. Someone claimed marine tanks were "advanced". They can't move and shoot effectively and have sponsons. Seems like WWI to me.

Well - whats funny is the less advanced tank is able to move and shoot with no penalty with it's main gun - while the marine tank is essentially field artillery. OFC all vehicals should be able to move and shoot without penalty...it's the reason you mount a weapon on a tank.

Clearly the LRBT is more advanced. It shoots better on the move. That's the way that works. What the fluff says doesn't mean a thing. What matters is the table performance.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Dunno. Someone claimed marine tanks were "advanced". They can't move and shoot effectively and have sponsons. Seems like WWI to me.

Well - whats funny is the less advanced tank is able to move and shoot with no penalty with it's main gun - while the marine tank is essentially field artillery. OFC all vehicals should be able to move and shoot without penalty...it's the reason you mount a weapon on a tank.

Yes, I agree, tanks should be able to move and fire with no penalty.

That said, the Predator on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving LRBT so IDK what you want. Chronus on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving Tank Commander.

Also, a -1 to hit isn't that bad. I know most modern tanks still are more accurate sitting still than on the move, even if it's a difference between like 100% hit probability and 97%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly the LRBT is more advanced. It shoots better on the move. That's the way that works. What the fluff says doesn't mean a thing. What matters is the table performance.

Are you saying it's more advanced in the fluff because it's better on the table or are you saying fluff doesn't matter? Also, it shoots the same as a moving predator on the move, so not better.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.

It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.

Why would that be cool?

The LRBT is the big, slow, crude tank, whose crews are doctrinally trained to use them in grinding advances [heh] and to follow the orders of a superior officer.

The Predator is a fast, speedy, medium tank whose crews are probably riflemen first, tankers second, and who are trained to use them in lightning strike warfare and not grinding attrition warfare.

The Leman Russ is like the KV-2, and the Predator is like the Panzer IV.

The Panzer IV is a better tank than the KV-2. I'm sorry you don't see that.

I'm not even talking about the drivers or the gunners of these tanks. I'm talking about their systems. A predator has better technology inside of it - it's turrets should move faster and be able to be used on the move more effectively with computer controlled aiming systems. while a lemon is basically using analog technology. I'm talking totally from a fluff perspective here. Marines stuff is supposed to be move advanced. It would be cool to see the rules reflect this by producing a marine unit that is functionally better than it's AM counterparts but costs appropriately more.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.

It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.

Why would that be cool?

The LRBT is the big, slow, crude tank, whose crews are doctrinally trained to use them in grinding advances [heh] and to follow the orders of a superior officer.

The Predator is a fast, speedy, medium tank whose crews are probably riflemen first, tankers second, and who are trained to use them in lightning strike warfare and not grinding attrition warfare.

The Leman Russ is like the KV-2, and the Predator is like the Panzer IV.

The Panzer IV is a better tank than the KV-2. I'm sorry you don't see that.

I'm not even talking about the drivers or the gunners of these tanks. I'm talking about their systems. A predator has better technology inside of it - it's turrets should move faster and be able to be used on the move more effectively with computer controlled aiming systems. while a lemon is basically using analog technology. I'm talking totally from a fluff perspective here. Marines stuff is supposed to be move advanced. It would be cool to see the rules reflect this by producing a marine unit that is functionally better than it's AM counterparts but costs appropriately more.

The problem is ... well, you're wrong.

Kinda.

Sometimes.

Leman Russes do use analog systems. Sometimes. Other times (e.g., the novel Baneblade) they use laser data-communication nets that automatically input and compute fire control data transmitted by nearby tanks such as Baneblades or other LRBTs. Other times (e.g. the novel Necropolis) they have FOF transponders that prevent the computerized fire-control from selecting another Leman Russ as a target (implying they do, in fact, have target selection FCSs).

So no, the Predator is not necessarily that much better in a computer sense. Though sometimes it is. *shrug*

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Dunno. Someone claimed marine tanks were "advanced". They can't move and shoot effectively and have sponsons. Seems like WWI to me.

Well - whats funny is the less advanced tank is able to move and shoot with no penalty with it's main gun - while the marine tank is essentially field artillery. OFC all vehicals should be able to move and shoot without penalty...it's the reason you mount a weapon on a tank.

Yes, I agree, tanks should be able to move and fire with no penalty.

That said, the Predator on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving LRBT so IDK what you want. Chronus on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving Tank Commander.

Also, a -1 to hit isn't that bad. I know most modern tanks still are more accurate sitting still than on the move, even if it's a difference between like 100% hit probability and 97%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly the LRBT is more advanced. It shoots better on the move. That's the way that works. What the fluff says doesn't mean a thing. What matters is the table performance.

Are you saying it's more advanced in the fluff because it's better on the table or are you saying fluff doesn't matter? Also, it shoots the same as a moving predator on the move, so not better.

I'm really not sure how much more accurate modern tanks are while stationary. It removes some variables for sure. It's probably much less than a 3% difference though. I know what the abrams is capable of doing on the move though so I think it's silly to think that tanks 40000 years in the future are having these problems lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm really not sure how much more accurate modern tanks are while stationary. It removes some variables for sure. It's probably much less than a 3% difference though. I know what the abrams is capable of doing on the move though so I think it's silly to think that tanks 40000 years in the future are having these problems lol.

Yeah, but grimdark.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Dunno. Someone claimed marine tanks were "advanced". They can't move and shoot effectively and have sponsons. Seems like WWI to me.

Well - whats funny is the less advanced tank is able to move and shoot with no penalty with it's main gun - while the marine tank is essentially field artillery. OFC all vehicals should be able to move and shoot without penalty...it's the reason you mount a weapon on a tank.

Yes, I agree, tanks should be able to move and fire with no penalty.

That said, the Predator on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving LRBT so IDK what you want. Chronus on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving Tank Commander.

Also, a -1 to hit isn't that bad. I know most modern tanks still are more accurate sitting still than on the move, even if it's a difference between like 100% hit probability and 97%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly the LRBT is more advanced. It shoots better on the move. That's the way that works. What the fluff says doesn't mean a thing. What matters is the table performance.

Are you saying it's more advanced in the fluff because it's better on the table or are you saying fluff doesn't matter? Also, it shoots the same as a moving predator on the move, so not better.

I'm really not sure how much more accurate modern tanks are while stationary. It removes some variables for sure. It's probably much less than a 3% difference though. I know what the abrams is capable of doing on the move though so I think it's silly to think that tanks 40000 years in the future are having these problems lol.

Don't forget this is 40,000 years past the present, but only 12,000 years or so after humanity recovered from a regression back to a medieval technology level in most places, and in the last 10,000 of that 12,000, technological innovation was illegal.

"you saying fluff doesn't matter?"

I'm saying that, yes. Because it really doesn't.

I still maintain a LRBT is better at shooting on the move because it fires a single weapon twice that at full BS. To get two shots, the marines have to pay for two actual weapons. So the more point-starved list has to pay extra to do the same thing. That sounds less advanced to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm really not sure how much more accurate modern tanks are while stationary. It removes some variables for sure. It's probably much less than a 3% difference though. I know what the abrams is capable of doing on the move though so I think it's silly to think that tanks 40000 years in the future are having these problems lol.

Yeah, but grimdark.

Grimdark is so 80s. But hey, a new Blade Runner movie just came out! Maybe it's coming back!

That movie was amazing.

And Stranger Things is literally set in the 80s.

All I need is a cocaine addiction now.

Martel732 wrote:
"you saying fluff doesn't matter?"

I'm saying that, yes. Because it really doesn't.

I still maintain a LRBT is better at shooting on the move because it fires a single weapon twice that at full BS. To get two shots, the marines have to pay for two actual weapons. So the more point-starved list has to pay extra to do the same thing. That sounds less advanced to me.

It doesn't sound less advanced, it sounds like the loaders and gunners for the IG tank are better trained at tank warfare.

You do realize that "more advanced" can sometimes mean a "lower rate of fire" right? I mean, the Russian automatic loading systems are, at the first stages of an engagement, slower than a human loader, for example.

Spin it however you want. Preds are garbage compared to Russes atm. And that's not likely to change.

Martel732 wrote:
Spin it however you want. Preds are garbage compared to Russes atm. And that's not likely to change.

Yes, that's true. Preds are worse than Russes. I wasn't arguing that point at all.

That's the only point that really matters to me in the end. Worse can be explained by less advanced, less skilled, less whatever. But then, you should charge less points, and that doesn't happen.

Martel732 wrote:
That's the only point that really matters to me in the end. Worse can be explained by less advanced, less skilled, less whatever. But then, you should charge less points, and that doesn't happen.

So why did you get involved in a fluff discussion if you're arguing rules?

Because someone used the word "advanced" in association with a marine tank. They clearly are not, both by modern standards and my perceived in-game standards.

Martel732 wrote:
Because someone used the word "advanced" in association with a marine tank. They clearly are not, both by modern standards and my perceived in-game standards.

But they are from the fluff standards, which is what we are talking about.

I don't think you can really tell anything like that from GW's fluff, which is why I ignore it. But if you think so, carry on.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you can really tell anything like that from GW's fluff, which is why I ignore it. But if you think so, carry on.

I mean, I don't actually think so. As mentioned before, the fluff of the LRBT is so schitzophrenic that it's simultaneously both more and less advanced in the fluff.

But yeah, I don't get why you got involved about a fluff discussion, haha.

Also, sarcasm doesn't translate well in typing. Almost everything I say is sarcastic. Because that's my level of respect for GW.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Most the AM army traits have a bonus to their tanks. None of the space marine ones do.

Thats also a difference in emphasis. SM's have always been an army of super soldiers, occasionally supported by tanks. The tanks are there for fire support while the infantry does most of the work. IG have always been a tank heavy army and have had entire tank based army lists for most of the game's existence.

They can even give their tanks orders

This isn't exactly new, and for an army built so heavily around its vehicles, there needs to be some way to incorporate the army special mechanic.

and put commanders to make them shoot as good/better than a space marine - in every LR.

when we say "every LR"...we mean one unit with different weapons options.

You can't have a tank commander Valkyrie, Chimera, Taurox, Hellhound, Basilisk, Manticore, etc. You cant issue orders to any of these units either.

Unlike say...Chronus who can go in everything. Yes I know he's very different, but thats also part of the point. IG have things SM's dont. SM's have stuff IG does not.

From a fluff perspective, that also works. Being a genetically engineered super soldier is great for infantry combat, but doesn't do a tremendous amount for one's ability to command and fight from a tank (probably the opposite...especially imagining a Space Marine on armor attempting to *fit* in a tank ). Having IG experienced tank commanders that can match Space Marine tanks on BS3+ isnt so outrageous from that point of view.

It really just seems like the elite army has less elite stuff than mass produced one. It's a dang joke. Space marine tanks are supposed to be more advanced than imperial guard tanks.

Hrm, yes and no. Technologically, yes, raw firepower or resiliency, no.

Space Marine tanks are generally APC's or a fire support platform made from said APC's. A Predator is not really an MBT, it's a Rhino that's had a turret and a bit of extra armor slapped on. More advanced than a Russ tank? In some ways. You dont need 7 dudes to fully man a Predator. You can keep logistics simpler with everything on the same base vehicle platform. That doesnr mean the Predator is intended to be a superior MBT to a Russ. Likewise, Guard have always had superior artillery to Space Marines. Space Marines have never had anything on par with something like a Basilisk.

That said, take a Quadlas predator, and no Leman Russ is going match it for long range tank hunting ability in 8E, it's going to generally handily win any long range tank battle with any Russ (and most short range battles too), especially given how garbage the Vanquisher is.


Lets also address the root issue of Grinding Advance. GW borked the Russ and many Blast weapons when translating to 8E. They were garbage in the Index. The doubleshots was added because GW likes special rules for patches instead of statline fixes, and that's what they chose to go with. Even with the new Grinding Advance and other changrs, about the only versions youre ever going to see on a table are the Punisher, Battle Tank, and Executioner.

My comparison is accurate.

Infantry squad gets 3 hits, where SM gets 4. Infantry squad in even numbers is 3/4 as accurate. 6 Guardsmen shoot, 3 hit. 6 Marines shoot, 4 hit. Guardsmen are 3/4 as effective at hitting a target.

Of those hits, 2/6 wound, compared to 3/6 wound. Guardsmen are 2/3 damage on successful hits. A single guardsman has 0.75 * 0.67 the offensive output as a Marine. Roughly 50% offensive output. My bad.

In terms of being hit, a Guardsman is typically wounded 4 times out of 6, a Marine is wounded 3 times out of 6. Therefore, a Guardsman is 3/4 as Tough as a Marine. Marines save 4/6, while G saves 2/6. Therefore the save is 2/4 as good. 0.75 * 0.5 = 38% as valuable when defending.

0.5 + 0.38 /2 = 0.44 the average offensive / defensive capabilities of a Guardsman vs a Marine. Again, this disregards CC potential, but realistically, 0.41 is a completely reasonable comparison of combined offensive / defensive capability.

Simple evaluation of relative effect. Again, I admit that this does not reflect the benefit of board control, etc, but if we took 50 Guardsmen and 20 Marines, and had them simultaneously shoot each other and resolve casualties in a vacuum [assuming each model takes an equal number of attacks] you'd find that each group wins 50 to 55 % of the time. Less than a 5% difference, between them. Likely a 55% win rate for the Guardsmen.

Try it out! Someone out there can build a program that can compare 2"X" Marines vs 5"X" Guardsmen. Keep the ratios the same, and it works out. Resolve attacks simultaneously.

So guardsmen should be 5 points relative to Marines, by your math, but your math ignores close combat...

...and that's okay?

Why should close combat be ignored?

And don't say "because it's not the focus of the units in question" - I agree it's not IG's focus, but for tactical marines, well, they don't have a focus. CC is as much their focus as shooting.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BS AM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.

Orders require a character to issue them.

The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.

Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.

Most the AM army traits have a bonus to their tanks. None of the space marine ones do. They can even give their tanks orders and put commanders to make them shoot as good/better than a space marine - in every LR. It really just seems like the elite army has less elite stuff than mass produced one. It's a dang joke. Space marine tanks are supposed to be more advanced than imperial guard tanks.

Space Marine tanks are more advanced. If you look at the pure profile, the SM tanks are faster and have more firepower (4 lascannons vs 1 Vanquisher Cannon, 1 Hull Lascannon, 2 Heavy Bolter Sponsons for the tank destroyer versions of each tank).

The difference is in Doctrine. For the SM, the tanks are just sorta there (I guess. Every time I want to field a Space Marine tank company I get yelled at by SM players that they always have infantry and never field pure tank formations), while the Imperium actively fields massed tank units.

This is reflected in Grinding Advance, where the Leman Russ slows the pace of its advance to enable the gunner to fire more accurately and therefore more often, and in Tank Commanders who can command tanks.

It's worth noting that the SM have a tank commander too - Sgt. Chronus.

Can only take 1 chronus. You can take a supreme command of LR commander and have each tank buff the other with reroll 1's. Plus the LR turret is equal to 3 las cannons and you can take hull las cannon. So the lemon clearly has more firepower in commander form. This isn't even factoring in catachen trait or the other one that makes you degrade slower or the 2 plasma cannons or heavy bolters you can add in. Or the +1 toughness. Again. The russ is clearly better than a predator. If marine chapter tactics affected our tanks though it would be a much closer comparison.

I mean you can take a supreme command of tank commanders but since none of them have the knight commander rule they can't issue each other orders unless I'm missing something.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So guardsmen should be 5 points relative to Marines, by your math, but your math ignores close combat...

...and that's okay?

Why should close combat be ignored?

And don't say "because it's not the focus of the units in question" - I agree it's not IG's focus, but for tactical marines, well, they don't have a focus. CC is as much their focus as shooting.

I think guardsmen should be 5 pts, but for reasons other than this particular disagreement. Tac marine CC might as well not exist, so I'd call them a shooting focused unit.

 greatbigtree wrote:

Try it out! Someone out there can build a program that can compare 2"X" Marines vs 5"X" Guardsmen. Keep the ratios the same, and it works out. Resolve attacks simultaneously.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I think you're saying have 50 guard shoot at 20 marines and vice versa, right? Do you want rapid fire or single fire range? I guess I'll assume rapid fire for both?

Well, here's the guard:

A: 100 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 4+
vs T: 4 sv 3+
Damage Outcomes percent
0 36 0.4%
1 207 2.1%
2 605 6.0%
3 1134 11.3%
4 1496 15.0%
5 1773 17.7%
6 1581 15.8%
7 1327 13.3%
8 864 8.6%
9 494 4.9%
10 238 2.4%
11 146 1.5%
12 61 0.6%
13 30 0.3%
14 7 0.1%
16 1 0.0%

Here's the marines:

A: 40 S: 4 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 3+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
Damage Outcomes percent
3 5 0.1%
4 25 0.2%
5 61 0.6%
6 172 1.7%
7 318 3.2%
8 636 6.4%
9 864 8.6%
10 1151 11.5%
11 1386 13.9%
12 1349 13.5%
13 1232 12.3%
14 1020 10.2%
15 740 7.4%
16 489 4.9%
17 265 2.6%
18 153 1.5%
19 90 0.9%
20 31 0.3%
21 8 0.1%
22 4 0.0%
25 1 0.0%

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So guardsmen should be 5 points relative to Marines, by your math, but your math ignores close combat...

...and that's okay?

Why should close combat be ignored?

And don't say "because it's not the focus of the units in question" - I agree it's not IG's focus, but for tactical marines, well, they don't have a focus. CC is as much their focus as shooting.

I think guardsmen should be 5 pts, but for reasons other than this particular disagreement. Tac marine CC might as well not exist, so I'd call them a shooting focused unit.

I'd disagree. BS3 S4 means Tac Marines are above average CC units. Add the 3+ armor save and they can tie up and chew through gaunts and guardsmen alike with horrifying effectiness. Forcing Tac Marines away from their generalist role and using them as a pure shooting unit is foolish.

They are NOT above average CC units. They only get one swing. That's always been their big downfall. Lack of offense/pt in every phase of the game, but ESPECIALLY CC.

Generalist = failure in 40K. Always has, likely, always will. The army with 10 specialist shooters and 10 specialist CC units will have the shooters shoot and the CC units CC. How do the 20 generalists fare? Poorly, when they also cost more, which they usually do because "marines".

Martel732 wrote:
They are NOT above average CC units. They only get one swing. That's always been their big downfall. Lack of offense/pt in every phase of the game, but ESPECIALLY CC.

Generalist = failure in 40K. Always has, likely, always will. The army with 10 specialist shooters and 10 specialist CC units will have the shooters shoot and the CC units CC. How do the 20 generalists fare? Poorly, when they also cost more, which they usually do because "marines".

That's not been my experience at all. While building my AM list I used Tac Marines (+ a squad of bolter owned scouts) I inherited to fill the missing points. They were good infantry shredders in shooting and could hold a line like nobody's business. Add in a couple of their half dozen support model options and they can become a serious threat to anything short of Tau Lord Of War Battlesuits. I've had waves of cultists break against them in close combat. Had then engage and emerge victorious from conscript squads.

Heck, they are the same WS and Strength as Orks, but with a massively better armor save. All this not counting hte seargent/chainsword you get for free with 3 attacks. Add in the fact that most of the support models have 2-3 attacks for a heroic intervention and they are a pretty good choice. Don't blame them because you also get a CC dedicated marine unit that happens to be better than even that.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So guardsmen should be 5 points relative to Marines, by your math, but your math ignores close combat...

...and that's okay?

Why should close combat be ignored?

And don't say "because it's not the focus of the units in question" - I agree it's not IG's focus, but for tactical marines, well, they don't have a focus. CC is as much their focus as shooting.

I think guardsmen should be 5 pts, but for reasons other than this particular disagreement. Tac marine CC might as well not exist, so I'd call them a shooting focused unit.

I'd disagree. BS3 S4 means Tac Marines are above average CC units. Add the 3+ armor save and they can tie up and chew through gaunts and guardsmen alike with horrifying effectiness. Forcing Tac Marines away from their generalist role and using them as a pure shooting unit is foolish.

...They have one attack each? A squad of five will kill like, one guardsman. That's not exactly "horrifying effectiveness".

They're all dead by turn 3 from Wyvern fire anyway. So the CC doesn't matter. Generalists have no hope against undercosted shooting. You can take that to the bank.

Your idea of "holding the line" is so quaint when my opponent is lobbing 20+ manticore shots at me every turn on top of the wyverns.

Well, let me try it another way...

Guardsman puts 0.5 * 0.33 * 0.33 Marines in the bin each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 50 Guardsmen are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Marine Unit. They will take 50 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 2.7 Dead marines, rounded to 3.

Marines do 0.67 * 0.67 * 0.67 Guardsmen in the bin with each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 20 Marines are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Guardsmen unit. They will take 20 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 6 Dead Guardsmen.

We'll now carry on, doing average damage to each other. T X = Turns of shooting. G Y = Number of Guardsmen remaining. M Z = Marines remaining.

T1 - G 44 - M 17
T2 - G 39 - M 15
T3 - G 34 - M 13
T4 - G 30 - M 11
T5 - G 27 - M 9
T6 - G 24 - M 8
T7 - G 22 - M 7
T8 - G 20 - M 6
T9 - G 18 - M 5
T10 - G16 - M 4
T11 - G14 - M 3
T12 - G13 - M 3
T13 - G12 - M 2
T14 - G11 - M 2
T15 - G10 - M 1
T16 - G10 - M 1
T17 - G 9 - M 0

So I was a little off. Someone else can run the numbers at 45 Guardsmen vs 20 Marines, and that should pan out about equal. If that's close, and again, I was rounding until the end where I was applying half-numbers, then that gives you an estimate of the value of a Guardsman vs Marine in a static shooting match. 20/45 = 44%, just as I predicted. And then I factored a Close Combat favour to the Marines, which puts them at about 40 %, which would be 20 Marines to 50 Guardsmen, presuming the Marines were capable of advancing so that even the last few dudes could get into close combat.

It's pretty much self-evident. You just have to recognize the numbers and how they interact.

Presuming a Marine is still 16 pts, haven't checked in a long while, then a Guardsman should be 7 points. Which I think is a bit much, I think they're 5, 6 tops, but that's a metric if we simply compare damage stats in a vacuum.

Troops in 8th exist to fill space and soak up shots. The cheaper the model, the better they fill these roles. These output numbers mean nothing because you are getting shot by mega weapons from 48' away that ignore LoS.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Well, let me try it another way...

Guardsman puts 0.5 * 0.33 * 0.33 Marines in the bin each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 50 Guardsmen are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Marine Unit. They will take 50 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 2.7 Dead marines, rounded to 3.

Marines do 0.67 * 0.67 * 0.67 Guardsmen in the bin with each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 20 Marines are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Guardsmen unit. They will take 20 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 6 Dead Guardsmen.

We'll now carry on, doing average damage to each other. T X = Turns of shooting. G Y = Number of Guardsmen remaining. M Z = Marines remaining.

T1 - G 44 - M 17
T2 - G 39 - M 15
T3 - G 34 - M 13
T4 - G 30 - M 11
T5 - G 27 - M 9
T6 - G 24 - M 8
T7 - G 22 - M 7
T8 - G 20 - M 6
T9 - G 18 - M 5
T10 - G16 - M 4
T11 - G14 - M 3
T12 - G13 - M 3
T13 - G12 - M 2
T14 - G11 - M 2
T15 - G10 - M 1
T16 - G10 - M 1
T17 - G 9 - M 0

So I was a little off. Someone else can run the numbers at 45 Guardsmen vs 20 Marines, and that should pan out about equal. If that's close, and again, I was rounding until the end where I was applying half-numbers, then that gives you an estimate of the value of a Guardsman vs Marine in a static shooting match. 20/45 = 44%, just as I predicted. And then I factored a Close Combat favour to the Marines, which puts them at about 40 %, which would be 20 Marines to 50 Guardsmen, presuming the Marines were capable of advancing so that even the last few dudes could get into close combat.

It's pretty much self-evident. You just have to recognize the numbers and how they interact.

Presuming a Marine is still 16 pts, haven't checked in a long while, then a Guardsman should be 7 points. Which I think is a bit much, I think they're 5, 6 tops, but that's a metric if we simply compare damage stats in a vacuum.

Marines are 13 points. Weapons also matter, unfortunately there is no gun weak enough to be efficient to shoot at GEQ over anything else. The closest you can come is a lasgun, which sets up a problem look when the best counter to GEQ is GEQ. That said I'm not sure it's as simple as guard should be more expensive and marines cheaper it's more that I think the game is lacking any real sort of light anti infantry weapons.

greatbigtree wrote:My comparison is accurate.

Infantry squad gets 3 hits, where SM gets 4. Infantry squad in even numbers is 3/4 as accurate. 6 Guardsmen shoot, 3 hit. 6 Marines shoot, 4 hit. Guardsmen are 3/4 as effective at hitting a target.

Of those hits, 2/6 wound, compared to 3/6 wound. Guardsmen are 2/3 damage on successful hits. A single guardsman has 0.75 * 0.67 the offensive output as a Marine. Roughly 50% offensive output. My bad.

In terms of being hit, a Guardsman is typically wounded 4 times out of 6, a Marine is wounded 3 times out of 6. Therefore, a Guardsman is 3/4 as Tough as a Marine. Marines save 4/6, while G saves 2/6. Therefore the save is 2/4 as good. 0.75 * 0.5 = 38% as valuable when defending.

0.5 + 0.38 /2 = 0.44 the average offensive / defensive capabilities of a Guardsman vs a Marine. Again, this disregards CC potential, but realistically, 0.41 is a completely reasonable comparison of combined offensive / defensive capability.

Simple evaluation of relative effect. Again, I admit that this does not reflect the benefit of board control, etc, but if we took 50 Guardsmen and 20 Marines, and had them simultaneously shoot each other and resolve casualties in a vacuum [assuming each model takes an equal number of attacks] you'd find that each group wins 50 to 55 % of the time. Less than a 5% difference, between them. Likely a 55% win rate for the Guardsmen.

Try it out! Someone out there can build a program that can compare 2"X" Marines vs 5"X" Guardsmen. Keep the ratios the same, and it works out. Resolve attacks simultaneously.

Responding to me? I didn't include quotes where i probably should have. Okay, my response (ignoring points). An infantry squad vs a tactical squad, 10 men on both sides. Rough calculations.
Guard do 5 hits, Marines do 8. (62% difference)
Guard do 1.5 wounds (rounding up to 2, but you can round either way here), marines do 6 (33%).
Guard do 1 wound (rounding down, just out of interest), (20%)
Guard save 2, Marines save 2 (0% difference)
Total difference: 32%
Total difference: (rounding down): 27%

So assuming my math is correct, and ignoring point values, the differences add up to about to 32-27%. But for the sake of argument, lets say that marines perform 25% better than guardsmen. That puts guardsmen at ~9 points in value, which imo is worse.

I find the whole thing fascinating. Please correct me if my math is wrong, but on performance it seems that guardsmen are severely undercosted compared to marines. This goes some way to explaining the performance values on the tabletop.

Unit1126PLL wrote:So guardsmen should be 5 points relative to Marines, by your math, but your math ignores close combat...

...and that's okay?

Why should close combat be ignored?

And don't say "because it's not the focus of the units in question" - I agree it's not IG's focus, but for tactical marines, well, they don't have a focus. CC is as much their focus as shooting.

The thing is, to get your points back, marines have to be shooting and meleeing every turn. And that's assuming the 33% value difference. As for focus, yeah tactical marines don't really have a focus, but their weapon options are specced for shooting. Not having a focus isn't a good thing, it means they perform underpar at every phase of the game for their pricing.

 greatbigtree wrote:

Presuming a Marine is still 16 pts, haven't checked in a long while, then a Guardsman should be 7 points. Which I think is a bit much, I think they're 5, 6 tops, but that's a metric if we simply compare damage stats in a vacuum.

I'm pretty sure marines are currently 13 points.

Did my numbers not work? I have a program to simulate outcomes of combat. I'm willing to punch numbers in for you.

 greatbigtree wrote:
My comparison is accurate.

Infantry squad gets 3 hits, where SM gets 4. Infantry squad in even numbers is 3/4 as accurate. 6 Guardsmen shoot, 3 hit. 6 Marines shoot, 4 hit. Guardsmen are 3/4 as effective at hitting a target.

Of those hits, 2/6 wound, compared to 3/6 wound.

and thiiiiiis is where it starts to gain context. Ok, so we're assuming both are shooting at a T4 target. That's an important distinction. It means we're isolating this to a specific kind of target, and looking at the unit as a broader whole or in direct comparison to each other.

Guardsmen are 2/3 damage on successful hits. A single guardsman has 0.75 * 0.67 the offensive output as a Marine. Roughly 50% offensive output. My bad.


In terms of being hit, a Guardsman is typically wounded 4 times out of 6, a Marine is wounded 3 times out of 6. Therefore, a Guardsman is 3/4 as Tough as a Marine. Marines save 4/6, while G saves 2/6. Therefore the save is 2/4 as good. 0.75 * 0.5 = 38% as valuable when defending.

This is specifically only against S4 AP0 fire. Ok.

0.5 + 0.38 /2 = 0.44 the average offensive / defensive capabilities of a Guardsman vs a Marine. Again, this disregards CC potential, but realistically, 0.41 is a completely reasonable comparison of combined offensive / defensive capability.

Against specifically T4 targets and S4 attacks back at them, sure.

However, it does not capture their relative differences to each other. Youve measured the shooting effectiveness of Guardsmen against Space Marines and Space Marines against Space Marines, but not Guardsmen against Guardsmen or, most critically, Space Marines against Guardsmen.

Simple evaluation of relative effect. Again, I admit that this does not reflect the benefit of board control, etc, but if we took 50 Guardsmen and 20 Marines, and had them simultaneously shoot each other and resolve casualties in a vacuum [assuming each model takes an equal number of attacks] you'd find that each group wins 50 to 55 % of the time. Less than a 5% difference, between them. Likely a 55% win rate for the Guardsmen.

It may very well be true, but thats a bit different than the way it was couched and explored above. It's also a very specific situation and matchup, and, as noted, board control and the ability to get 50 dudes in range and LoS vs just 20, stuff like that also matters. Compare them on even numbers, say 10 Guardsmen to 10 Space Marines, and the Guardsmen will kill 1.11 Marines while the Marines will kill 5.93 Guardsmen (though, to be fair, is down notably from the 8.88 theyd have killed in 2E-7E since they reintroduced ASM's that dont negate guard armor).

The armor thing is actually probably the biggest point. Guardsmen dont have to be hiding behind every terrain piece possible to get a save of some sort now, they get a save against most weapons now even in the open, whereas before they did not, even going back to 2E (where they had a 6+ and even Lasguns had a -1 ASM). That's probably the biggest thing in favor of bumping them back up to 5pts.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.

It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.

Why would that be cool?

The LRBT is the big, slow, crude tank, whose crews are doctrinally trained to use them in grinding advances [heh] and to follow the orders of a superior officer.

The Predator is a fast, speedy, medium tank whose crews are probably riflemen first, tankers second, and who are trained to use them in lightning strike warfare and not grinding attrition warfare.

The Leman Russ is like the KV-2, and the Predator is like the Panzer IV.

The Panzer IV is a better tank than the KV-2. I'm sorry you don't see that.

I'm not even talking about the drivers or the gunners of these tanks. I'm talking about their systems. A predator has better technology inside of it - it's turrets should move faster and be able to be used on the move more effectively with computer controlled aiming systems. while a lemon is basically using analog technology. I'm talking totally from a fluff perspective here. Marines stuff is supposed to be move advanced. It would be cool to see the rules reflect this by producing a marine unit that is functionally better than it's AM counterparts but costs appropriately more.

That would be the Land Raider, which moves at full speed without reduced fire effectiveness, has better armor and more wounds. If you've ever played Epic, you think of the Land Raider as the marine MBT, not the predator.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Well, let me try it another way...

Guardsman puts 0.5 * 0.33 * 0.33 Marines in the bin each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 50 Guardsmen are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Marine Unit. They will take 50 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 2.7 Dead marines, rounded to 3.

Marines do 0.67 * 0.67 * 0.67 Guardsmen in the bin with each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 20 Marines are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Guardsmen unit. They will take 20 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 6 Dead Guardsmen.

We'll now carry on, doing average damage to each other. T X = Turns of shooting. G Y = Number of Guardsmen remaining. M Z = Marines remaining.

T1 - G 44 - M 17
T2 - G 39 - M 15
T3 - G 34 - M 13
T4 - G 30 - M 11
T5 - G 27 - M 9
T6 - G 24 - M 8
T7 - G 22 - M 7
T8 - G 20 - M 6
T9 - G 18 - M 5
T10 - G16 - M 4
T11 - G14 - M 3
T12 - G13 - M 3
T13 - G12 - M 2
T14 - G11 - M 2
T15 - G10 - M 1
T16 - G10 - M 1
T17 - G 9 - M 0

So I was a little off. Someone else can run the numbers at 45 Guardsmen vs 20 Marines, and that should pan out about equal. If that's close, and again, I was rounding until the end where I was applying half-numbers, then that gives you an estimate of the value of a Guardsman vs Marine in a static shooting match. 20/45 = 44%, just as I predicted. And then I factored a Close Combat favour to the Marines, which puts them at about 40 %, which would be 20 Marines to 50 Guardsmen, presuming the Marines were capable of advancing so that even the last few dudes could get into close combat.

It's pretty much self-evident. You just have to recognize the numbers and how they interact.

Presuming a Marine is still 16 pts, haven't checked in a long while, then a Guardsman should be 7 points. Which I think is a bit much, I think they're 5, 6 tops, but that's a metric if we simply compare damage stats in a vacuum.

Major flaw here, is the complete ignoring of the concentration of force.

Namely, that the engagement won't possibly start with all guards in range.
The "initial" engagement will be 10 VS 10 or so. The marines won't have to fight the entire bulk of guards at once, but take it down in smaller bites.
And that's were you ignore moral, where the guards would take far more additional casualties.


Your analysis is only correct in a world without range/space limits, and without the moral phase.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody cares if a Conscript is 50% less durable than before because there is 4 for every Marine.

Actually, because of T3 vs T4, against most anti-infantry weaponry a conscript is weaker 50% durable (because they also have a 16% higher chance to get wounded by most anti-infantry weapons than marines do. This, along with their vastly inferior firepower, makes them not actually really that unbalanced on raw math. Vs marines, each conscript's lasgun shot has a 33% chance to hit, each hit has a 33% chance to wound, each wound has a 33% chance to go through armor, resulting in a 3.7% chance to kill a marine per conscript. Four of these conscripts have a roughly 30% chance to kill one marine in a rapid fire volley. Compared to each marine's boltgun having a 66% chance to hit, 66% chance to wound, and 66% chance to go through armor; this means each marine shot has a 30% chance to kill a conscript, or 60% chance per rapid fire volley per astartes. This calculation goes DRASTICALLY in the marine's favor when cover is taken in to account; a marine in cover takes a less than 2% chance per lasgun shot to die, while a conscript in cover still takes a 22% chance to die from bolter fire in the unlikely scenario that the entire conscript squad has managed to get in to cover and thus is given the bonus. Those four conscripts have less than 15% chance to kill one marine per volley, while the marine still has nearly a 50% chance to kill a conscript. And this is purely bolter vs lasgun; add in other weapons, and the marines' strength grows even greater, where the best the conscript can hope for is a few more shots.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.

It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.

Why would that be cool?

The LRBT is the big, slow, crude tank, whose crews are doctrinally trained to use them in grinding advances [heh] and to follow the orders of a superior officer.

The Predator is a fast, speedy, medium tank whose crews are probably riflemen first, tankers second, and who are trained to use them in lightning strike warfare and not grinding attrition warfare.

The Leman Russ is like the KV-2, and the Predator is like the Panzer IV.

The Panzer IV is a better tank than the KV-2. I'm sorry you don't see that.

I'm not even talking about the drivers or the gunners of these tanks. I'm talking about their systems. A predator has better technology inside of it - it's turrets should move faster and be able to be used on the move more effectively with computer controlled aiming systems. while a lemon is basically using analog technology. I'm talking totally from a fluff perspective here. Marines stuff is supposed to be move advanced. It would be cool to see the rules reflect this by producing a marine unit that is functionally better than it's AM counterparts but costs appropriately more.

That would be the Land Raider, which moves at full speed without reduced fire effectiveness, has better armor and more wounds. If you've ever played Epic, you think of the Land Raider as the marine MBT, not the predator.

Oh, so marines functionally don't have a MBT. Got it. Because its still unfieldable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody cares if a Conscript is 50% less durable than before because there is 4 for every Marine.

Actually, because of T3 vs T4, against most anti-infantry weaponry a conscript is weaker 50% durable (because they also have a 16% higher chance to get wounded by most anti-infantry weapons than marines do. This, along with their vastly inferior firepower, makes them not actually really that unbalanced on raw math. Vs marines, each conscript's lasgun shot has a 33% chance to hit, each hit has a 33% chance to wound, each wound has a 33% chance to go through armor, resulting in a 3.7% chance to kill a marine per conscript. Four of these conscripts have a roughly 30% chance to kill one marine in a rapid fire volley. Compared to each marine's boltgun having a 66% chance to hit, 66% chance to wound, and 66% chance to go through armor; this means each marine shot has a 30% chance to kill a conscript, or 60% chance per rapid fire volley per astartes. This calculation goes DRASTICALLY in the marine's favor when cover is taken in to account; a marine in cover takes a less than 2% chance per lasgun shot to die, while a conscript in cover still takes a 22% chance to die from bolter fire in the unlikely scenario that the entire conscript squad has managed to get in to cover and thus is given the bonus. Those four conscripts have less than 15% chance to kill one marine per volley, while the marine still has nearly a 50% chance to kill a conscript. And this is purely bolter vs lasgun; add in other weapons, and the marines' strength grows even greater, where the best the conscript can hope for is a few more shots.

You neglect the value of just existing in 8th. Forget killing power. Conscripts and models that cheap don't need to actually accomplish anything in the current meta. Maybe something changes that. We'll see.

Tygre wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.

It occurred to me why that is. It's all based around a d6, and their stats are basically marines -1 (3 instead of 4). Which is a 16.5% reduction in quality when competing with a marine (1/6 = ~16.5%). But their price is >66% less than a marine. So they're paying drastically less than a marine for a 16.5% reduction in performance in any given stat.

But 4 down to 3 is a 25% reduction. And Guard don't have power armour.

They also don't have +1 Toughness. Or +1 WS. Or +1 LD. Or a Bolter, bolt pistol, krak grenades, ATSKNF, sarge equipment list. . . .

But none of that matters of course if you ask the people who think marines are trash.

 argonak wrote:

Tygre wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.

It occurred to me why that is. It's all based around a d6, and their stats are basically marines -1 (3 instead of 4). Which is a 16.5% reduction in quality when competing with a marine (1/6 = ~16.5%). But their price is >66% less than a marine. So they're paying drastically less than a marine for a 16.5% reduction in performance in any given stat.

But 4 down to 3 is a 25% reduction. And Guard don't have power armour.

They also don't have +1 Toughness. Or +1 WS. Or +1 LD. Or a Bolter, bolt pistol, krak grenades, ATSKNF, sarge equipment list. . . .

But none of that matters of course if you ask the people who think marines are trash.

"The daunted few"

 argonak wrote:

Tygre wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.

It occurred to me why that is. It's all based around a d6, and their stats are basically marines -1 (3 instead of 4). Which is a 16.5% reduction in quality when competing with a marine (1/6 = ~16.5%). But their price is >66% less than a marine. So they're paying drastically less than a marine for a 16.5% reduction in performance in any given stat.

But 4 down to 3 is a 25% reduction. And Guard don't have power armour.

They also don't have +1 Toughness. Or +1 WS. Or +1 LD. Or a Bolter, bolt pistol, krak grenades, ATSKNF, sarge equipment list. . . .

But none of that matters of course if you ask the people who think marines are trash.

It kind of doesn't the way games play out.

First off, I have not in any way represented my argument as anything other than numbers of models pounding each other in a vacuum, with no recourse to manoeuver or range. Nor does it account for Morale... a big factor in the initial salvo.

Second, I'm now going to run the simulation, outside of ANY POSSIBLE GAMING SCENARIO. In particular, the scenario involves simultaneous shooting.

This takes BS4+, S3, T3, Sv5+ "Guardsmen" models, and pits them against BS3+, S4, T4, Sv3+ Marine Models. Attacks resolve simultaneously.

45 Guardsmen models, at 5 points each are 225 points [I've proposed that Guardsmen models should be 5 points]. They shall receive no other bonuses, as this comparison is in a vacuum.

20 Marine models, at 13 points each are 260 points. They shall receive no other bonuses, as this comparison is in a vacuum.

As before, each Guardsman, with a single attack, generates 0.0556 Marine Casualties [models removed] per attack.

A Marine, with a single attack, generates 0.2963 Guardsmen casualties per attack. For the sake of reference, an individual Marine is 5.33 times more likely to create a Guardsman casualty in a single attack, compared to a Guardsman generating a Marine casualty... but there are a lot more Guardsmen.

As before, T=Turns of Attack, G=Guardsmen remaining, and M=Marines remaining, rounding to nearest numbers.

T0 - G45 - M20
T1 - G39 - M17
T2 - G34 - M15
T3 - G30 - M13
T4 - G26 - M11
T5 - G23 - M10
T6 - G20 - M09
T7 - G17 - M08
T8 - G15 - M07
T9 - G13 - M06
T10 - G11 - M05
T11 - G10 - M04
T12 - G09 - M03
T13 - G08 - M03
T14 - G07 - M02
T15 - G06 - M02
T16 - G05 - M01
T17 -----------------> 5 Guardsmen have a 25% chance to wound a Marine, vs the Marine's 30% chance to wound a Guardsman. 10 Guardsmen have a roughly 50/50 chance to kill a Marine. 2 Marines have a 50/50 chance to kill a Guardsman.

I will anecdotally note that the Marines had more "rounding" against them, and will also note that the extra wounds have a greater impact, especially early, on the Marines' damage output.

So, again, ballparking here, the raw stats for the Guardsmen vs Tactical Marine are that 20 Tacticals are roughly equal to... 42? Guardsmen? If so, a Guardsman should be worth about 20 / 42 * 13 = 6 points... give or take. I could see paying 6 points for a Guardsman model. They aren't that big a chunk of most armies, I'd suggest [excluding conscript spam]. At 1500 points, I've been playing about 40 or so Infantry Models and 30 Conscripts. If each model was bumped by 2 points, that would be 140 fewer points, or one less Manticore.

Which seems fair, to be honest. I would have thought 5 points was right, prior to this exercise and if I were to just go by straight gut feeling, I would say 5 is still right... but a solid argument is made that 6 is more accurate and I would be happy to play as such. This exercise favours the Guardsmen, as they do not take additional casualties from Morale. Having lost 6 models in the initial salvo, they should hypothetically have probably lost models due to morale. If even 2 more models were lost [rolling a 4] compared to the Marines' 1/6 chance to lose an additional casualty on the first volley only... Well, let's just say that if we were to factor morale, I believe that 5 points would be the sweet spot.


42 Guardsmen at 6 points each is 252 points, 20 Marines at 13 points each are 260. Points wise, we'd be less than one Marine's worth of points difference. Ignoring morale.

So, did anyone else notice that Tyranids are getting better Commissars than the Astra Militarum? Synapse is basically the old Summary Execution rule, except 12" range and its an automatic pass instead of "you only ever lose one model". Oh, and almost all the synapse creatures in the army are actually useful on their own as monstrous creatures, psychic support, cold-blooded assault beasts, ranged support platforms, etc.

The units being buffed are far inferior and the synapse bugs can be targeted and killed.

There are a number of units and models with rules that allow them to target the Commissar. Even relatively mundane sniper type units can easily kill a Commissar in a turn of shooting. It will take considerably more effort to bring down some of the larger synapse creatures available to the Tyranids.

Also, there are a handful of synapse creatures that are not monstrous creatures and therefore can successfully hide behind a swarm.

chaos0xomega wrote:
So, did anyone else notice that Tyranids are getting better Commissars than the Astra Militarum? Synapse is basically the old Summary Execution rule, except 12" range and its an automatic pass instead of "you only ever lose one model". Oh, and almost all the synapse creatures in the army are actually useful on their own as monstrous creatures, psychic support, cold-blooded assault beasts, ranged support platforms, etc.

I'm not so worried about synapse, especially if they are tatgetable. I personally think they overshot on how they changed the commissars, especially since we have so few codices out but hopefully they retune them with chapter approved, but we'll just have to see.

chaos0xomega wrote:
There are a number of units and models with rules that allow them to target the Commissar. Even relatively mundane sniper type units can easily kill a Commissar in a turn of shooting. It will take considerably more effort to bring down some of the larger synapse creatures available to the Tyranids.

Also, there are a handful of synapse creatures that are not monstrous creatures and therefore can successfully hide behind a swarm.

Tyranids had synpase before, they just buffed the range. I'm more worried about how Instinctive Behavior is going to be a non-factor.

chaos0xomega wrote:
So, did anyone else notice that Tyranids are getting better Commissars than the Astra Militarum? Synapse is basically the old Summary Execution rule, except 12" range and its an automatic pass instead of "you only ever lose one model". Oh, and almost all the synapse creatures in the army are actually useful on their own as monstrous creatures, psychic support, cold-blooded assault beasts, ranged support platforms, etc.

Of course they are, IG gets a lot more gun choices, and bigger gun choices than Tyranids. Different armies, man.

Eldar armies with the Iyanden trait also have army-wide summary execution. Really, having gone through a bunch of the codexes and indexes, nothing about the old Summary Execution rule really seems out of line with anything you would find in any other army. I could see the argument being made that perhaps Commissars should have cost more points, but given their fragility and otherwise total uselessness in any sort of application other than their morale bubble, it feels like you were getting what you paid for. If the issue really was that Commissars were breaking conscript blobs, then it seems the issue needed to be addressed with the conscripts, not the commissars.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Orders are just free BS AM gets for no freaking reason...

in much the same way Space Marines get ATSKNF and the ability to Deep Strike almost anything that isn't a tank, or that Eldar get Battle Focus, etc. Every army gets a unique mechanic of some sort, for Space Marines it's ATSKNF and wide availability of Deep Striking, for IG it's Orders.

One can argue the relative power of these abilities, especially over different editions, but there *is* a reason they're there.

I think you meant the privelage to pay 100 points to Deep Strike anything. Which really isn't anything special anymore because too many people whined about anything not in regular Power Armor being able to use Drop Pods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody cares if a Conscript is 50% less durable than before because there is 4 for every Marine.

Actually, because of T3 vs T4, against most anti-infantry weaponry a conscript is weaker 50% durable (because they also have a 16% higher chance to get wounded by most anti-infantry weapons than marines do. This, along with their vastly inferior firepower, makes them not actually really that unbalanced on raw math. Vs marines, each conscript's lasgun shot has a 33% chance to hit, each hit has a 33% chance to wound, each wound has a 33% chance to go through armor, resulting in a 3.7% chance to kill a marine per conscript. Four of these conscripts have a roughly 30% chance to kill one marine in a rapid fire volley. Compared to each marine's boltgun having a 66% chance to hit, 66% chance to wound, and 66% chance to go through armor; this means each marine shot has a 30% chance to kill a conscript, or 60% chance per rapid fire volley per astartes. This calculation goes DRASTICALLY in the marine's favor when cover is taken in to account; a marine in cover takes a less than 2% chance per lasgun shot to die, while a conscript in cover still takes a 22% chance to die from bolter fire in the unlikely scenario that the entire conscript squad has managed to get in to cover and thus is given the bonus. Those four conscripts have less than 15% chance to kill one marine per volley, while the marine still has nearly a 50% chance to kill a conscript. And this is purely bolter vs lasgun; add in other weapons, and the marines' strength grows even greater, where the best the conscript can hope for is a few more shots.

Coolio. Let's actually look at that math in practice which you didn't do apparently.

1 Marine firing at 4 Conscripts, non Rapid Fire, is killing .3 a turn, slightly rounding up for simplicity. 4 Conscripts in the same situation are killing .15
After 4 rounds, the Marine now killing 1.2 and the Conscripts killed .6
3 more rounds and the Marine killed 2.1 and the Conscripts killed the Marine itself.
Rapid Fire speeds up the process a bit, so I don't need to present the math on it. It literally just doubles the speed.

So let's look at the cover scenario. The Marine kills .22 Conscripts in cover, and the Conscripts kill .075
So after 5 rounds of shooting, the Marine killed 1.1 Conscripts and the Conscripts .375
After 5 more rounds, we now get 2.2 dead Conscripts and .66 dead Marines. After 8 more rounds or so we have 4 dead Conscripts and .9 dead Marines. So the Marine lives apparently, but not by much. Your "drastic" measurement actually isn't drastic whatsoever like you claimed, and is swingy to the point I almost won't say it's much more durable.

Also, other weapons don't exactly add favor because you add Conscripts for every weapon. A Marine with a Flamer kills 1.6 Conscripts and is 20 points. 7 Conscripts at that range (21 points, so 1 over in fairness) kill .55, and then with just knocking off two Conscripts because a decimal would be annoying (so I put it in your favor mind you), the Conscripts win with 1 alive on the super lenient rounding I did for ya. In cover, they receive a mutual kill with each other. Keep in mind that the flamer is the best weapon here. A Plasma Gun Marine kills .56 Conscripts and the Conscripts .33 Marines. At that point when the Marine kills two the Conscripts will have killed him. In cover, it's another mutual kill.

So we can also look at the Heavy Bolter as well. That's 1.1 Conscripts dead and .3 Marines dead. Eventually 5.5 Conscripts die when the Marine dies. In cover, it's. 9 dead for each .15 Conscript dead. This eventually leads to one of the single scenarios a Tactical Marine comes out ahead.

So I don't honestly know how you're really defending the Conscripts or Tactical Marines as unit entries at this point.

I heard there were about 30 Tactical Marines in a winning tournament list recently. Huh.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Orders are just free BS AM gets for no freaking reason...

in much the same way Space Marines get ATSKNF and the ability to Deep Strike almost anything that isn't a tank, or that Eldar get Battle Focus, etc. Every army gets a unique mechanic of some sort, for Space Marines it's ATSKNF and wide availability of Deep Striking, for IG it's Orders.

One can argue the relative power of these abilities, especially over different editions, but there *is* a reason they're there.

I think you meant the privelage to pay 100 points to Deep Strike anything. Which really isn't anything special anymore because too many people whined about anything not in regular Power Armor being able to use Drop Pods.

I noted that one could argue the relative power of the abilities (and one will note most transports went through the roof, a Chimera that was once 55-65pts are now rolling around at 90-110pts), but there were reasons behind the inclusions of certain mechanics.

Power armor only units would have been fine for a 20 pt ride. 90? Now they are door stops.

Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

Or you don't because y'know, not every unit is going to be in range?

It's amazing how Schrodinger's Conscript Blobs are both in range of being charged then able to Fall Back with no issues, but then there is still enough of an army present to shoot you to pieces with constant LOS and range.


If you're having that as such a consistent problem?
YOU ARE AT FAULT. YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED THE BOARD TO BE SET UP IN A MANNER THAT PUNISHES YOU.

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

You only get 1 melee attack on your opponent's fight phase. The sergeant gets 3, but he doesn't have a bolt pistol (because he swapped it for a chainsword). Tactical marines don't bring a bolt pistol and chainsword at the same time.

So, they stay in: sergeant gets 3 attacks, everyone else gets 1 attack plus 1 bolt pistol shot.
They leave: everyone gets 2 bolter shots, the sergeant is the only one who loses an attack.

The second attack (and the sergeant's other 3 attacks) happen in your fight phase, which you're going to get anyway as long as you keep pursuing and charging. So you don't lose those.

And I DID specify "offensively". Obviously losing melee shooting protection is an issue defensively.

The total for the whole round looks like this (aside from casualties, which is an unknown variable):
Your fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks.
Opponent's fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks.
Your shooting phase: 4x1 bolt pistol attacks.
Total: 18 for a 5 man squad.

This is equivalent to every model having 1.8 melee attacks (because 1 attack per phase = 2 attacks per round).

If they leave, it changes to:
Your fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks. (same as before)
Opponent's fight phase: nothing
Your shooting phase: 2x5 bolter attacks
Total: 17 for a 5 man squad. The -1 is, as I stated before, due to the sergeant. It's a very, very small difference.

 ross-128 wrote:

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

You only get 1 melee attack on your opponent's fight phase. The sergeant gets 3, but he doesn't have a bolt pistol (because he swapped it for a chainsword). Tactical marines don't bring a bolt pistol and chainsword at the same time.

So, they stay in: sergeant gets 3 attacks, everyone else gets 1 attack plus 1 bolt pistol shot.
They leave: everyone gets 2 bolter shots, the sergeant is the only one who loses an attack.

The second attack (and the sergeant's other 3 attacks) happen in your fight phase, which you're going to get anyway as long as you keep pursuing and charging. So you don't lose those.

And I DID specify "offensively". Obviously losing melee shooting protection is an issue defensively.

The total for the whole round looks like this (aside from casualties, which is an unknown variable):
Your fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks.
Opponent's fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks.
Your shooting phase: 4x1 bolt pistol attacks.
Total: 18 for a 5 man squad.

This is equivalent to every model having 1.8 melee attacks (because 1 attack per phase = 2 attacks per round).

If they leave, it changes to:
Your fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks. (same as before)
Opponent's fight phase: nothing
Your shooting phase: 2x5 bolter attacks
Total: 17 for a 5 man squad. The -1 is, as I stated before, due to the sergeant. It's a very, very small difference.

For some dumb reason I was counting a chainsword for the marines. My bad, your right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

Or you don't because y'know, not every unit is going to be in range?

It's amazing how Schrodinger's Conscript Blobs are both in range of being charged then able to Fall Back with no issues, but then there is still enough of an army present to shoot you to pieces with constant LOS and range.
.[/b][/size]

You only need to move out of 1" to fall back. Even if the conscripts were spread out to stop flying models from jumping over the front they going to get pulled in by the 'pile in' move, leaving enough room behind them to fall back out of 1".

You want a practical example? Here you go
https://imgur.com/a/trBQd
This is a shot from the final game of the SoCal open. Another terrain piece in the guard deployment would be nice, and there are imo to many fire lanes down the center but I would call it a typical tournament table setup. (note, the players didn't set up the terrain so no blaming them for it).
There is more then enough room for the front lines of conscripts to fall back (esp since the models behind them can also take a step back) and your going to get shot to gak by atleast 3 Taurox (thats 72 shots) when they do.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Well, let me try it another way...

Guardsman puts 0.5 * 0.33 * 0.33 Marines in the bin each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 50 Guardsmen are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Marine Unit. They will take 50 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 2.7 Dead marines, rounded to 3.

Marines do 0.67 * 0.67 * 0.67 Guardsmen in the bin with each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 20 Marines are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Guardsmen unit. They will take 20 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 6 Dead Guardsmen.

We'll now carry on, doing average damage to each other. T X = Turns of shooting. G Y = Number of Guardsmen remaining. M Z = Marines remaining.

T1 - G 44 - M 17
T2 - G 39 - M 15
T3 - G 34 - M 13
T4 - G 30 - M 11
T5 - G 27 - M 9
T6 - G 24 - M 8
T7 - G 22 - M 7
T8 - G 20 - M 6
T9 - G 18 - M 5
T10 - G16 - M 4
T11 - G14 - M 3
T12 - G13 - M 3
T13 - G12 - M 2
T14 - G11 - M 2
T15 - G10 - M 1
T16 - G10 - M 1
T17 - G 9 - M 0

So I was a little off. Someone else can run the numbers at 45 Guardsmen vs 20 Marines, and that should pan out about equal. If that's close, and again, I was rounding until the end where I was applying half-numbers, then that gives you an estimate of the value of a Guardsman vs Marine in a static shooting match. 20/45 = 44%, just as I predicted. And then I factored a Close Combat favour to the Marines, which puts them at about 40 %, which would be 20 Marines to 50 Guardsmen, presuming the Marines were capable of advancing so that even the last few dudes could get into close combat.

It's pretty much self-evident. You just have to recognize the numbers and how they interact.

Presuming a Marine is still 16 pts, haven't checked in a long while, then a Guardsman should be 7 points. Which I think is a bit much, I think they're 5, 6 tops, but that's a metric if we simply compare damage stats in a vacuum.

Ignoring morale, battlefield conditions, regiment doctrines/chapter tactics, supporting units/auras/etc., in a sterile mathhammer comparison is a horrible way to suggest balance changes.

Ignoring morale alone invalidates your simulation, particularly now that Commissars have been nerfed. Pretending the guardsmen were in one big 45-man squad they'd have suffered 2-3 morale casualties (~2.5) with an average roll in the first turn alone. By comparison the 20-man Tactical blob would need to roll well above average (6+ Vs D6 average of 3.5) to suffer morale casualties in that same first turn, and gets a re-roll against that failure natively.

A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?
The initial kills between 5 Marines with a Chainsword and 22 Conscripts (I didn't calculate if they had a Sergeant with 2 attacks) are 2 Conscripts and .85 Marines. Then it's 1.5 dead Marines and now 3.8 dead Conscripts (which I'll round to 4 for simplicity). 18 Conscripts kill .67 Marines, making that total two, there are now 5 dead Conscripts.

As the math keeps going, 16 Conscripts are gonna fight a Marine and the Sergeant. Long story short is that the Marines do lose and the Conscripts maybe lost a little more than half their squad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?
The initial kills between 5 Marines with a Chainsword and 22 Conscripts (I didn't calculate if they had a Sergeant with 2 attacks) are 2 Conscripts and .85 Marines. Then it's 1.5 dead Marines and now 3.8 dead Conscripts (which I'll round to 4 for simplicity). 18 Conscripts kill .67 Marines, making that total two, there are now 5 dead Conscripts.

As the math keeps going, 16 Conscripts are gonna fight a Marine and the Sergeant. Long story short is that the Marines do lose and the Conscripts maybe lost a little more than half their squad.

The sergeant is free, why wouldn't they have one? They also don't resolve simultaneously: the charging unit, ie the marines, resolves first.

 ross-128 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?
The initial kills between 5 Marines with a Chainsword and 22 Conscripts (I didn't calculate if they had a Sergeant with 2 attacks) are 2 Conscripts and .85 Marines. Then it's 1.5 dead Marines and now 3.8 dead Conscripts (which I'll round to 4 for simplicity). 18 Conscripts kill .67 Marines, making that total two, there are now 5 dead Conscripts.

As the math keeps going, 16 Conscripts are gonna fight a Marine and the Sergeant. Long story short is that the Marines do lose and the Conscripts maybe lost a little more than half their squad.

The sergeant is free, why wouldn't they have one? They also don't resolve simultaneously: the charging unit, ie the marines, resolves first.

I didn't know they had one.

Literally resolving Marines first just makes the whole scenario last a turn longer. It doesn't make the Marines win.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?
The initial kills between 5 Marines with a Chainsword and 22 Conscripts (I didn't calculate if they had a Sergeant with 2 attacks) are 2 Conscripts and .85 Marines. Then it's 1.5 dead Marines and now 3.8 dead Conscripts (which I'll round to 4 for simplicity). 18 Conscripts kill .67 Marines, making that total two, there are now 5 dead Conscripts.

As the math keeps going, 16 Conscripts are gonna fight a Marine and the Sergeant. Long story short is that the Marines do lose and the Conscripts maybe lost a little more than half their squad.

You forget that at the end of the first round, another D6 or 3.5 on average conscripts will flee do to battleshock. Rounding down that comes to 7 model or just under 1/3 the unit, mean while the Marines lose 1 model rounded up which is just 1/5 the unit.

Rounding marine casualties up at every step also significantly overstates how many casualties the marines are taking.

Conscripts need 27 attacks to kill 1 marine in melee on average, so 22 is slightly more likely to get 0 kills than 1.

When you're rounding the 0.2 casualties that 6 conscripts will inflict up to 1, well you're definitely giving them too much credit.

Of course rounding down at every step would make them seem immortal, so I recommend just keeping track of the fractions and only removing a model when they add up to 1. This isn't perfectly accurate, but it's slightly better than just rounding up all the time especially at very low model counts.

Don't forget that the sergeant dies last and he gets 3 attacks with that chainsword. Also, morale checks happen after each fight phase, so two of those per round.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?

Yeah really.

"10 Navy Seals standing in the open getting shot at by 45 insurgents. The Seals die, insurgents OP!"

Its not how the game works.

 ross-128 wrote:
Rounding marine casualties up at every step also significantly overstates how many casualties the marines are taking.

Conscripts need 27 attacks to kill 1 marine in melee on average, so 22 is slightly more likely to get 0 kills than 1.

When you're rounding the 0.2 casualties that 6 conscripts will inflict up to 1, well you're definitely giving them too much credit.

Of course rounding down at every step would make them seem immortal, so I recommend just keeping track of the fractions and only removing a model when they add up to 1. This isn't perfectly accurate, but it's slightly better than just rounding up all the time especially at very low model counts.

Don't forget that the sergeant dies last and he gets 3 attacks with that chainsword. Also, morale checks happen after each fight phase, so two of those per round.

Are these catachan conscripts? Because those have str 4...the same as a marine BTW which cost 4x more.

Maybe they are catachan conscripts, but maybe they are Ironhand Marines, or they can be Ravenguard Marines and we can go back to calculating who wins a shooting match at 24 inches. All I'm saying is that its a can of worms and then its anyones game.

side note, aren't marines 13 points? when did we get to 16?

the_scotsman wrote:
side note, aren't marines 13 points?

They are. Company Veterans are 16.

Probably my bad. I haven't built a marine list in a long time. 13 is the general consensus.

The overall point I was making is that Guardsmen are about 1 point undercosted, but that a straight contest of stats without any in-game scenario puts them near 6 points compared to tactical.

Conscripts should be 4 points apiece, given that you'll need to buy them a babysitter of some kind to help with morale. This would balance them with Infantry squads.

 ross-128 wrote:
Rounding marine casualties up at every step also significantly overstates how many casualties the marines are taking.

Conscripts need 27 attacks to kill 1 marine in melee on average, so 22 is slightly more likely to get 0 kills than 1.

When you're rounding the 0.2 casualties that 6 conscripts will inflict up to 1, well you're definitely giving them too much credit.

Of course rounding down at every step would make them seem immortal, so I recommend just keeping track of the fractions and only removing a model when they add up to 1. This isn't perfectly accurate, but it's slightly better than just rounding up all the time especially at very low model counts.

Don't forget that the sergeant dies last and he gets 3 attacks with that chainsword. Also, morale checks happen after each fight phase, so two of those per round.

I actually only ever rounded for the Conscripts except maybe once, so that's not actually an issue, and as well I actually rounded down for the Marines in maybe half the cases, for simplicity's sake. I also never included Overwatch and Regiment/Chapter bonuses. However, if the units aren't evenly matched at the base, how can we include the internal cost of those bonuses in the first place? We really can't. That said, I can always do the calculations for various bonuses. It's a lot more work, but I don't entirely care.

I also did not forget the Sergeant having 3 attacks until the last round. That's actually why the squad of Conscripts ended up below half its starting size: the Sergeant did just below half to more than half of the killing of the entire Marine. However, one model doing the work does not make the unit itself work. Just having a squad of Sergeants might be handier. If only they did that and gave them the ability to use Jump Packs to hit their targets faster. Sadly that's not a unit.

Oh. Wait. It is. I love my Vanguard so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?

Yeah really.

"10 Navy Seals standing in the open getting shot at by 45 insurgents. The Seals die, insurgents OP!"

Its not how the game works.

I literally did the math. Like, you cut out that whole part of the post because why?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?

Yeah really.

"10 Navy Seals standing in the open getting shot at by 45 insurgents. The Seals die, insurgents OP!"

Its not how the game works.

I literally did the math. Like, you cut out that whole part of the post because why?

The math isn't the part I was responding to. I was responding on the principle of "a shooting match is a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen." Which is still true, even if you were focussing on the math of additional CC.

Even with the math, theres a good case for marines to want to press into assault anyways. They can squeeze more casualties out of the squad, and therefore also out of the subsequent morale test, and they reduce the chances of the conscripts firing on them in the susequent turn.

For what it's worth, having IG engage anyone in a shooting match is going to be the "favourable" conditions Guard Hatah's are looking for. All the reason to show it.

I ran it above. Even in a situation where Morale was ignored, they're worth 6 points, compared to a Marine. Less, when you factor in morale, ineptitude in CC, generally being inferior in all ways.

If one presumes that infantry are undercosted, as I do, then adding one point per Guardsman / Conscript should bring them in line with the abilities per point of Tactical Marines. At that point, the Bolter becomes a points-reasonable way to take out Guardsmen. Which, really, it should be.

We can get rid of the unfortunate nerfs to Commissars, and have things as they should be. If a player is running about 100 infantry, that's 100 "fewer" points right there for things like Manticores and Wyverns and the like.

IG still have access to all the tools that win games in 8th edition, much as Eldar had all the tools to win in 7th. The trick is simply to charge a fair value for the units. Adding one point per Conscript makes them 3/4 times as valuable on the table.

Don't make me run a 50 Conscripts vs 20 Marines... I'll do it.

You are doing math in a vaucuum comparing Marines and Guard in a fashion they will never be fielded in, to prove a point that you've presupposed.

I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?

Yeah really.

"10 Navy Seals standing in the open getting shot at by 45 insurgents. The Seals die, insurgents OP!"

Its not how the game works.

I literally did the math. Like, you cut out that whole part of the post because why?

The math isn't the part I was responding to. I was responding on the principle of "a shooting match is a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen." Which is still true, even if you were focussing on the math of additional CC.

Even with the math, theres a good case for marines to want to press into assault anyways. They can squeeze more casualties out of the squad, and therefore also out of the subsequent morale test, and they reduce the chances of the conscripts firing on them in the susequent turn.

Are you suggesting the Navy Seals charge them in melee?

I think he was proposing they take cover, with his initial analogy about the SEALs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Are you suggesting the Navy Seals charge them in melee?

They did so in Afghanistan. And Won.

That's not relevant to your point, but the nerd in me couldn't let it go.

Heard it was the Brits.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

Well, many of your initial assumptions are problametic.

One, that taking up space on the field is always advantages/neutral, and never a downside (something that every horde player can tell, at some point being too big is a problem-your units are in each other's way and can't all reach.)
That's a really big factor in a shootout. the ability to engage only some models at a time, as the opposing unit is too large to all get into range.

Two, and more important, is the assumption that tactical marines with bolters SHOULD be a cost-effective answer to conscripts/infantry to begin with. tactical marines are not a dedicated horde clearer in shooting, its a "bit of everything" unit.
The bolters put a dent into hordes, the sarge gets a bit done in CC and the special/heavy weapons harm high-end targets, while keeping the platform as a whole in decent durability, and picking off the models you least need each time.
The infantry unit, to a degree, does the same with its own special/heavy weapons and sarge and the las troopers as meatshields
Your entire analysis is based upon a scenario in which BOTH units are equipped wrong, and used wrong.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

Well, many of your initial assumptions are problametic.

One, that taking up space on the field is always advantages/neutral, and never a downside (something that every horde player can tell, at some point being too big is a problem-your units are in each other's way and can't all reach.)
That's a really big factor in a shootout. the ability to engage only some models at a time, as the opposing unit is too large to all get into range.

Two, and more important, is the assumption that tactical marines with bolters SHOULD be a cost-effective answer to conscripts/infantry to begin with. tactical marines are not a dedicated horde clearer in shooting, its a "bit of everything" unit.
The bolters put a dent into hordes, the sarge gets a bit done in CC and the special/heavy weapons harm high-end targets, while keeping the platform as a whole in decent durability, and picking off the models you least need each time.
The infantry unit, to a degree, does the same with its own special/heavy weapons and sarge and the las troopers as meatshields
Your entire analysis is based upon a scenario in which BOTH units are equipped wrong, and used wrong.

The IG units are just there to space fill. They aren't being relied upon to do a single wound. This analysis is meaningless. The pressure is 100% on the marines to get mileage out of their stat-bloated models. IG just sits back and tell the marine player how many models to pick up.

@ Boom: I've played infantry centric guard since the Eye of Terror codex first released rules for Cadians. I consider myself well versed in playing hordes 'o dudes. The point I'm making, repeatedly, is that even in hypothetical best case scenarios for the Guardsmen, they're worth 6 points compared to Tacs. In game, my experience tells me they're worth 5 points, when all things are considered. By extension, while I'd like to see conscripts removed, they're a 4 point per model unit. I think that a tactical Marine is the "standard" to which other infantry can be compared.

I acknowledge that all I've done is compare stats in a vacuum, to come to my conclusion that excluding the mentioned factors a G is worth 6 points, based on the interaction of the mentioned stats. Going beyond that, I've stated that I believe an infantry Squad should be 50 points base, while Conscripts should be 120 pets for 30 models. That should also be the fixed size of the unit, in my opinion.

Do you have an opinion as to how many points Guardsmen and Conscripts should be?

@ Martel: Always on the crappy end of the stick. It's amazing that you have time to post with how often you are losing to the boogeyman du-jour. At least the Tau's Nova Reactor guys aren't an insurmountable problem any more. Now it's them pesky Humies, ammirite? You just can't catch a break! You are a truly honourable warrior, to continue battling a constant uphill battle against such impossible odds!

And yeah, I can totally see how Guardsmen do nothing, and it must be very frustrating to have to pick your models up for no reason while the Guard plays sits there, asking you to put your models away with no recourse whatsoever.

If you have time, could you perhaps suggest how many points you think G's and C's should b worth? I promise I won't be offended if you just come to the table without hyperbole and just answer the question. I figuratively insist upon it.

Martel732 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

Well, many of your initial assumptions are problametic.

One, that taking up space on the field is always advantages/neutral, and never a downside (something that every horde player can tell, at some point being too big is a problem-your units are in each other's way and can't all reach.)
That's a really big factor in a shootout. the ability to engage only some models at a time, as the opposing unit is too large to all get into range.

Two, and more important, is the assumption that tactical marines with bolters SHOULD be a cost-effective answer to conscripts/infantry to begin with. tactical marines are not a dedicated horde clearer in shooting, its a "bit of everything" unit.
The bolters put a dent into hordes, the sarge gets a bit done in CC and the special/heavy weapons harm high-end targets, while keeping the platform as a whole in decent durability, and picking off the models you least need each time.
The infantry unit, to a degree, does the same with its own special/heavy weapons and sarge and the las troopers as meatshields
Your entire analysis is based upon a scenario in which BOTH units are equipped wrong, and used wrong.

The IG units are just there to space fill. They aren't being relied upon to do a single wound. This analysis is meaningless. The pressure is 100% on the marines to get mileage out of their stat-bloated models.

Thats literally been true of every edition. Lasguns dont kill squat, never really have, they've always been there largely just to fill space while other support stuff does the killing. Likewise, yes, it's incumbent upon the marine player to make the most of the flexibility of their generalist infantry while their support elements are there to support and not do most of the lifting. Thats the defining hallmark of the army. None of that is new.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Boom: I've played infantry centric guard since the Eye of Terror codex first released rules for Cadians. I consider myself well versed in playing hordes 'o dudes. The point I'm making, repeatedly, is that even in hypothetical best case scenarios for the Guardsmen, they're worth 6 points compared to Tacs. In game, my experience tells me they're worth 5 points, when all things are considered. By extension, while I'd like to see conscripts removed, they're a 4 point per model unit. I think that a tactical Marine is the "standard" to which other infantry can be compared.

I acknowledge that all I've done is compare stats in a vacuum, to come to my conclusion that excluding the mentioned factors a G is worth 6 points, based on the interaction of the mentioned stats.

The problem is that straight up direct attritional comparisons like that miss several things. It misses that these units fight other things as well and have different effectiveness against those foes. It misses that one unit can act more effectively in more phases than the other. It misses that it's dramatically easier to coordinate and manage smaller versus larger numbers of models on a table, it misses that one faction has more tools for maneuver and force concentration than the other. You've basically been judging everything on a "line up and shoot each other to death" basis...which is exactly what you shouldnt be doing with Space Marines and is pretty much exclusively what Guardsmen are there to do.

I'd start by recosting ig tanks and see if the infantry is still an issue. Of course, eldar and nids might make this moot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

Well, many of your initial assumptions are problametic.

One, that taking up space on the field is always advantages/neutral, and never a downside (something that every horde player can tell, at some point being too big is a problem-your units are in each other's way and can't all reach.)
That's a really big factor in a shootout. the ability to engage only some models at a time, as the opposing unit is too large to all get into range.

Two, and more important, is the assumption that tactical marines with bolters SHOULD be a cost-effective answer to conscripts/infantry to begin with. tactical marines are not a dedicated horde clearer in shooting, its a "bit of everything" unit.
The bolters put a dent into hordes, the sarge gets a bit done in CC and the special/heavy weapons harm high-end targets, while keeping the platform as a whole in decent durability, and picking off the models you least need each time.
The infantry unit, to a degree, does the same with its own special/heavy weapons and sarge and the las troopers as meatshields
Your entire analysis is based upon a scenario in which BOTH units are equipped wrong, and used wrong.

The IG units are just there to space fill. They aren't being relied upon to do a single wound. This analysis is meaningless. The pressure is 100% on the marines to get mileage out of their stat-bloated models.

Thats literally been true of every edition. Lasguns dont kill squat, never really have, they've always been there largely just to fill space while other support stuff does the killing. Likewise, yes, it's incumbent upon the marine player to make the most of the flexibility of their generalist infantry while their support elements are there to support and not do most of the lifting. Thats the defining hallmark of the army. None of that is new.

No, it's not. The defining hallmark of a power armor list is the gimmick bequeathed by gw. Gladius defined 7th ed marines, not their stat line.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

Or you don't because y'know, not every unit is going to be in range?

It's amazing how Schrodinger's Conscript Blobs are both in range of being charged then able to Fall Back with no issues, but then there is still enough of an army present to shoot you to pieces with constant LOS and range.


If you're having that as such a consistent problem?
YOU ARE AT FAULT. YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED THE BOARD TO BE SET UP IN A MANNER THAT PUNISHES YOU.

AHHHHH GREAT DID GW PATCH MEANINGFUL COVER MECHANICS INTO THE GAME AND ADD A FURTHER AM FAQ REMOVING ALL LOS IGNORING WEAPONS. IF NOT THEN ALL I KAN say IS only AN IDIOT WOULD SETUP A BOARD LIKE THAT AGAINST AM GIVING THEM ANOTHER LARGE ADVANTAGE.

So tac marines should be able to just walk up to a line of guardsmen and shoot them clean off the table without leveraging the rest of their stat line at all?

first time posting but could help but resist uhm what do you think of veterans, are they undercosted aswel since you seem to declare that the normal infantry is worth 6 points according to you calcu.
0
how much points should veterans ( they cost 6 atm) cost then or special weapons squads(share the same stat line -sergant) for example.

 greatbigtree wrote:


I ran it above. Even in a situation where Morale was ignored, they're worth 6 points, compared to a Marine. Less, when you factor in morale, ineptitude in CC, generally being inferior in all ways.

If one presumes that infantry are undercosted, as I do, then adding one point per Guardsman / Conscript should bring them in line with the abilities per point of Tactical Marines. At that point, the Bolter becomes a points-reasonable way to take out Guardsmen. Which, really, it should be.


IG still have access to all the tools that win games in 8th edition, much as Eldar had all the tools to win in 7th. The trick is simply to charge a fair value for the units. Adding one point per Conscript makes them 3/4 times as valuable on the table.

So....when did the Gladius become the defining hallmark of Space Marines, especially through all editions?

Ultimately the point is that, yeah, guardsmen have never been relied on to kill stuff, theyve been there largely just to keep the scary stuff away from the killy things. Nothing is new about that. Likewise, SM armies have always relied much more on their infantry than IG has, and have always had to rely on them to do work, on some level, in multiple phases, and do more lifting themselves than the support units. Thats not new or unique to any single edition, thats fundamentally how these armies have always been pitched.


As for IG tanks...if you think they're bad, I'm guessing you haven't cracked the Eldar codex yet

So... would you agree that Guardsmen should be 5 points each, instead of 4, and that Conscripts should be 4 points instead of 3?

That's what I'm getting at. If you disagree, please let me know what you think they should be worth.

@ SIM: Hard to say. I'd gut-reaction that the improved BS and wider access to special weapons (the real strength of IG infantry are Special Weapons) should have Vets at 65 points for 10 dudes.

That said, Scions are better in every way to Vets, at 10 (?) points each, for the mobility they offer with "deepstrike". I haven't used Vets in 8th, due to the under costing of regular infantry and the cost of Scions, in the Index, anyway.

@ All: For the way I play, I've been using my infantry to screen out deep striking or infiltrating or outflanking units, same as I always have. IG rely on attrition as their primary win condition. They maintain damage output through casualties. For example, a plasmagun in an infantry squad approximately triples the wounds done to MEQ, and does so until 8 other dudes have died. The dudes are worth 50 points, but the plasma guns should be worth about 15 points as an upgrade. Maybe even 20. It completely changes what the unit can accomplish in the game.

Guardsmen are valuable for the space they fill, and to provide ablative protection for your upgraded infantry and vehicles. It's the same game they always have played, but now they're too cheap and the alpha-strike nature of the game means that you can only effectively alpha the chaff. Guard can then beta strike, with 90% effectiveness, and most armies can't handle taking an alpha, so there tertiary response isn't enough to soften the quartiary attack, that is probably still at 75% strength, due to the way Guard handles losses.

I think they're fine at 4 and 3. Especially since they've already been nerfed in other areas (ie commissars and orders), and other armies are seeing plenty of buffs in their codices.

But apparently some people just won't be happy until we're banished back to the low tiers from whence we came.

 ross-128 wrote:
So tac marines should be able to just walk up to a line of guardsmen and shoot them clean off the table without leveraging the rest of their stat line at all?

The problem is that they often die before being able to use CC, due to the rest of the IG list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
I think they're fine at 4 and 3. Especially since they've already been nerfed in other areas (ie commissars and orders), and other armies are seeing plenty of buffs in their codices.

But apparently some people just won't be happy until we're banished back to the low tiers from whence we came.

I think 5 points for a guardsmen if more fair than 4 given what other 4 pt units in the game look like. It would take a lot of nerfs to do that at this point. Especially now that CC as a whole has been eviscerated.

It is my observation, and experience, that our infantry are not overpowered, but they are undercosted. To that end, nerfing was the wrong response, higher points for the unit/s would have more accurately and simply balanced their use.

When many high end lists are taking chaff units simply for board control, I'd say that GW undervalued the point value of that board control, and by extension, the value of cheap, space filling infantry. Particularly Infantry like Guardsmen with access to cheap and effective shooting upgrades.

Being able to fall back from CC, and then allowing your protected units behind / beside you to freely attack the cc unit makes the screening / board control value of cheap Infantry even more... but there's exponential loss of value as cost increases. Which is why I think one point more per model is about right.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So....when did the Gladius become the defining hallmark of Space Marines, especially through all editions?

Ultimately the point is that, yeah, guardsmen have never been relied on to kill stuff, theyve been there largely just to keep the scary stuff away from the killy things. Nothing is new about that. Likewise, SM armies have always relied much more on their infantry than IG has, and have always had to rely on them to do work, on some level, in multiple phases, and do more lifting themselves than the support units. Thats not new or unique to any single edition, thats fundamentally how these armies have always been pitched.


As for IG tanks...if you think they're bad, I'm guessing you haven't cracked the Eldar codex yet

I can imagine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
It is my observation, and experience, that our infantry are not overpowered, but they are undercosted. To that end, nerfing was the wrong response, higher points for the unit/s would have more accurately and simply balanced their use.

When many high end lists are taking chaff units simply for board control, I'd say that GW undervalued the point value of that board control, and by extension, the value of cheap, space filling infantry. Particularly Infantry like Guardsmen with access to cheap and effective shooting upgrades.

Undercosted = overpowered.

@ Martel: Still no position to hold. You still haven't come to the table with a point cost.

I draw a distinction between op / uc, but that's about as pathetic of a knit-pick as I can manage. If you've got something meaningful to add, feel free to do so. Like what you think the point cost should be? Come on, you're being specifically called out here! Take a stand and defend a position!

I just said up above 5 ppm is more fair for guardsmen than 4 ppm. Guardsman > termagant, and is more likely to have cover, to boot!

But the real problems are wyverns/manticores/Russes(?)/mortar teams/scions. A manticore is a 150 pt tank at least. Especially when you compare to the whirlwind or Ork lobbas or other indirect weaponry.

You can't just math out marines vs guardsmen in a vacuum because the marines are being bombarded by manticores and the guardsmen by whirlwinds (lol).

Out of LoS weapons as a whole need a -1 to hit when firing that way. That would resolve a great many issues in general, though now that it looks like we're going to have armies where almost everything is natively going to be at a -2 almost by default, we may run into issues there (though we may regardless).

With regards to Russ tanks...is there really a problem with these? They were largely seen as garbage before the Grinding Advance doubleshot update for a host of reasons, most of the variants are still seen as garbage, and most everyone else's equivalents seem to be either better at particular roles than the specialized Russ equivalent or just better in general (e.g. Railgun Hammerhead or Las Predator vs Vanquisher, Fire Prism vs...most any Russ variant), the only thing they have going for them is Tank orders.

Same ends, a quibble over means then.

I'll also agree that Wyverns and Manticores are undercosted, compounded by cheap board control units like Infantry Squads. My current game-winning 1500 point list is a mash of (Index) Infantry Squads with lots of weapon upgrades, Support Characters, Scions, Artillery, Sentinels (cheap FA choices) that fills out a Brigade and a Batallion, If memory serves. I play the way I've always enjoyed, with advance units, static units, and advancing units to take the midfield.

It's OP, mostly due to undercosted Infantry and Artillery. I've taken to playing at a points disadvantage in my garage group to keep things interesting.

Nothing about the army is new-tech, or game breaking like Invisibility was. The Index just didn't charge enough points for it. Marines and Eldar can "break through" the barrage at 1500 IG vs 110% Ie 1650 points of Marines or Eldar. Works for our casual group, and I prefer a challenging game over a curb stomp any how.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Out of LoS weapons as a whole need a -1 to hit when firing that way. That would resolve a great many issues in general, though now that it looks like we're going to have armies where almost everything is natively going to be at a -2 almost by default, we may run into issues there (though we may regardless).

With regards to Russ tanks...is there really a problem with these? They were largely seen as garbage before the Grinding Advance doubleshot update for a host of reasons, most of the variants are still seen as garbage, and most everyone else's equivalents seem to be either better at particular roles than the specialized Russ equivalent or just better in general (e.g. Railgun Hammerhead or Las Predator vs Vanquisher, Fire Prism vs...most any Russ variant), the only thing they have going for them is Tank orders.

Hence the (?).

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it..

Not a very good test, though-- certainly not very scientific, and if, as you seem to be, you're trying to claim you're being scientific, then you're not doing a very good job.

I propose a better test; run 200 games. 100 games are "control" games. Two players considered to be of roughly equal skill each play against the other, one guard, one marine, taking turns to see who is playing which army (so that each get 50 games as either army, to even out the skill difference). Then another pair of players play 100 games of your "test" list with higher point costs for guardsmen, same general alternating style. Then compare winrates of the two tests. This is a fairly barebones test, the kind of which would be suitable for at best junior level classes in any science-based course, but it's far better than the test you attempted to provide which is purely armchair mathhammer without considering the reality players actually face in the game.

 Melissia wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it..

Not a very good test, though-- certainly not very scientific, and if, as you seem to be, you're trying to claim you're being scientific, then you're not doing a very good job.

I propose a better test; run 200 games. 100 games are "control" games. Two players considered to be of roughly equal skill each play against the other, one guard, one marine, taking turns to see who is playing which army (so that each get 50 games as either army, to even out the skill difference). Then another pair of players play 100 games of your "test" list with higher point costs for guardsmen, same general alternating style. Then compare winrates of the two tests. This is a fairly barebones test, the kind of which would be suitable for at best junior level classes in any science-based course, but it's far better than the test you attempted to provide which is purely armchair mathhammer without considering the reality players actually face in the game.

Wow, look at you punching for the stars! You can look at every post I've made in this thread. At no point have I indicated that this was anything other than number crunching in a vacuum. This, at best, establishes an upper limit for the value of a guardsman relative to a marine, at six points. In conditions so ideal they don't exist in the game. I have not represented this in any other way, at any point in this discussion.

So the call out is returned. I hollaback at 'cha. How many points is a squad if Guardsmen / Conscripts worth?


PS: I don't have time to run that many tests, so I'm taking an heuristic approach. Determine an upper limit, and work back from there, based on my less tangible experience. Which, again, is exactly the way I've been presenting my position.

Please don't let that prevent you from coming out swinging, though. I'm in the mood for a verbal rumble.

If it were me, guard infantry would be 5 base, conscripts 4 base.

They weren't worth 5 in the previous edition because A) S3 was mighty useless against everything in the meta of the T4-T5 shift, B) 5+ armor was mighty useless against...everything, practically everything was AP5.

Just the edition change massively helped out the Guardsmen.

5ppm/4ppm, and I would buff Veterans slightly by making them Troops again. With Scions in troops and vets in Elites, there is absolutely no reason to bring vets. They're at best equivalent, in most situations flatly inferior, but they fill a less useful slot. No clue why they were swapped out.

5ppm Guardsmen in 5th with the combined infantry squad rule was not unreasonable. Powerblobs were far from the most powerful combination, but it was reasonable. The real issue back then was how cheap Vets were.

My baseless guess would be to sell more kits. Making Scions better, in a troop slot gives older players reason to adopt Scion models as our special weapon platform of choice, while maintaining the viability of Tempestus armies.

I wholeheartedly agree that Vets are off my table in the elite slot, where all the support characters are. I doubt I'd use them as troops... maybe if G's were 50 and V's were 60 points per squad. But I'd also support raising the cost of Vets to 65 if they were troops, to prevent their use as main line units.

I don't think that there's enough points granularity to justify three units within 1 point per model of each other, you know what I mean? Half-points per model create auto-include / exclude choices at that level.

 greatbigtree wrote:
At no point have I indicated that this was anything other than number crunching in a vacuum.

And I am arguing this is a bad way to do it. Hell, it's not like the people endlessly bitching about conscripts ever listen whenever someone points out how the mathhammer doesn't favor their arguments anyway.

Soooo.... how many points should Guardsmen and Conscripts cost? I've explained my reasoning already, what's yours?

I killed a Terminator with las fire once.... double 1’s baby!

usmcmidn wrote:
I killed a Terminator with las fire once.... double 1’s baby!

OMG MUR MAREN KILLED BY OP IG LASMAN! ALL IG OP NEED NERF AN COST MOAR!
All jokes aside thats the impression I am getting from this thread, and it seems that certain mods are taking the marine players side as well. As if GW pandering to them almost all the time was not bad enough.

Now, on to the tanks:
Why is the Russ better than the Predator?
Because the Russ is a Heavy/MBT built specifically for heavy duty combat conditions and, more importantly, as a dedicated tank.
The Predator is an APC with a turret strapped to the roof and a some extra armour taped on, which functions more akin to a Medium tank.

The Leman Russ was built to be a dedicated heavy tank, to break lines and to be easy and reliable to operate. It is slower than the predator but when operated by a trained crew can out perform it with ease.
The Predator is overengineered and not designed to engage in heavy slugging combat. It is intended to hit and run, firing from prepared positions then swiftly relocating to the next one, relying a lot on automation to function.

The irony of this is that the Predator is still a better tank than the Russ in many aspects. It is faster, more accurate and will easily win a tank-on-tank fight with a Russ. The only difference is that now the Russ can sacrifice speed for firepower, which is a good thing and was heavily needed (whichever fool at GW HQ thought that turning blast weapons into 'x number of D6 shots' and then forcing the gun to then roll to hit with its randomly determined number needs sacking) owing to the major nerf fr many of the weapons.

And from a fluff/crunch perspective it works too as the Guard have always been a mix 'n match combined arms force with many regiments having a heavy emphasis on tanks supported by infantry. Marines have always been more of a elite strategic army who rely on units that are quick and easy to deploy. Kind of like a regular unit compared to the SAS. The SAS are far better trained and (in this case) equipped, but they lack the heavier vehicles and equipment for heavy, protracted fights as they are intended to be mobile in nature.

Anyway, its nearly half one overhere so I dont know if any of the above will make sense, but I hope it gets through. Night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Before I go, these. Just these.
Think about it Marine players, you have had a slight taste of the place the Imperial Guard players have been for the past 4-5ish years. Stop feeling so sorry for yourselves and get over it, the FAQ has hit and soon some love will (inevitably) come your way too.

ross-128 wrote:I think they're fine at 4 and 3. Especially since they've already been nerfed in other areas (ie commissars and orders), and other armies are seeing plenty of buffs in their codices.

But apparently some people just won't be happy until we're banished back to the low tiers from whence we came.

ross-128 wrote:So tac marines should be able to just walk up to a line of guardsmen and shoot them clean off the table without leveraging the rest of their stat line at all?

 greatbigtree wrote:
Soooo.... how many points should Guardsmen and Conscripts cost? I've explained my reasoning already, what's yours?

Better and simpler yet, run the same type of calculations but replace the 20 Space Marines with their equal points(ish) worth of Assault Cannon Razorbacks. Then with the same logic, tell us how expensive a Guardsmen should be.

Ie. Two Razorbacks, 50 Guardsmen, between 13 and 24 inches.

T1 - G 39 - R 1.4 wounds taken

See where this goes?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Are you suggesting the Navy Seals charge them in melee?

If being in melee has a decent chance of magically stopping all of the insurgents from shooting at the Seals, and will give the Seals more kills, with the added benefit of making more of the insurgents give up the fight and run away... Then yeah, it sure beats the alternative of just standing there and dying. It's a chance vs. no chance.

It's a poor scenario because that's not how elite troops actually function (so why do people expect them to gunction that way?) nor is it ideal play from the perspective of the game mechanics.

And as pointed out above, replacing the marines with a different unit will give you a completely diffetent result. It's basically a brilliant example of the myopea of mathhammer.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Soooo.... how many points should Guardsmen and Conscripts cost? I've explained my reasoning already, what's yours?

Better and simpler yet, run the same type of calculations but replace the 20 Space Marines with their equal points(ish) worth of Assault Cannon Razorbacks. Then with the same logic, tell us how expensive a Guardsmen should be.

Ie. Two Razorbacks, 50 Guardsmen, between 13 and 24 inches.

T1 - G 39 - R 1.4 wounds taken

See where this goes?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Are you suggesting the Navy Seals charge them in melee?

If being in melee has a decent chance of magically stopping all of the insurgents from shooting at the Seals, and will give the Seals more kills, with the added benefit of making more of the insurgents give up the fight and run away... Then yeah, it sure beats the alternative of just standing there and dying. It's a chance vs. no chance.

It's a poor scenario because that's not how elite troops actually function (so why do people expect them to gunction that way?) nor is it ideal play from the perspective of the game mechanics.

And as pointed out above, replacing the marines with a different unit will give you a completely diffetent result. It's basically a brilliant example of the myopea of mathhammer.

1. Nobody argued that Assault Cannon Razorbacks were appropriately priced ever.
2. Except, as the math shows, Tactical Marines are not an elite Troop choice, they're just a bad one. People would bring up "player skill" argument if Cultists now had 10" movement, BS/WS2+, a 2+ save, and carried Assault Cannons standard for their current price point.
You can only attribute so much to player skill.

5ppm seems fair to me - they gained so much from the transition to 8th. Here are some of the buffs infantry squads got...

Auto-pass orders
Orders cheaper and easier to acquire.
Able to fall back from CC
No blasts/temlates so easier to survive
Usually being able to take some kind of saving throw
Lasguns now wound T5 on a 5+
FRFSRF buff
Cheaper - base cost down to 4pts
Plasma 8pts cheaper than in seventh
Can move and fire with heavy weapons at only -1 to hit
A regimental trait of your choice
Potential to potentially fire overwatch multiple times per turn
Can rapid fire and charge.
Easy-to-access stratagems due to guard excelling at MSU and infantry squads easily fill out a brigade.

They certainly lost a couple of things (such as blob squads), but they gained SO MUCH. A lot of units went UP in points at the transition to 8th, but these guys did not.

 greatbigtree wrote:
So... would you agree that Guardsmen should be 5 points each, instead of 4, and that Conscripts should be 4 points instead of 3?

That's what I'm getting at. If you disagree, please let me know what you think they should be worth.

@ SIM: Hard to say. I'd gut-reaction that the improved BS and wider access to special weapons (the real strength of IG infantry are Special Weapons) should have Vets at 65 points for 10 dudes.

That said, Scions are better in every way to Vets, at 10 (?) points each, for the mobility they offer with "deepstrike". I haven't used Vets in 8th, due to the under costing of regular infantry and the cost of Scions, in the Index, anyway.

@ All: For the way I play, I've been using my infantry to screen out deep striking or infiltrating or outflanking units, same as I always have. IG rely on attrition as their primary win condition. They maintain damage output through casualties. For example, a plasmagun in an infantry squad approximately triples the wounds done to MEQ, and does so until 8 other dudes have died. The dudes are worth 50 points, but the plasma guns should be worth about 15 points as an upgrade. Maybe even 20. It completely changes what the unit can accomplish in the game.

Guardsmen are valuable for the space they fill, and to provide ablative protection for your upgraded infantry and vehicles. It's the same game they always have played, but now they're too cheap and the alpha-strike nature of the game means that you can only effectively alpha the chaff. Guard can then beta strike, with 90% effectiveness, and most armies can't handle taking an alpha, so there tertiary response isn't enough to soften the quartiary attack, that is probably still at 75% strength, due to the way Guard handles losses.

Completely agreed on guardsmen points costs... I play tyranids and my infantry is plain worst yet more expansive than guard's one (4 pt Termas and 5 pt Hormas)

 DoomMouse wrote:
5ppm seems fair to me - they gained so much from the transition to 8th. Here are some of the buffs infantry squads got...

Auto-pass orders
Orders cheaper and easier to acquire.
Able to fall back from CC
No blasts/temlates so easier to survive
Usually being able to take some kind of saving throw
Lasguns now wound T5 on a 5+
FRFSRF buff
Cheaper - base cost down to 4pts
Plasma 8pts cheaper than in seventh
Can move and fire with heavy weapons at only -1 to hit
A regimental trait of your choice
Potential to potentially fire overwatch multiple times per turn
Can rapid fire and charge.
Easy-to-access stratagems due to guard excelling at MSU and infantry squads easily fill out a brigade.

They certainly lost a couple of things (such as blob squads), but they gained SO MUCH. A lot of units went UP in points at the transition to 8th, but these guys did not.

A lot of these apply to most armies - anyone with a codex can choose traits, any weapon that is strength 3/4 got better in the sense that it can wound higher toughness creatures at all, however unlikely some of the scenarios may be, the overwatch and rapid fire/charge thing is also true of every army, and the move and fire heavy weapons benefits better BS models moreso than low BS models compared to 7th.

Orders did get better, but still have their limits, and in exchange Guard has relatively few units that can give other sorts of buffs, and all of them are named characters.

You also missed the one big item they and other horde factions definitely gained - their armor saves actually mean something now. 5+ armor means that the humble guardsman is actually making his or her saves now, compared to previous editions where it meant that something as simple as a bolter both hit often due to ballistic skill, wounded often due to strength 4, and completely ignored the armor.

Honestly before the Commissar nerf and the Eldar / Nid leaks I'd have agreed that the basic guardsman should be 5 points. Now I'm more in a wait and see mode, since Chapter Approved should be coming soon.

kurhanik wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
5ppm seems fair to me - they gained so much from the transition to 8th. Here are some of the buffs infantry squads got...

Auto-pass orders
Orders cheaper and easier to acquire.
Able to fall back from CC
No blasts/temlates so easier to survive
Usually being able to take some kind of saving throw
Lasguns now wound T5 on a 5+
FRFSRF buff
Cheaper - base cost down to 4pts
Plasma 8pts cheaper than in seventh
Can move and fire with heavy weapons at only -1 to hit
A regimental trait of your choice
Potential to potentially fire overwatch multiple times per turn
Can rapid fire and charge.
Easy-to-access stratagems due to guard excelling at MSU and infantry squads easily fill out a brigade.

They certainly lost a couple of things (such as blob squads), but they gained SO MUCH. A lot of units went UP in points at the transition to 8th, but these guys did not.

A lot of these apply to most armies - anyone with a codex can choose traits, any weapon that is strength 3/4 got better in the sense that it can wound higher toughness creatures at all, however unlikely some of the scenarios may be, the overwatch and rapid fire/charge thing is also true of every army, and the move and fire heavy weapons benefits better BS models moreso than low BS models compared to 7th.

Orders did get better, but still have their limits, and in exchange Guard has relatively few units that can give other sorts of buffs, and all of them are named characters.

You also missed the one big item they and other horde factions definitely gained - their armor saves actually mean something now. 5+ armor means that the humble guardsman is actually making his or her saves now, compared to previous editions where it meant that something as simple as a bolter both hit often due to ballistic skill, wounded often due to strength 4, and completely ignored the armor.

Honestly before the Commissar nerf and the Eldar / Nid leaks I'd have agreed that the basic guardsman should be 5 points. Now I'm more in a wait and see mode, since Chapter Approved should be coming soon.

The profile that received the most buffs is T3 5+ (for a myriad of reasons both in terms of damage output and tankiness) which is the hallmark of Guard

I'm not sure T3 is the most buffed toughness, but the 5+ save is certainly the save that received the largest buff. Largely because most anti-infantry firepower in the past was AP 4 or 5, which meant they got no save, now they do (either a 6+ or 5+) anything higher than that ignored their saves anyway.

As for T3, I might argue that T4 got the largest buff. Nothing really changed from below (S2 is almost non-existent, but wounds them on 6s) S 3 is the same against them it always has been, while S 6 and 7 are worse than they previously were. For T3 this only applies to S5.

Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Heard it was the Brits.

Strictly, the Welsh

Which was odd as I understood it was entirely the Argyl and Sutherland. Still; credit where it's due

It does kind of highlight a hidden truth; sometimes the 'best' equipment fails, and the correct choice of action is to stab a guy, doubly so if said guy isn't trained with how to deal with stabbity death.

Consequently I think conscripts should be WS 6; they may have had basic firearm training but close combat training would be for professional and conditioned soldiers; which they're not supposed to be yet.

Arguably basic guardsmen should be WS 5.

 malamis wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Heard it was the Brits.

Strictly, the Welsh

Which was odd as I understood it was entirely the Argyl and Sutherland. Still; credit where it's due

It does kind of highlight a hidden truth; sometimes the 'best' equipment fails, and the correct choice of action is to stab a guy, doubly so if said guy isn't trained with how to deal with stabbity death.

Consequently I think conscripts should be WS 6; they may have had basic firearm training but close combat training would be for professional and conditioned soldiers; which they're not supposed to be yet.

Arguably basic guardsmen should be WS 5.

I'd be okay with this so long as the option for WS4+ was preserved somehow for "assault" armies. I have a friend from the 3.5 IG codex who ran an assault Guard army, and I'd be sad to see his stabby guys go. I think he'd rather have BS5+ WS4+ than the other way around, and I would too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I'd be okay with this so long as the option for WS4+ was preserved somehow for "assault" armies. I have a friend from the 3.5 IG codex who ran an assault Guard army, and I'd be sad to see his stabby guys go. I think he'd rather have BS5+ WS4+ than the other way around, and I would too.

Given how weaksauce the s4 on Catachans works out, +1 WS under that regime might be sensible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

yes it is a better system. The issue is when costs aren't adjusted to reflect the change.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

yes it is a better system. The issue is when costs aren't adjusted to reflect the change.

Costs were adjusted.

Most AP5 or 6 weapons cost 0 points

Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

Not to mention that guard would just find a cover save from somewhere, and the end result would be identical to what it is now, but now it's an issue.

That's a true point, Daedalus. The guard did used to get cover far far more often than they do now, meaning that they still had a save, but it was a 4+.

weird.

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

Actually, we don't know that they "cost 0 points before too". We didn't buy weapons or wargear individually on anything outside of characters.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Previously, I'd say that they were overcosted when talking about GEQs.

But since GEQs basically tended to be y'know...Guard only? It wasn't really a "Big Deal". How many people did you see running around with Guardians versus Jetbikes?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's a true point, Daedalus. The guard did used to get cover far far more often than they do now, meaning that they still had a save, but it was a 4+.

weird.

They had access to characters/psyker abilities that granted Shrouded or Stealth.

BIG difference between that and actually having cover.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's a true point, Daedalus. The guard did used to get cover far far more often than they do now, meaning that they still had a save, but it was a 4+.

weird.

They had access to characters/psyker abilities that granted Shrouded or Stealth.

BIG difference between that and actually having cover.

Depends what edition you were talking about. I saw plenty of 50 man conscript blobs that had a 4+ save in 5th because 12 guys on one end of the line all had their toes in a ruin, and 13 guys on the other end of the line also had their toes in a different ruin.

No one seemed to bat an eye at 50 T3 models with a 4+ save back then. And they were 3 or 4 PPM while Marines were 15, I think.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Soooo.... how many points should Guardsmen and Conscripts cost? I've explained my reasoning already, what's yours?

I believe they are fine as they are until you have proven that the change you advocate will result in a better game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

The current AP system still actually favors a 2+ save over a 5+ or 6+. It's just that, these days, a 5+ and 6+ save aren't completely worthless as much as they used to be. Take a heavy bolter vs various armors:

AP-1 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 2+ save, 0% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Terminator, or Tactical in cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 3+ save, 20% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 4+ save, 25% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Scout, or Guardsmen in cover: 4+ save to 5+ save, 33% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Guardsmen, or Ork in cover: 5+ save to 6+ save, 50% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Ork: 6+ save to 7+ save, 100% reduction in armor efficiency.

Better armor is still objectively better and noticeably so. The higher the AP of the weapon, the more dramatic the armor's performance in comparison to worse armor.

AP-2 vs Terminator in Cover: 2+ save to 3+ save, 20% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-2 vs Terminator, or Tactical in Cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 4+ save, 33% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-2 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 5+ save, 50% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-2 vs Scout, or Guardsmen in cover: 4+ save to 6+ save, or 66% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-2 vs Guardsmen or Orks (in or out of cover): 5+ to 7+, or 6+ to 8+, a 100% reduction in armor efficiency either way.

To further demonstrate this:

AP-3 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 4+ save, 40% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-3 vs Terminator, or Tactical in cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 5+ save, 60% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-3 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 6+ save, 75% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-3 vs everything else: 100% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-4 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 5+ save, 60% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-4 vs Terminator, or tactical in cover, or scout w/cloak in cover: 2+ save to 6+ save, 80% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-4 vs everything else: 100% reduction in armor efficiency.

Better armor means you still actually get to use your armor save more often than before. But the current system means a 5+ or 6+ actually means something, where before it was nothing more than a joke about tee-shirts.

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Morale hasn't changed. With a Commissar around, IG fundamentally never broke anyways (it was a very rare thing).

Blasts do more damage to well-managed IG infantry squads than they used to, considering you could get max 3 hits with large blast if it didn't scatter, and max 1 hit with small blasts barring scatter. Now and again you could get ~8 hits to a squad that fell out of a transport, but a d6 averaged across the game probably had a similar total output to the 1 lucky hit than 3 gakky hits with 2 misses blasts got before.

 Melissia wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Soooo.... how many points should Guardsmen and Conscripts cost? I've explained my reasoning already, what's yours?

I believe they are fine as they are until you have proven that the change you advocate will result in a better game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

The current AP system still actually favors a 2+ save over a 5+ or 6+. It's just that, these days, a 5+ and 6+ save aren't completely worthless as much as they used to be. Take a heavy bolter vs various armors:

AP-1 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 2+ save, 0% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Terminator, or Tactical in cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 3+ save, 20% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 4+ save, 25% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Scout, or Guardsmen in cover: 4+ save to 5+ save, 33% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Guardsmen, or Ork in cover: 5+ save to 6+ save, 50% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Ork: 6+ save to 7+ save, 100% reduction in armor efficiency.

Better armor is still objectively better and noticeably so. The higher the AP of the weapon, the more dramatic the armor's performance in comparison to worse armor.

AP-2 vs Terminator in Cover: 2+ save to 3+ save, 20% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-2 vs Terminator, or Tactical in Cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 4+ save, 33% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-2 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 5+ save, 50% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-2 vs Scout, or Guardsmen in cover: 4+ save to 6+ save, or 66% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-2 vs Guardsmen or Orks (in or out of cover): 5+ to 7+, or 6+ to 8+, a 100% reduction in armor efficiency either way.

To further demonstrate this:

AP-3 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 4+ save, 40% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-3 vs Terminator, or Tactical in cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 5+ save, 60% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-3 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 6+ save, 75% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-3 vs everything else: 100% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-4 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 5+ save, 60% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-4 vs Terminator, or tactical in cover, or scout w/cloak in cover: 2+ save to 6+ save, 80% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-4 vs everything else: 100% reduction in armor efficiency.

Better armor means you still actually get to use your armor save more often than before. But the current system means a 5+ or 6+ actually means something, where before it was nothing more than a joke about tee-shirts.

Cover does indeed matter more for better armor save units compared to last edition. Taking this part out. 5+ and 6+ have had the largest gain in this edition. It is not that a 5+ save is better than a 2+ save. It is that it had a larger gain with the AP changes because previously a 5+ save basically meant no save, so having a save more often than not is a large boost. Whereas a 2+ save really only got a buff against old AP 2(-3 in general) as they get a save where they would not have before (assuming no invul, in which case they are generally equal.). Against AP 3 and 4 (-1 and -2) a 2+ save is worse this edition than it was last edition, where as a 5+ save is better against -1 than it was vs AP 4. Against old AP 5 (usually now no AP) a 5+ is better and a 2+ is unchanged. Thus the 5+ and 6+ save gained the most from the change. That doesn't mean they are some how better than a superior save, just that if points did not change for anything they gained the largest benefit as they generally lost nothing and gained a bunch, where as a 2+ save generally gained nothing and lost a bunch. Cover is the only exception to this as 5+ and 6+ save units typically benefitted a lot from cover in previous editions and it is less so now, whereas 2+ save units rarely did before and do now.

Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

So yes, if you take out the part that means armoured units are better, then armoured units aren't better.

Neat. Did you know if you took NFL players out of the NFL there would be no NFL players in the NFL?

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Or maybe--just maybe...

It's because Platoons don't exist anymore?
And Combined Squads are now a Stratagem, limited to combining just two squads rather than five?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Morale hasn't changed. With a Commissar around, IG fundamentally never broke anyways (it was a very rare thing).

Blasts do more damage to well-managed IG infantry squads than they used to, considering you could get max 3 hits with large blast if it didn't scatter, and max 1 hit with small blasts barring scatter. Now and again you could get ~8 hits to a squad that fell out of a transport, but a d6 averaged across the game probably had a similar total output to the 1 lucky hit than 3 gakky hits with 2 misses blasts got before.

Morale in combat used to have a risk of losing entire squads which it doesn't now. While rare with the commissar, pre-nerf it was worse than it was in early 8th. This was noticeable in 6th when every IG blob had a SM character to avoid getting swept.

Blasts depending on the type were better against massed infantry than they are now simply because not every player had exact spacing and when they did scatter they often hit more than 3 models, throw in barrage weapons and you could get quite a few hits compared to now. Lets not even talk about super heavies and their blast weapons. Tank shock + flamers also worked well against hordes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Or maybe--just maybe...

It's because Platoons don't exist anymore?
And Combined Squads are now a Stratagem, limited to combining just two squads rather than five?

That is likely true for why not as many infantry squads, but if conscripts were bad previously changes to infantry squads don't make them good. So either, both got buffed, but no blob = more conscripts, or conscripts were good before but platoons were better.

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

even now we're not really seeing people take lots of 5+sv units on their own merits. They buy them as slot fillers, which can also happen to serve as body blocks, not really because they're really good. Looking at army lists, basically once the minimum detachment slots are filled, people dont tend to be investing more in 5+sv infantry beyond that. We're just seeing more variety than we were.

By the same token, on durability, while GEQ's get to take their save more often, so do other units. With the proliferation ap AP2 weapons in previous editions, many complained that armor saves of any kind werent worth squat, whereas now a Space Marine gets a save against a Battlecannon.

The biggest issue with IG infantry isnt their performance, its their ability to fill slots and rack up CP's. GW did two things in this regard. First, they broke off officers from their command squads. This means that they now both cant be targeted and can be taken much more cheaply. Second, they broke up the Platoon structure which had previously constrained FoC slot usage. With the way army construction changed, and the introduction of CP's, this has made IG able to make armies that have lots of CP's very easy. Not quite the "20+" that some complain about, but 9-14 when most opponents will have 6-8 is not uncommon. That's probably where the real issue is.

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So yes, if you take out the part that means armoured units are better, then armoured units aren't better.

Neat. Did you know if you took NFL players out of the NFL there would be no NFL players in the NFL?

Comparing those units is a matter of cost, and I don't find that units always have cover. If we are simply talking about the AP system, then the 5+ save gained the most.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Morale hasn't changed. With a Commissar around, IG fundamentally never broke anyways (it was a very rare thing).

Blasts do more damage to well-managed IG infantry squads than they used to, considering you could get max 3 hits with large blast if it didn't scatter, and max 1 hit with small blasts barring scatter. Now and again you could get ~8 hits to a squad that fell out of a transport, but a d6 averaged across the game probably had a similar total output to the 1 lucky hit than 3 gakky hits with 2 misses blasts got before.

Morale in combat used to have a risk of losing entire squads which it doesn't now. While rare with the commissar, pre-nerf it was worse than it was in early 8th. This was noticeable in 6th when every IG blob had a SM character to avoid getting swept.

Blasts depending on the type were better against massed infantry than they are now simply because not every player had exact spacing and when they did scatter they often hit more than 3 models, throw in barrage weapons and you could get quite a few hits compared to now. Lets not even talk about super heavies and their blast weapons. Tank shock + flamers also worked well against hordes.

Priests have made IG fearless since 3rd. IG blobs could stay in assault all day for like 5 editions without taking morale casualties. It was a common thing called tarpitting, and it wasn't even with an SM character.

Blasts were only better against massed infantry against a bad opponent (and we're assuming opponents of equal skill here, yes? Otherwise why are we adjusting balance based on an unequal matchup?) and if it scattered and the enemy was appropriately spaced, more often than not it cleanly missed, because the enemy is deployed in a straight line. Barrage weapons did not make the blast bigger somehow.

Superheavy blast weapons are now about where they were if not better - 3d6 has an average of 10-11 hits, which is identical to what it got on a 10 man squad clumped into a ball when it was blast. But now it can do more, while also having the potential to do much worse. Back in the day, it could only do worse (miss), and not better. So in this case, blasts have been buffed.

Tank Shock was an option that was removed for the sake of balance/playability, so I am on board with you, Tank Shock being gone is silly.

But yes, you could tank shock people into flamer formations. I concede that the inability to do this very specific thing is a tiny tiny buff to guard infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So yes, if you take out the part that means armoured units are better, then armoured units aren't better.

Neat. Did you know if you took NFL players out of the NFL there would be no NFL players in the NFL?

Comparing those units is a matter of cost, and I don't find that units always have cover. If we are simply talking about the AP system, then the 5+ save gained the most.

To address this post:

The first is a symptom of you not having cover on your tables in sufficient quantity, and the later is ... a symptom of you not having cover on your tables in sufficient quantity.
Maybe that's the problem?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

even now we're not really seeing people take lots of 5+sv units on their own merits. They buy them as slot fillers, which can also happen to serve as body blocks, not really because they're really good. Looking at army lists, basically once the minimum detachment slots are filled, people dont tend to be investing more in 5+sv infantry beyond that. We're just seeing more variety than we were.

By the same token, on durability, while GEQ's get to take their save more often, so do other units. With the proliferation ap AP2 weapons in previous editions, many complained that armor saves of any kind werent worth squat, whereas now a Space Marine gets a save against a Battlecannon.

The biggest issue with IG infantry isnt their performance, its their ability to fill slots and rack up CP's. GW did two things in this regard. First, they broke off officers from their command squads. This means that they now both cant be targeted and can be taken much more cheaply. Second, they broke up the Platoon structure which had previously constrained FoC slot usage. With the way army construction changed, and the introduction of CP's, this has made IG able to make armies that have lots of CP's very easy. Not quite the "20+" that some complain about, but 9-14 when most opponents will have 6-8 is not uncommon. That's probably where the real issue is.

Not sure I agree that 5+ save units are never taken for their won merits. They are taken due to that all the time. Not because a 5+ save is great, but because they typically have good damage output on a cheap body, because of their poor save.

As for AP2, that is true, but anti-horde weapons in old editions were never AP2. So while prevalent they were not the huge threat to cheap infantry. So while that is a buff to high save units as well (getting at least a token save), having a save against standard guns is a large buff.

I agree that guard getting a lot of cp easily is a big bonus compared to many other armies.

Breng77 wrote:

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

That ignores the existence of the old fashioned Aegis Defence Line, which granted 2~ feet of models a 4+ cover save and cost as much as a single squad of guardsmen before upgrades.

I don't think I ever played a serious infantry (and even a few of the tankers) guard commander who didn't use at least one.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Or maybe--just maybe...

It's because Platoons don't exist anymore?
And Combined Squads are now a Stratagem, limited to combining just two squads rather than five?

That is likely true for why not as many infantry squads, but if conscripts were bad previously changes to infantry squads don't make them good. So either, both got buffed, but no blob = more conscripts, or conscripts were good before but platoons were better.

Well considering you needed to have a Platoon in order to purchase Conscripts...

There was literally no way to field Conscripts without Platoons. Conscripts were part of the Platoon.
A Platoon was already requiring you to field, before adding anything else, a minimum of:
1 Platoon Command Squad
2 Infantry Squads

So...Conscripts weren't taken before because there was zero reason to when you had to buy more stuff anyways.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Morale hasn't changed. With a Commissar around, IG fundamentally never broke anyways (it was a very rare thing).

Blasts do more damage to well-managed IG infantry squads than they used to, considering you could get max 3 hits with large blast if it didn't scatter, and max 1 hit with small blasts barring scatter. Now and again you could get ~8 hits to a squad that fell out of a transport, but a d6 averaged across the game probably had a similar total output to the 1 lucky hit than 3 gakky hits with 2 misses blasts got before.

Morale in combat used to have a risk of losing entire squads which it doesn't now. While rare with the commissar, pre-nerf it was worse than it was in early 8th. This was noticeable in 6th when every IG blob had a SM character to avoid getting swept.

Blasts depending on the type were better against massed infantry than they are now simply because not every player had exact spacing and when they did scatter they often hit more than 3 models, throw in barrage weapons and you could get quite a few hits compared to now. Lets not even talk about super heavies and their blast weapons. Tank shock + flamers also worked well against hordes.

Priests have made IG fearless since 3rd. IG blobs could stay in assault all day for like 5 editions without taking morale casualties. It was a common thing called tarpitting, and it wasn't even with an SM character.

Blasts were only better against massed infantry against a bad opponent (and we're assuming opponents of equal skill here, yes? Otherwise why are we adjusting balance based on an unequal matchup?) and if it scattered and the enemy was appropriately spaced, more often than not it cleanly missed, because the enemy is deployed in a straight line. Barrage weapons did not make the blast bigger somehow.

Superheavy blast weapons are now about where they were if not better - 3d6 has an average of 10-11 hits, which is identical to what it got on a 10 man squad clumped into a ball when it was blast. But now it can do more, while also having the potential to do much worse. Back in the day, it could only do worse (miss), and not better. So in this case, blasts have been buffed.

Tank Shock was an option that was removed for the sake of balance/playability, so I am on board with you, Tank Shock being gone is silly.

But yes, you could tank shock people into flamer formations. I concede that the inability to do this very specific thing is a tiny tiny buff to guard infantry.

You are failing to account for those 3D6 "hits" not being auto hits. So 10-11 SHOTS is more like 5-6 hits, not 10. Same with your other blast D6 shots averages like 2 hits at best for BS 4+. I guess we saw very different players I rarely saw giant hordes in a single straight line, more often than not they were in blocks of 2" spacing because terrain and space would not allow straight lines. Also remember fearless in some editions made models die in combat. The Space marine characters allowed you to fall out of combat with no penalty (if you failed morale).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So yes, if you take out the part that means armoured units are better, then armoured units aren't better.

Neat. Did you know if you took NFL players out of the NFL there would be no NFL players in the NFL?

Comparing those units is a matter of cost, and I don't find that units always have cover. If we are simply talking about the AP system, then the 5+ save gained the most.

To address this post:

The first is a symptom of you not having cover on your tables in sufficient quantity, and the later is ... a symptom of you not having cover on your tables in sufficient quantity.
Maybe that's the problem?

Sorry but no this involved large GTs like the NOVA. plenty of terrain, but you were not deploying in a straight line spread out 2" with 50 models and also being in cover. SO unless you have 100% cover on your table I highly doubt that you can be fully spread out to avoid blasts and fully in cover with large squads. In this edition I find small units have cover, but blobs do not because of needing to be 100% on the terrain to get cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Or maybe--just maybe...

It's because Platoons don't exist anymore?
And Combined Squads are now a Stratagem, limited to combining just two squads rather than five?

That is likely true for why not as many infantry squads, but if conscripts were bad previously changes to infantry squads don't make them good. So either, both got buffed, but no blob = more conscripts, or conscripts were good before but platoons were better.

Well considering you needed to have a Platoon in order to purchase Conscripts...

There was literally no way to field Conscripts without Platoons. Conscripts were part of the Platoon.
A Platoon was already requiring you to field, before adding anything else, a minimum of:
1 Platoon Command Squad
2 Infantry Squads

So...Conscripts weren't taken before because there was zero reason to when you had to buy more stuff anyways.

also true so that was a built in cost they no longer have.

You could if you brought an Aegis Defense Line, as someone already mentioned.

I never saw a footguard player without an Aegis.

EDIT: Oh yeah, you're right about blasts not autohitting.

Maybe they should! Surely that would make them better against hordes... and everyone else... so we're back to square 1. But yeah, you've convinced me that to achieve the same level of utility as they had blasts should autohit. Whether shooting at Marines or IG or anyone else.

 malamis wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

That ignores the existence of the old fashioned Aegis Defence Line, which granted 2~ feet of models a 4+ cover save and cost as much as a single squad of guardsmen before upgrades.

I don't think I ever played a serious infantry (and even a few of the tankers) guard commander who didn't use at least one.

True, but I'm also not accounting for a ton of ignores cover shooting in the edition either. But Guard was pretty terrible in 7th.

Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Because of the Eldar effect. People on this site defended SCATTERBIKES. Why is this surprising? After all, they're just guardsmen.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

Martel732 wrote:
Because of the Eldar effect. People on this site defended SCATTERBIKES. Why is this surprising? After all, they're just guardsmen.

People still defend Gladius and Decurion Wraiths. If the game had continued as it did, I personally saw the Genestealer Cult grand detachment as eventually becoming broke. Will never know if I was right on that one but I can definitely say I called everything else correctly so...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Lets be real, an Ork Boy could use going down a point, but Guardsmen dont render them unplayable, that's a rather absurd statement there's other factors completely unrelated to IG that cause them issues, and if IG are causing Orks fits...Eldar are going to be even more frustrating.

Cant comment on nids because I havent looked at their list in a bit, but Orks have other issues and IG are not the source of most of them.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

Worse ranged gun. It's higher Strength.

Guardsmen also can't be taken in groups of 20 or more, granting a native re-roll to their Wound rolls of 1 simply for having that many guys. That requires an Officer within 6"(18" if they take a Vox-Caster which costs points and the Officer has to be within 3" of another unit with a Vox-Caster).

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

One point more expensive than Conscripts at 1 point higher to save, with the ability to hit on 4s rather than 5s and not having to roll a D6 to check if they get to have Synapse or not.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Unplayable? Really? That's the word we're going with?

You're sounding more ridiculous every post, like Xenomancers claiming Marines were the worst codex in 7th.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

Worse ranged gun. It's higher Strength.

Guardsmen also can't be taken in groups of 20 or more, granting a native re-roll to their Wound rolls of 1 simply for having that many guys. That requires an Officer within 6"(18" if they take a Vox-Caster which costs points and the Officer has to be within 3" of another unit with a Vox-Caster).

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

One point more expensive than Conscripts at 1 point higher to save, with the ability to hit on 4s rather than 5s and not having to roll a D6 to check if they get to have Synapse or not.

Nope, worse gun full stop. A S4 gun with 1 shot is worse at 12" than a S3 gun with 2 shots. Mathematically you would take a lasgun in almost every circumstance if given the option for a free gun.

As for conscripts yes they hit better, with a worse gun, so they end up doing a whole 0.028 more wounds per model at 12". But at half durability. With the commissar nerf though it is a more even comparison as the termagants are more resistant to morale.

I don't think until both books are out do we really know how this will shake out. Though Chaff for guard is more important than for nids given the respective strengths of the armies.

In general though I don't think 3 point models should have better than a 6+ save.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

Worse ranged gun. It's higher Strength.

Guardsmen also can't be taken in groups of 20 or more, granting a native re-roll to their Wound rolls of 1 simply for having that many guys. That requires an Officer within 6"(18" if they take a Vox-Caster which costs points and the Officer has to be within 3" of another unit with a Vox-Caster).

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

One point more expensive than Conscripts at 1 point higher to save, with the ability to hit on 4s rather than 5s and not having to roll a D6 to check if they get to have Synapse or not.

Nope, worse gun full stop. A S4 gun with 1 shot is worse at 12" than a S3 gun with 2 shots.

As for conscripts yes they hit better, with a worse gun, so they end up doing a whole 0.028 more wounds per model at 12". But at half durability. With the commissar nerf though it is a more even comparison as the termagants are more resistant to morale.

I don't think until both books are out do we really know how this will shake out. Though Chaff for guard is more important than for nids given the respective strengths of the armies.

In general though I don't think 3 point models should have better than a 6+ save.

Then you'd support a rule disallowing for Termagants to be able to claim the bonus from Venomthropes?

Breng77 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover.

daedalus wrote:Now, Blast/template might be a factor.

Even still, I note that they're currently able to spread out enough to deny any deep strike anywhere, condensed enough that it's impossible to fit a 1" base between them, and have enough left over to trail back to a single commissar hiding on the opposite side of a wall of tanks, so why not.

Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Aegis-Defence-Line

It was... not an unusual thing for a guard player to have. Like, literally every one of them in my area had one, myself included. They could have been described as "popular".

Im still just really amused that *conscripts* of all things are a power issue.

I'm waiting for when Vespids become absolutely filthy

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

Worse ranged gun. It's higher Strength.

Guardsmen also can't be taken in groups of 20 or more, granting a native re-roll to their Wound rolls of 1 simply for having that many guys. That requires an Officer within 6"(18" if they take a Vox-Caster which costs points and the Officer has to be within 3" of another unit with a Vox-Caster).

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

One point more expensive than Conscripts at 1 point higher to save, with the ability to hit on 4s rather than 5s and not having to roll a D6 to check if they get to have Synapse or not.

Nope, worse gun full stop. A S4 gun with 1 shot is worse at 12" than a S3 gun with 2 shots.

As for conscripts yes they hit better, with a worse gun, so they end up doing a whole 0.028 more wounds per model at 12". But at half durability. With the commissar nerf though it is a more even comparison as the termagants are more resistant to morale.

I don't think until both books are out do we really know how this will shake out. Though Chaff for guard is more important than for nids given the respective strengths of the armies.

In general though I don't think 3 point models should have better than a 6+ save.

Then you'd support a rule disallowing for Termagants to be able to claim the bonus from Venomthropes?

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

Breng77 wrote:

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

How are you getting 20-30 models entirely in one of the few types of cover nowadays?

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

How are you getting 20-30 models entirely in one of the few types of cover nowadays?

Depends on the cover I suppose, and yes it is rare, but denying abilities to improve a save based on some other factor is not the same as, having that save base.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

Or as I loved to put it:
"Haha! I am a AP 5 gun!"
"Noo, my 5+ save is doomed!"
"Hahahaha scrub, I'm a 4+ save, you do nothing to me!"

I dunno if bringing Tyranids into the argument is really a good idea at this point - their codex drops in less than 2 weeks and might have several things completely change. I mean, we already know that depending on the Hive Fleet, those Termagants can choose to have a bonus 6+ save on top of their normal save, or count as always having cover unless they advance or charge. Depending on their stratagems and points changes (if any to the gant stuff), the lineup could be completely different in short order.

Breng77 wrote:

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

And Termagants in cover(or with Jormungandr as their Hive Fleet) near a Venomthrope get a 5+ save and -1 to be hit.

That bumps Conscripts up to a 6+ to hit while keeping the Termagants at a 4+! OMG NERF OP! 20 POINTS PER TERMAGANT!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

How are you getting 20-30 models entirely in one of the few types of cover nowadays?

Depends on the cover I suppose, and yes it is rare, but denying abilities to improve a save based on some other factor is not the same as, having that save base.

And Guardsmen/Conscripts' statlines were set up so that they could receive Orders.

That didn't stop them tacking on a 4+ requirement for Conscripts to receive Orders or retaining the 6" range limitation on Voice of Command still.
While at the same time, we know Hive Tyrants are getting an 18" Synapse range granting Summary Execution(minus the whole having to Summary Execute someone thing...) in an 18" bubble.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

They are literally not half as survivable, because they don't suffer morale casualties. Which conscripts do. Kill 19/30 or 14/20 and you guarantee the death of the remainder of the unit.

Remember how 30-odd pages ago, Commissars got nerfed?

the_scotsman wrote:

They are literally not half as survivable, because they don't suffer morale casualties. Which conscripts do. Kill 19/30 or 14/20 and you guarantee the death of the remainder of the unit.

Remember how 30-odd pages ago, Commissars got nerfed?

But conscripts are overpowered. Because at one point in time you could have 50 in a squad. And at one point in time, they always had orders. And at one point in time they could mitigate morale. And now they just simply don't cost enough and their lasguns are too good. Tomorrow they're going to have too high of strength and toughness, and the day after it'll be that they exist to begin with, cause they're just overpowered okay?

Why can't you see that?!

Officially putting the nail in the coffin of "Fleshborers are so baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!":



So, with that Psyker ability called "Onslaught"? Termagants can Advance during their Movement phase, be granted the ability to fire their Fleshborers and not have any penalty to Hit and then charge to get into combat and mandating that Conscripts would have to Fall Back and be issued an Order to regroup.

So. Whining about Conscripts can officially stop and Commissars can be granted their original Summary Execution.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So. Whining about Conscripts can officially stop and Commissars can be granted their original Summary Execution.

B-but KaaaAAAAaaaaaan, that's only Nids! Marines need that power tooooo!

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So. Whining about Conscripts can officially stop and Commissars can be granted their original Summary Execution.

B-but KaaaAAAAaaaaaan, that's only Nids! Marines need that power tooooo!

Don't worry, a certain poster who play Nids and hates Guard will be along shortly to explain how Guard are still simply the absolute number one codex of all time, ever, period.

I have little issue with conscripts at this point. I actually think they over nerfed the commissar. I would prefer that he kept his original rules and conscripts a 6+ save.

I'd still prefer in general super cheap models not to have better than a 6+ save. This applies to more than conscripts.

As for Fleshborers are bad, so you need to take a psyker to get one squad of termagants to do that? Their guns (as guns) are still worse than a lasgun.

I mean that is a dumb argument, on a similar power imperial guard units can shoot lasguns 4 times at 12" range...and that only can fail on conscripts. It can also apply to more than 1 unit.

Fleshborers are not a good weapon.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

They are literally not half as survivable, because they don't suffer morale casualties. Which conscripts do. Kill 19/30 or 14/20 and you guarantee the death of the remainder of the unit.

Remember how 30-odd pages ago, Commissars got nerfed?

Remember that 2 CP stratagem that can save them outright, or I believe the relic IG has that helps with this?

That combo you're talking about as OP already existed in the index. Nothing has changed in that regard. Because you can still screen melee armies as guard without thinking, and you have the best shooting in the entire game, in the shooting edition. Besides, if you're running dakkagants, may as well make them devourers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

B-but KaaaAAAAaaaaaan, that's only Nids! Marines need that power tooooo!

Congratulations on being "that guy," Xenos armies - as a whole - have a legitimate beef with the power level of imperial guard, and imperial soup. Well, maybe not Eldar. We'll see.

Synapse is also a 12" bubble not 18", and hive tyrants cost just a bit more than a commissar and can be targeted at all times.

Guys why are you still with this after 36 pages? Really. Just let it go

 Galas wrote:
Guys why are you still with this after 36 pages? Really. Just let it go

I mean that's fair, this isn't going anywhere productive lol, i'm out. Cheers y'all.

 Marmatag wrote:

Congratulations on being "that guy," Xenos armies - as a whole - have a legitimate beef with the power level of imperial guard, and imperial soup. Well, maybe not Eldar. We'll see.

I agree that index armies have a legitimate beef with codex armies. It's consistently apparent in tournament rankings. Eldar is the least bad out of all of them.

Maybe none of them will though once they get a codex.

BA and GK have problems that can't be fixed by a codex.

Martel732 wrote:
BA and GK have problems that can't be fixed by a codex.

Martel, BA don't have a codex yet.

Pump the brakes big rig. Let's wait until the BA codex drops before you complain it.

Breng77 wrote:
Synapse is also a 12" bubble not 18", and hive tyrants cost just a bit more than a commissar and can be targeted at all times.

They literally said yesterday that Hive Tyrants have 18" Synapse.
Source

It gets better! All Hive Tyrants now have an improved Synapse range of 18”, a Toughness stat of 7 (up from 6), and winged Hive Tyrants can drop in from above like other teleporting and flying units.

Also, Hive Tyrants are not the only source of Synapse in a Tyranid army...

I don't care. The codex won't fix a thing. Mark my words.

Sounds like this thread should die, though.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care. The codex won't fix a thing. Mark my words.

Sounds like this thread should die, though.

Look man, complaining about a codex that hasn't even entered the rumour mill is a little ridiculous. I get you're a glass half empty guy, but maybe you should just wait before bitching about something that doesn't exist yet.

I don't like the index vs codex excuse, because plenty of index lists can pound gk.

Breng77 wrote:
I have little issue with conscripts at this point. I actually think they over nerfed the commissar. I would prefer that he kept his original rules and conscripts a 6+ save.

I'd still prefer in general super cheap models not to have better than a 6+ save. This applies to more than conscripts.

As for Fleshborers are bad, so you need to take a psyker to get one squad of termagants to do that? Their guns (as guns) are still worse than a lasgun.

I mean that is a dumb argument, on a similar power imperial guard units can shoot lasguns 4 times at 12" range...and that only can fail on conscripts. It can also apply to more than 1 unit.

Fleshborers are not a good weapon.

You've argued multiple times during this thread that Fleshborers are bad because of shorter range and requiring Termagants to get closer and thus get shot.

I literally showed you a thing that allows a mass of forty Termagants(they mentioned today one of the Stratagems with a 40 strong brood) to get into CC to protect themselves before the next shooting phase while still advancing and shooting their oh-so terrible Fleshborers with no penalty.

12" range on Fleshborers plus the range of Advancing and then Charging. It basically removes the only penalty for advancing and using an Assault weapon; the removal of Charge and a -1 to Hit penalty for shooting with the Assault weapon.

Martel732 wrote:
BA and GK have problems that can't be fixed by a codex.

I guess then the only thing you can do is to hold out hope that, if you're lucky at all, maybe, just maybe, GW will smile down upon you and make sure that 9th edition won't fix your problems either.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Orks need to be buffed.

Just imagine a world with BS 4 Orks with 5+ saves...GLORIOUS !!!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I have little issue with conscripts at this point. I actually think they over nerfed the commissar. I would prefer that he kept his original rules and conscripts a 6+ save.

I'd still prefer in general super cheap models not to have better than a 6+ save. This applies to more than conscripts.

As for Fleshborers are bad, so you need to take a psyker to get one squad of termagants to do that? Their guns (as guns) are still worse than a lasgun.

I mean that is a dumb argument, on a similar power imperial guard units can shoot lasguns 4 times at 12" range...and that only can fail on conscripts. It can also apply to more than 1 unit.

Fleshborers are not a good weapon.

You've argued multiple times during this thread that Fleshborers are bad because of shorter range and requiring Termagants to get closer and thus get shot.

I literally showed you a thing that allows a mass of forty Termagants(they mentioned today one of the Stratagems with a 40 strong brood) to get into CC to protect themselves before the next shooting phase while still advancing and shooting their oh-so terrible Fleshborers with no penalty.

12" range on Fleshborers plus the range of Advancing and then Charging. It basically removes the only penalty for advancing and using an Assault weapon; the removal of Charge and a -1 to Hit penalty for shooting with the Assault weapon.

Alright Kanluwen, proxy/borrow/steal/whatever some Termagants, and the other Nids you need to give your OP Termagant strat a try. Let us know the results; I'm really curious. This strategy WILL NOT MAKE TERMAGANTS WITH FLESHBORERS WORK. It's just not good. I don't know why I'm bothering with this post, because it won't matter, but I've just got to say it. FLESHBORERS ARE BAD. Also, the article was edited; no blobs of 40. I'll betcha though; even if there were, Termagants with fleshborers would still be bad.