Unit1126PLL wrote: Consider the difference between, say, the US Army ranger and the US Army in 40k.
Regular IBCT guys hit on a 4+, Army Ranger guys hit on a 3+... and what? The rangers ignore modifiers when making combat attrition tests? Lol.
Well part of the issue is that skill is actually not that significant on the tactical level.
If you put US Army ranger and the US Army in an open field and ask them to kill each other there is unlikely to be a significant difference. They both know how to shoot after all.
Now what actually differentiates them is their strategic flexibility. The Army Ranger knows how to make air drop assaults, knows about sabotage missions, recon, clandestine insertion, assassination, asset capture and denial, etc.
The Army Ranger can do a wide variety of special operations, and all of that is mostly worthless if you put them in an open field with a rifle and ask them to play at standard infantry.
EDIT: The irony of it is that the most elite faction in the game is Genestealer Cults, because they are the only faction that really fights how a SpecOps unit is supposed to fight.
It doesn't. Orks as a codex is arguably the worst 9th edition by far. Terrible internal balance, no synergy, actually lost playstyles, didn't even get custom cultures. The latter is a joke for what's the most diverse faction around.
No, you just reinforced the point you're trying to argue against.
Hecaton wrote: That sounds like you're saying that's a bad example because it proves his point too well.
It doesn't. Orks as a codex is arguably the worst 9th edition by far. Terrible internal balance, no synergy, actually lost playstyles, didn't even get custom cultures. The latter is a joke for what's the most diverse faction around.
Kaied wrote: Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote: So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
Insectum7 wrote: Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
+6" Range and +1 Shot OR +6" Range and -1 AP. Gaining options means very little when those options are things you pay points for.
Yeah, that is what I said. Both weapons got +6", one of the (free) options got twice as many shots, the other (free) option got -1 AP. Actually, they didn't get them for free, but at a discount since their points went down.
JNAProductions wrote: As compared to +1 Wound, +1 Attack round one of combat, extra AP on turn 2 and potentially 3, an extra shot at 24", and reduces all AP by one to a min of zero.
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.
Arguably, comparing 3rd edition charge to Shock Assault isn't much of an upgrade... everyone got +1A on charge in 3rd. So Marines basically gained +1A when charged, or Heroic Intervention with Shock Assault. I'd argue that Armor of Contempt is a Faction buff that for some reason is being shown as a Datasheet buff on various online resources. The dataslate does not add the keyword to any datasheet directly at all, it piggy-backs off the Adeptus Astartes Faction keyword. So... like definition of a Faction Buff. So if AoC is being taken into account, the Mont'ka/etc also should be.
What happens if we give the old Tactical Marine the same treatment as Fire Warriors? So we end up with 1W Marines without Shock Assault/Combat Doctrines/Bolter Disciple, but 12 ppm and either an 24" Astartes Shotgun or a 30" -1AP Bolt Rifle? Cheaper than Scouts(which are 14 ppm) but with better weapons and 3+ save, but not Elites and don't have SA/CD/BD. Is that fair? I think they would end up being auto-takes because they are cheap.
Not really. Comparing raw datasheet numbers without putting other things into context is a pretty bad comparison tool. Markerlights changed and the wounding table changed. Bolters wound T3 on 3s in both 3rd and 9th. Pulse wounded on 2s and now wounds on 3s. Markerlights also used to deny cover and Tau overwatch is effectively gone. Fire warriors got weaker while marines did not. Hence the discount.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:The point is that in a wargame that running a vastly smaller force, even if the few guys you have are vastly more powerful, should put you at a disadvantage that you have to overcome with tactical ability and general skill. To make marines more interesting and actually play more like marines they should be less beginner friendly. Beginner friendly imo would be guard, you have a lot of guys, the roles are clear cut, and there’s nothing crazy going on.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Consider the difference between, say, the US Army ranger and the US Army in 40k.
Regular IBCT guys hit on a 4+, Army Ranger guys hit on a 3+... and what? The rangers ignore modifiers when making combat attrition tests? Lol.
You could make Marines both more appropriately elite and more forgiving to newbies by giving them higher operational tempo, something that measurably differentiates special forces from regulars IRL. If you have more opportunities to act and react than your opponent, that makes it easier to capitalize on an opportunity or escape from a bad exchange.
But there has to be some lever for representing that difference- be it a reaction system, or alternating activation, or activation mechanics a la Epic, or something else.
Having an elite force be able to do more actions sort of entirely nullifies the point of them being a small elite force. Being a small army is a really devastating downside in most things.
Kaied wrote: For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.
I care little about points.
Take 10 Fire Warriors vs 10 Marines. How do they fare against each other in 3rd? How about now?
That’s your problem. Even in 3rd edition 10 marines were at least 50% more points than fire warriors. It’s not a fair comparison. From memory a fire warrior was 9 or 10 points, marines were 15 or 16. So weighed fairly it should be at least 15 fire warriors against 10 marines.
- Tau: That’s 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, 1.66 dead marines.
- Marines: If the marines go first then that’s 6.66 hits, 4.4 wounds, 2.2 dead fire warriors.
What’s not being considered here is that Tau had longer range and the boards were both bigger and had less terrain. So with good positioning or use of movement those Tau could get 2 rounds of shooting before the Marines even get a chance to retaliate.
Well congrats, you just missed the entire point, which is that Tau Fire Warriors have degraded over time in comparison to Marines, (like many other basic units).
10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.
10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
Which is to say that at the longer ranges (the area where Tau troops are characteristically good at), not only has their offensive capability been cut in half against Marines, but they're taking more than twice the casualties in response in some cases.
Why is this bad? Well for starters, some people may actually like Tau, and like the idea that their basic troops were actually good at something. This was a major selling point for Tau back in the day. Another point is that it removes anti-Marine counter tactics for the Tau Troops. There's no "Fish of Fury" sort of maneuver viable any more if the troops you're transporting to concentrate force with are going to be so outmatched in the ensuing fight. It also removes challenge from the Marine player. Why bother with any tactics in a squad v. squad situation when you're just going to handily steamroll them.
. . .
Twenty Fire Warriors lie in wait, having carefully chosen their ambush point in the ruins. The squad of Marines, wary of danger but still moving with purpose, advance through the street at double-time in an effort to make their rendezvous. The Tau warriors hold steady, some members already marking their targets, while others ready themselves to reveal themselves through windows and gaps in the rubble, primed to pour fire into the enemy. The Marines advance into the designated kill zone. The signal is given. As one, twenty Fire Warriors reveal their position and open fire, pouring advanced, high powered rounds into the exposed Marines. Caught in the open, the Marines are forced to take round after round of focused fire from a well defended position. . . (40 x .5 x .666 x .333 = 4.4)
A whopping two Marines go down.
Tyran wrote: Well, that's why you bring a Riptide and wipe out the entire unit
Well then why have troops? This mentality is exactly where the "Troops are a tax" idea comes from. It's a poor design when units wind up being percieved as useless, especially when they're intended to be a common sight within an army.
It's also just not fun. You make this faction, you write cool backstory and punch up certain capabilities to form their identity in the lore. But they're just incapable of action on the tabletop. It's a fail.
If you don't care about points, we're not even playing the same game.
Insectum7 wrote: 10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.
10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
Ok, let's unpack this. From what range? If its over 30" Marines do zero damage, of if its between 24" and 30" the Marines aren't standing still. If its under 18", you forgot to double the Fire Warriors' shots. Or just use the Pulse Carbine and get double shots at 24" and 0 AP regardless.
Now lets add the points back in. Fire Warriors are all equipped with Pulse Rifles and Grenades in both editions.
3rd ed 110 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 15/W = 16.5 points of Marines, 15% return on investment.
9th ed 80 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 9/W = 9.9 points of Marines, 12.375% return on investment.
9th ed Fire Warriors w/in 18" is doing 2.2 x 9/W = 19.8 points of Marines, 24.75% return on investment.
3rd ed 150 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 11/W = 24.2 points of Fire Warriors, 14.6% return on investment.
9th ed 180 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 8/W = 17.6 points of Fire Warriors, 11.7% return on investment.
9th ed Marines standing still at 24" in Tactical Doctrine are doing 5.8 x 8/W = 46.4 points of Fire Warriors, 25.7% return on investment.
Give the Fire Warriors the "worse" weapon (against anything without AoC) and put them at 24" just like the Marines want and it looks exactly like the Pulse Rifle at 18" because of AoC negates the Pulse Rifle's AP anyway. And if you are already ignoring the longer range of Pulse Rifle...
We ignored everything that buffed Fire Warriors, except being in Half Range (or switching to Pulse Carbine). Markerlight token is effectively 1/3 more hits, Kauyon is effectively +1/3rd hits on 3rd round, +2/3rd on 4th, and double on 5th within 12". Just like Tactical Doctrine is 1/3 more wounds through, and standing still is double the shots for Marines.
Insectum7 wrote: Which is to say that at the longer ranges (the area where Tau troops are characteristically good at), not only has their offensive capability been cut in half against Marines, but they're taking more than twice the casualties in response in some cases.
At those longer ranges Marine offensive capability has been reduced to 0, not just half. And Fire Warriors cost less than half the price per model as Tactical Marines, so losing twice as many casualties is actually parity, not unbalanced.
TLDR: Generic(not in a Chapter) Marines in the best case (Tactical Doctrine standing still at 24") have about the same point effective shooting, 25.7%, as Generic(not in a Sept) Fire Warriors in the worst case (completely unbuffed with Pulse Carbines also standing still at 24") at 24.75%.
If you don't care about points, we're not even playing the same game.
Insectum7 wrote: 10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.
10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
Ok, let's unpack this. From what range? If its over 30" Marines do zero damage, of if its between 24" and 30" the Marines aren't standing still. If its under 18", you forgot to double the Fire Warriors' shots. Or just use the Pulse Carbine and get double shots at 24" and 0 AP regardless.
Now lets add the points back in. Fire Warriors are all equipped with Pulse Rifles and Grenades in both editions.
3rd ed 110 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 15/W = 16.5 points of Marines, 15% return on investment.
9th ed 80 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 9/W = 9.9 points of Marines, 12.375% return on investment.
9th ed Fire Warriors w/in 18" is doing 2.2 x 9/W = 19.8 points of Marines, 24.75% return on investment.
3rd ed 150 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 11/W = 24.2 points of Fire Warriors, 14.6% return on investment.
9th ed 180 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 8/W = 17.6 points of Fire Warriors, 11.7% return on investment.
9th ed Marines standing still at 24" in Tactical Doctrine are doing 5.8 x 8/W = 46.4 points of Fire Warriors, 25.7% return on investment.
Give the Fire Warriors the "worse" weapon (against anything without AoC) and put them at 24" just like the Marines want and it looks exactly like the Pulse Rifle at 18" because of AoC negates the Pulse Rifle's AP anyway. And if you are already ignoring the longer range of Pulse Rifle...
We ignored everything that buffed Fire Warriors, except being in Half Range (or switching to Pulse Carbine). Markerlight token is effectively 1/3 more hits, Kauyon is effectively +1/3rd hits on 3rd round, +2/3rd on 4th, and double on 5th within 12". Just like Tactical Doctrine is 1/3 more wounds through, and standing still is double the shots for Marines.
Insectum7 wrote: Which is to say that at the longer ranges (the area where Tau troops are characteristically good at), not only has their offensive capability been cut in half against Marines, but they're taking more than twice the casualties in response in some cases.
At those longer ranges Marine offensive capability has been reduced to 0, not just half. And Fire Warriors cost less than half the price per model as Tactical Marines, so losing twice as many casualties is actually parity, not unbalanced.
TLDR: Generic(not in a Chapter) Marines in the best case (Tactical Doctrine standing still at 24") have about the same point effective shooting, 25.7%, as Generic(not in a Sept) Fire Warriors in the worst case (completely unbuffed with Pulse Carbines also standing still at 24") at 24.75%.
Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about. People don't choose their army because of spreadsheets and estimated point returns. The 2000 point Space Marine army consisting of 300 6 point Marines producing a "point efficient return" is not the Space Marine narrative players are looking for. Likewise, when another race/faction is lauded for it's particular characteristics, "point returns" are not the thing that resonates with players when they're envisioning cool scenarios with their toy soldiers.
We're playing the same game, you're just over-focusing on points to express "balance" at the expense of narrative. Points-balance has it's place, but it is not the only relevant measure.
If you don't care about points, we're not even playing the same game.
Insectum7 wrote: 10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.
10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
Ok, let's unpack this. From what range? If its over 30" Marines do zero damage, of if its between 24" and 30" the Marines aren't standing still. If its under 18", you forgot to double the Fire Warriors' shots. Or just use the Pulse Carbine and get double shots at 24" and 0 AP regardless.
Now lets add the points back in. Fire Warriors are all equipped with Pulse Rifles and Grenades in both editions.
3rd ed 110 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 15/W = 16.5 points of Marines, 15% return on investment.
9th ed 80 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 9/W = 9.9 points of Marines, 12.375% return on investment.
9th ed Fire Warriors w/in 18" is doing 2.2 x 9/W = 19.8 points of Marines, 24.75% return on investment.
3rd ed 150 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 11/W = 24.2 points of Fire Warriors, 14.6% return on investment.
9th ed 180 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 8/W = 17.6 points of Fire Warriors, 11.7% return on investment.
9th ed Marines standing still at 24" in Tactical Doctrine are doing 5.8 x 8/W = 46.4 points of Fire Warriors, 25.7% return on investment.
Give the Fire Warriors the "worse" weapon (against anything without AoC) and put them at 24" just like the Marines want and it looks exactly like the Pulse Rifle at 18" because of AoC negates the Pulse Rifle's AP anyway. And if you are already ignoring the longer range of Pulse Rifle...
We ignored everything that buffed Fire Warriors, except being in Half Range (or switching to Pulse Carbine). Markerlight token is effectively 1/3 more hits, Kauyon is effectively +1/3rd hits on 3rd round, +2/3rd on 4th, and double on 5th within 12". Just like Tactical Doctrine is 1/3 more wounds through, and standing still is double the shots for Marines.
Insectum7 wrote: Which is to say that at the longer ranges (the area where Tau troops are characteristically good at), not only has their offensive capability been cut in half against Marines, but they're taking more than twice the casualties in response in some cases.
At those longer ranges Marine offensive capability has been reduced to 0, not just half. And Fire Warriors cost less than half the price per model as Tactical Marines, so losing twice as many casualties is actually parity, not unbalanced.
TLDR: Generic(not in a Chapter) Marines in the best case (Tactical Doctrine standing still at 24") have about the same point effective shooting, 25.7%, as Generic(not in a Sept) Fire Warriors in the worst case (completely unbuffed with Pulse Carbines also standing still at 24") at 24.75%.
Ty for the analysis based on point returns. Although I would factor in morale, marines standing still will do 4.4W on average which is enough to force a leadership check while the fire warriors will not force one in return. Marines standing still in tactical will do 5.8 which on average forces half-strength attrition increasing the return for marines.
Edit: Also, wasn't one of the main arguments that marines were just as efficient as the shooting specialist troops while staying as point efficient as a melee specialist troop? Even if tacs and fire warriors are the same at range, the fire warriors lose all points efficiency in melee while marines do not.
Tyran wrote: Well, that's why you bring a Riptide and wipe out the entire unit
Well then why have troops? This mentality is exactly where the "Troops are a tax" idea comes from. It's a poor design when units wind up being percieved as useless, especially when they're intended to be a common sight within an army.
It's also just not fun. You make this faction, you write cool backstory and punch up certain capabilities to form their identity in the lore. But they're just incapable of action on the tabletop. It's a fail.
There is a fundamental issue that because 40k is all about killing, troops do not do much.
I mean, in real military engagements, troops actually do not do much of killing. What are the real killers are artillery, aircraft, drones, etc. Infantry? its role is taking and holding ground, pin down other infantry and protect tanks.
But 40k? it lacks pinning, and even when it had pinning it was mostly reserved to artillery instead of something infantry was able to inflict. And you cannot really set up your infantry to suppress enemy anti-tank or spotters.
Tyran wrote: Well, that's why you bring a Riptide and wipe out the entire unit
Well then why have troops? This mentality is exactly where the "Troops are a tax" idea comes from. It's a poor design when units wind up being percieved as useless, especially when they're intended to be a common sight within an army.
It's also just not fun. You make this faction, you write cool backstory and punch up certain capabilities to form their identity in the lore. But they're just incapable of action on the tabletop. It's a fail.
There is a fundamental issue that because 40k is all about killing, troops do not do much.
I mean, in real military engagements, troops actually do not do much of killing. What are the real killers are artillery, aircraft, drones, etc. Infantry? its role is taking and holding ground, pin down other infantry and protect tanks.
But 40k? it lacks pinning, and even when it had pinning it was mostly reserved to artillery instead of something infantry was able to inflict. And you cannot really set up your infantry to suppress enemy anti-tank or spotters.
40k is not a particularly realistic modern battle space to begin with, since there aren't off-table elements like artillery that needs spotting for, and a lot of combat is also monsters swinging swords and axes . . . But you still have these elements that are supposed to engage in firefights and cqb with each other and achieve something. Casualty removal and Morale are still intended to represent some kind of effect brought on by engagement. And in the case of Marines now, you have a basic/core army element which has become so inflated that it's eroded away the counter-effectiveness of huge amounts of contending infantry in the same space. It's a problem.
You also have the basic issue that having your models kill opposing models is fun. When only one army shows up with troops that can do that, the game becomes less fun. And we're not even talking skew lists and outlier units, we're talking the basic interactions between core infantry.
Insectum7 wrote: Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about.
My bad, I thought we were talking about the mechanics of a roughly balanced tabletop game and not a novel. You know, if bolters need to be mechanically buffed and not narratively nerfed.
Tyran wrote: But 40k? it lacks pinning, and even when it had pinning it was mostly reserved to artillery instead of something infantry was able to inflict. And you cannot really set up your infantry to suppress enemy anti-tank or spotters.
For what it's worth, Pulse Carbines in 3rd ed had Pinning.
DominayTrix wrote: Also, wasn't one of the main arguments that marines were just as efficient as the shooting specialist troops while staying as point efficient as a melee specialist troop? Even if tacs and fire warriors are the same at range, the fire warriors lose all points efficiency in melee while marines do not.
Just as efficient... on the datasheet, not on the field. As I said, Fire Warriors in practice will likely have an additional 1/3 increase in damage from a Markerlight token, and that increases by another 1/3 if you tack on the equivalent of "Tactical Doctrine", ie Philosophies of War(Kauyon). Which would bring the Fire Warriors from 24.75% to 41.25% efficiency. For the sake of the argument, let's also ignore Mont'ka where the Fire Warriors would likely be able to remain out of Boltgun range completely, because they are likely wanting to do something with objectives.
10-man Tactical Squad with the Sergeant taking a Chainsword over the Pistol (free upgrade) is 180 points. They get 18 S4 AP0 D1 attacks and 4 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks all at 3+ with Shock Assault. Into Fire Warriors that is a 23% efficiency.
10-man Fire Warriors is 80 points. They get 11 S3 AP0 D1 attacks at 5+. Into Tacticals that is 4.6% efficiency.
Terrible, right? Except 25.7% + 23% = 48.7%, and 41.25% + 4.6% = 47.25%. Almost dead even when you take both shooting and melee into account in the field.
Insectum7 wrote: Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about.
My bad, I thought we were talking about the mechanics of a roughly balanced tabletop game and not a novel. You know, if bolters need to be mechanically buffed and not narratively nerfed.
Well I'll just take that as an admission of inability to come up with a cogent counterargument then.
Insectum7 wrote: Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about.
My bad, I thought we were talking about the mechanics of a roughly balanced tabletop game and not a novel. You know, if bolters need to be mechanically buffed and not narratively nerfed.
Well I'll just take that as an admission of inability to come up with a cogent counterargument then.
If you want to claim victory in your argument that Boltguns aren't narratively correct, then you win that one because I agree with you. That wasn't the conversation.
I'll return the favor and take your reliance on "but muh narrative" and "I care little about the points" to mean you have no cogent mechanical argument.
Insectum7 wrote: Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about.
My bad, I thought we were talking about the mechanics of a roughly balanced tabletop game and not a novel. You know, if bolters need to be mechanically buffed and not narratively nerfed.
Well I'll just take that as an admission of inability to come up with a cogent counterargument then.
If you want to claim victory in your argument that Boltguns aren't narratively correct, then you win that one because I agree with you. That wasn't the conversation.
I'll return the favor and take your reliance on "but muh narrative" and "I care little about the points" to mean you have no cogent mechanical argument.
That claim only belies that you still don't understand what's being said. Points don't help the case in either direction, because a whole gamut of different statlines can achieve the same statistical averages. Fire Warriors could be statted like Space Marines, shoot like Space Marines etc, and you could claim "but the ppm averages between the units are equal and rherefore blanced!!". But it gets any claim for or against basically nowhere. In this context, points are basically irrelevant.
So if you want to try this discussion again, be my guest. But it can only be fruitful if you understand the very limited value of ppm.
Insectum7 wrote: That claim only belies that you still don't understand what's being said. Points don't help the case in either direction, because a whole gamut of different statlines can achieve the same statistical averages. Fire Warriors could be statted like Space Marines, shoot like Space Marines etc, and you could claim "but the ppm averages between the units are equal and rherefore blanced!!". But it gets any claim for or against basically nowhere. In this context, points are basically irrelevant.
So if you want to try this discussion again, be my guest. But it can only be fruitful if you understand the very limited value of ppm.
Do you have an alternate metric to ppm to objectively compare the two units with different stats?
Insectum7 wrote: That claim only belies that you still don't understand what's being said. Points don't help the case in either direction, because a whole gamut of different statlines can achieve the same statistical averages. Fire Warriors could be statted like Space Marines, shoot like Space Marines etc, and you could claim "but the ppm averages between the units are equal and rherefore blanced!!". But it gets any claim for or against basically nowhere. In this context, points are basically irrelevant.
So if you want to try this discussion again, be my guest. But it can only be fruitful if you understand the very limited value of ppm.
Do you have an alternate metric to ppm to objectively compare the two units with different stats?
I think it is reasonable to posit that there are limits to the utility of PPM when discussing 'eliteness' even if those limits are subjective. In fact, the 'eliteness' of an army is itself subjective.
For example, making Marines "balanced PPM" but cheaper than Guardsman is probably 'insufficiently elite', while making Marines "balanced PPM" but able to oneshot Imperial Knights is probably 'too elite'
So bounded ppm then? ie, ppm within a certain range, say 15-50 for Marines?
I could dig that, make it a sliding scale depending on how 'narrative' you want your Marines.
Insectum7 wrote: That claim only belies that you still don't understand what's being said. Points don't help the case in either direction, because a whole gamut of different statlines can achieve the same statistical averages. Fire Warriors could be statted like Space Marines, shoot like Space Marines etc, and you could claim "but the ppm averages between the units are equal and rherefore blanced!!". But it gets any claim for or against basically nowhere. In this context, points are basically irrelevant.
So if you want to try this discussion again, be my guest. But it can only be fruitful if you understand the very limited value of ppm.
Do you have an alternate metric to ppm to objectively compare the two units with different stats?
I've already given one. Equal numbers. If a given number of Fire Warriors meet an equal number of Marines, how do we want that to turn out in different scenarios such as ranged combat, CC, whatever. Do we want 10 Fire Warriors to pose a credible threat to Marines if they manage to get themselves in an advantageous position? Do we want a player to feel like a unit from their faction of choice can have a satisfying impact if played well? If 10 of X meet 10 of Y in a dark alley, how do we want that to turn out?
Insectum7 wrote: I've already given one. Equal numbers. If a given number of Fire Warriors meet an equal number of Marines, how do we want that to turn out in different scenarios such as ranged combat, CC, whatever. Do we want 10 Fire Warriors to pose a credible threat to Marines if they manage to get themselves in an advantageous position? Do we want a player to feel like a unit from their faction of choice can have a satisfying impact if played well? If 10 of X meet 10 of Y in a dark alley, how do we want that to turn out?
Sure. But you haven't put the Fire Warriors in an advantageous position yet. And meeting in a dark alley is not advantageous to Fire Warriors unless it is a really long alley. Let's give the Tau an actual ambush. Note, this is more narrative and not what you would see playing an actual game. And I'll note, in your ambush you equated 20 Fire Warriors to ambush 10 marines, so not 10 v 10.
Spoiler:
I'm giving 1 CP to simulate the Ambush and 1 CP for splitting off the pair of Marker Drones to perform the Fire Markerlight action separately.
10 Fire Warriors set up 36" away from the 10 Marines. They shoot, using 1 CP on Relentless Fusillade and doing 4.5W killing 2.25 Marines (7.75 remaining). Marker Drones Fire Markerlight action (88% chance of at least 1 Markerlight token).
Marines Advance taking engagement range to 26.5". Unable to fire back because they are out of range.
Fire Warriors move 6" away bringing engagement range to 32.5" continue shooting. 1.5W to Pulse Rifles, 7 Marines remaining. Marker Drones 88% chance Fire Markerlights and move 6" (does not cause action to fail).
Marines Advance taking engagement range to 22.5". Still unable to fire back because they would be out of range if they didn't advance.
Fire Warriors move another 6" away bringing engagement range to 28.5" and continue shooting. 1.5W to Pulse Rifles, 6.25 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines move and bring engagement range to 22.5", they can finally shoot! Unfortunately, they moved, so a single shot each. 7 Boltguns for 1.5 dead Fire Warriors (8.5 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost a model so 1.33W and 5.58 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but only 6 Boltguns so 1.333 more dead Fire Warriors (7.16 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost another model so 1.2W and 5 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but only 5 Boltguns so 1.1 more dead Fire Warriors (6 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost another 2 models (barely) so 0.88W and 4.56 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but still 5 Boltguns so 1.1 more dead Fire Warriors (4.9 remaining).
6 rounds in, and both squads have finally been reduced to half strength.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Should Space Marines be more elite than Fire Warriors? Should they outshoot them?
Seem like the Fire Warriors out shot the Space Marines until round 6. Space Marines do hit on 3+ default and Fire Warriors don't, so sure, they are both more elite and less elite at the same time. Or just differently elite.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Should Space Marines be more elite than Necron Warriors? Should they be more durable than them?
Well, Necron look to have have exposed wiring and unarmored joints and tubes and things. So it makes sense that Marines in Power Armor with fewer exposed weak points would have a 3+ save compared to 4+. 2W? Well, I suppose Marines have multiple hearts and whatnot and Necrons... don't. Have you ever popped strut on a car? Yeah, 1 weak point and the machine is down for the count.
Sure Living Metal is "incredibly durable, capable of absorbing truly horrendous amounts of fire with hardly a scratch to show for it." But Power Armor is "composed of shaped adamantium and plasteel plates, encased in a ceramite ablative layer." with "Adamantium is a metal that is perhaps the strongest substance known to the Imperium, and is invulnerable to attacks from most known weapons." So who really knows which is stronger? I like to think that Living Metal just has super regenerative qualities and when a Necron Warrior goes down for the count, it's just going to take a day or two to regenerate compared to instantly. Long enough that the Marines have time to vacuum up the liquid and drop it off in the nearest star.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Should Space Marines be more elite than Aspect Warriors? Should they be more numerous than them?
I thought we were talking about basic troops? Aren't all Aspect Warriors elites/fast attack/heavy support? So sure, the Elite Aspect Warriors are by definition more Elite than the Space Marine Troop. And Aspect Warriors are more numerous too, since there are a dozen different types and we're only counting Tactical Marines on the other side.
Insectum7 wrote: Well congrats, you just missed the entire point, which is that Tau Fire Warriors have degraded over time in comparison to Marines, (like many other basic units).
10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.
10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
You're still not factoring points here. Tacticals are 18 points. 180 for 10. 10 firewarriors is 80. You can take 20 firewarriors for 160. Those remaining 20 points could be used to get marker drones.
Points are a balancing mechanism. I don't see what you're not getting.
There is a fundamental issue that because 40k is all about killing, troops do not do much.
Exactly this, and that's something a lot of posters here don't get.
Bolter platforms don't need to be more killy, they need to be more appealing and useful. Just like a plethora of other basic troops that aren't used often. Making everything more killy is a wrong solution, it's actually a problem, not a solution. You can buff bolters, and then something else would look lackluster in comparison and in need of a buff, etc... it'd be and endless escalation.
Make basic dudes useful instead, regardless of the damage they might cause and without forcing players to bring them. My favorite solution is to make them score more/better than specialists, characters, vehicles, monsters.
Insectum7 wrote: I've already given one. Equal numbers. If a given number of Fire Warriors meet an equal number of Marines, how do we want that to turn out in different scenarios such as ranged combat, CC, whatever. Do we want 10 Fire Warriors to pose a credible threat to Marines if they manage to get themselves in an advantageous position? Do we want a player to feel like a unit from their faction of choice can have a satisfying impact if played well? If 10 of X meet 10 of Y in a dark alley, how do we want that to turn out?
Sure. But you haven't put the Fire Warriors in an advantageous position yet. And meeting in a dark alley is not advantageous to Fire Warriors unless it is a really long alley. Let's give the Tau an actual ambush. Note, this is more narrative and not what you would see playing an actual game. And I'll note, in your ambush you equated 20 Fire Warriors to ambush 10 marines, so not 10 v 10.
Spoiler:
I'm giving 1 CP to simulate the Ambush and 1 CP for splitting off the pair of Marker Drones to perform the Fire Markerlight action separately.
10 Fire Warriors set up 36" away from the 10 Marines. They shoot, using 1 CP on Relentless Fusillade and doing 4.5W killing 2.25 Marines (7.75 remaining). Marker Drones Fire Markerlight action (88% chance of at least 1 Markerlight token).
Marines Advance taking engagement range to 26.5". Unable to fire back because they are out of range.
Fire Warriors move 6" away bringing engagement range to 32.5" continue shooting. 1.5W to Pulse Rifles, 7 Marines remaining. Marker Drones 88% chance Fire Markerlights and move 6" (does not cause action to fail).
Marines Advance taking engagement range to 22.5". Still unable to fire back because they would be out of range if they didn't advance.
Fire Warriors move another 6" away bringing engagement range to 28.5" and continue shooting. 1.5W to Pulse Rifles, 6.25 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines move and bring engagement range to 22.5", they can finally shoot! Unfortunately, they moved, so a single shot each. 7 Boltguns for 1.5 dead Fire Warriors (8.5 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost a model so 1.33W and 5.58 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but only 6 Boltguns so 1.333 more dead Fire Warriors (7.16 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost another model so 1.2W and 5 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but only 5 Boltguns so 1.1 more dead Fire Warriors (6 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost another 2 models (barely) so 0.88W and 4.56 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but still 5 Boltguns so 1.1 more dead Fire Warriors (4.9 remaining).
6 rounds in, and both squads have finally been reduced to half strength.
The 20 Fire Warriors vs. 10 Space Marines illustrates the absurd resilience that Space Marines have now, where even outnumbered and out-positioned, they take almost negligible damage. This is not rewarding gameplay from the Tau players perspective. There is no reward for outmaneuvering your opponent, no decisive strike can be made.
Note that, on the Marine side of a 10 v. 10, Marines with the help of positioning can perform a decisive maneuver. Rapid-firing, plus a subsequent charge (.666 x .666 x .5 x 20)+(.666 x .666 x .5 x 21) kills 9 Fire Warriors in a single round, not including the subsequent Morale casualties. There is an organic tactical route to getting those troops a decisive victory. While in your scenario, giving the Fire Warriors their most ideal setup (a clear table with infinite space to back up into) they struggle to achieve their goal using the specialty they're supposed to be good at, shooting.
^The above is why I felt Marines were fine at 1w, back just prior to the Marine book 2.0 in 8th. They had the offensive capability to act decisively, but still could be acted against by other infantry when they were played well.
Insectum7 wrote: Well congrats, you just missed the entire point, which is that Tau Fire Warriors have degraded over time in comparison to Marines, (like many other basic units).
10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.
10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
You're still not factoring points here. Tacticals are 18 points. 180 for 10. 10 firewarriors is 80. You can take 20 firewarriors for 160. Those remaining 20 points could be used to get marker drones.
Points are a balancing mechanism. I don't see what you're not getting.
You've got some reading to catch up on. Your argument only makes sense if you're also fine with armies of 300 T2 Marines at 5ppm.
No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.
If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.
Dudeface wrote: No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.
Except that this isn't the point Insectum is making.
He's not talking about whether these interactions are balanced by the current points but how they feel to play.
I'm sure it feels great for Marines when their elites can tank masses of firepower from the shooty-troops of other armies. What you're ignoring is that it feels far less good for the shooting armies, as they realise it would take an entire Battalion's worth of troops, all in rapid-fire range, to kill a single Marine squad standing in the open.
We've had similar problems with elites (or units that were once elite) having to basically dogpile Marines with sheer numbers in order to accomplish anything. Again, I'm sure it feels great for Marine players but far less so for the players whose elites are barely distinguishable from cannon-fodder. This is something that isn't fixed by balancing point costs because it's not about whether the scenario is theoretically balanced but the fact that it just feels bad when you need ridiculous numbers of supposedly-elite units to accomplish anything against Marine troops.
But this is a problem even with troops. In the scenario above, even if the point costs are theoretically balanced, there's just no reason for players to invest points in troops with such dismal returns. Indeed, as was suggested previously, the Tau player would be far better off taking only the minimum number of troops and putting the saved points into units like Riptides that can actually accomplish something.
I doubt its especially fun for Marine players to face off against a Myriad of walkers and battlesuits with super-weapons and masses of armour-destroying firepower, yet that is precisely what happens when you beg GW to make your units more and more and more elite, to the point where small-arms fire isn't worth bothering with.
Well because w40k is rather one diminesional game, the only other options marine players get to live through, is when marines die from everything other armies have. To a point where it is not worth to have actual marines in a marine army. And having the option to pick from you having fun and some else having fun, not many people are willing to pick others to have fun. Specialy with how much money and time investment the game costs.
Karol wrote: Well because w40k is rather one diminesional game, the only other options marine players get to live through, is when marines die from everything other armies have. To a point where it is not worth to have actual marines in a marine army.
Except that this problem is in no way unique to Marines. Do you think it's any more fun for infantry-Guard players to basically need a dustpan and brush to keep up with the casualties their army suffers each turn?
The game absolutely has problems with escalating lethality but that should be looked at across all faction, not just from the perspective of Marine players.
Otherwise you end up where we are now - with designers' pet factions getting special rules on top of special rules to fix the issues of special rules and then also some special rules to make sure that they're not themselves held back by the special rules designed to fix the problems caused by special rules . . .
Karol wrote: Well because w40k is rather one diminesional game, the only other options marine players get to live through, is when marines die from everything other armies have. To a point where it is not worth to have actual marines in a marine army.
Except that this problem is in no way unique to Marines. Do you think it's any more fun for infantry-Guard players to basically need a dustpan and brush to keep up with the casualties their army suffers each turn?
The game absolutely has problems with escalating lethality but that should be looked at across all faction, not just from the perspective of Marine players.
Otherwise you end up where we are now - with designers' pet factions getting special rules on top of special rules to fix the issues of special rules and then also some special rules to make sure that they're not themselves held back by the special rules designed to fix the problems caused by special rules . . .
I agree with a lot of this, I'd argue the fluff of guard is very much "you guys die in droves" it's sort of what you should expect to happen for them. But you're right, rewind 12 months or however long and I feel the same way you do about marines regards the idea of DG getting increased lethality if they'd kept old DR and people wanted.
That is way too many words and doesn't even make sense as carbines tend not be as accurate as full sized rifles due to the shorter barrel. So really it would just be a bolt carbine that's really accurate compared to other bolt carbines, but not that impressive when compared to bolt rifles.
Dudeface wrote: No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.
If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.
Another post goes into the "missed the point" pile!
Dudeface wrote: No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.
If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.
Another post goes into the "missed the point" pile!
Vipod has essentially responded for me otherwise.
I'd suggest if there's a pile it might be worth reiterating in a manner that isn't comparing battlefield efficiency, I understood Vipod immediately.
* A stalker bolt rifle is more accurate than a bolt rifle, and a marksman bolt carbine is more accurate than a bolt carbine, so…
CthuluIsSpy wrote:That is way too many words and doesn't even make sense as carbines tend not be as accurate as full sized rifles due to the shorter barrel.
So really it would just be a bolt carbine that's really accurate compared to other bolt carbines, but not that impressive when compared to bolt rifles.
I stalker bolt rifle is a bolt rifle with but heavy instead of rapid fire, +6" to range and -1 AP and +1 Damage.
A marksman bolt carbine is a rapid fire 1 range 24" S4 AP 0 D1, autowounding on hit rolls of 6.
So a stalker marksman bolt carbine is likely going to be heavy 1 range 30", S4 AP -1 D2 and autowounding on hit rolls of 6.
Wow bolters really are nonsensical bloat these days.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That is way too many words and doesn't even make sense as carbines tend not be as accurate as full sized rifles due to the shorter barrel.
So really it would just be a bolt carbine that's really accurate compared to other bolt carbines, but not that impressive when compared to bolt rifles.
Yeah...so it's a carbine with a longer barrel? That would be a rifle then. Or it's a carbine firing heavier ammo with a fancy scope? That would be...pointless?
One annoying thing about adding all these weapons so you can make units different is it ignores the obvious possibility of using special rules on the model/unit instead. In 40k Incursors and Infiltrators carry weapons with the same profile as a bolter. If they added the special rule for each weapon to the unit we'd reduce a small amount of the weapon bloat at least.
Dudeface wrote: No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.
If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.
Another post goes into the "missed the point" pile!
Vipod has essentially responded for me otherwise.
I'd suggest if there's a pile it might be worth reiterating in a manner that isn't comparing battlefield efficiency, I understood Vipod immediately.
There's a whole string of posts laying out my arguments here, including multiple posts explaining why your interpretation of my argument was incorrect. Vipod got it. Other opposition posters eventually got it. Now maybe I could have layed it out better, but given all the conversation around it I think you coulda done better.
Karol wrote: Well because w40k is rather one diminesional game, the only other options marine players get to live through, is when marines die from everything other armies have. To a point where it is not worth to have actual marines in a marine army.
Except that this problem is in no way unique to Marines. Do you think it's any more fun for infantry-Guard players to basically need a dustpan and brush to keep up with the casualties their army suffers each turn?
The game absolutely has problems with escalating lethality but that should be looked at across all faction, not just from the perspective of Marine players.
Otherwise you end up where we are now - with designers' pet factions getting special rules on top of special rules to fix the issues of special rules and then also some special rules to make sure that they're not themselves held back by the special rules designed to fix the problems caused by special rules . . .
Well Guard and Ork players were the most vocal on negative hit modifiers, and now we're capped at +/-1. I wanted MORE ways for modifiers to happen, which would've helped with lethality.
Well Guard and Ork players were the most vocal on negative hit modifiers, and now we're capped at +/-1. I wanted MORE ways for modifiers to happen, which would've helped with lethality.
yeah, Autohit on 6's was the correct fix, adding the modifier cap on top of that was stupid.
Dudeface wrote: No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.
If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.
Another post goes into the "missed the point" pile!
Vipod has essentially responded for me otherwise.
I'd suggest if there's a pile it might be worth reiterating in a manner that isn't comparing battlefield efficiency, I understood Vipod immediately.
There's a whole string of posts laying out my arguments here, including multiple posts explaining why your interpretation of my argument was incorrect. Vipod got it. Other opposition posters eventually got it. Now maybe I could have layed it out better, but given all the conversation around it I think you coulda done better.
Meh, chalk it up to crossed wires as in the end, I agree the fluff and the representation needs more thought, likewise after a step back, I agree I've been in the same situation and sadly the last 12 months has normalised the lethality race for me.
Meh, chalk it up to crossed wires as in the end, I agree the fluff and the representation needs more thought, likewise after a step back, I agree I've been in the same situation and sadly the last 12 months has normalised the lethality race for me.
Crossed wires it is then, lord knows I've done it too
The lethality race is a problem. Unfortunately the current tragedy is that the "fix" appears to be a faction-specific AoC, rather than the more global readdressing it really needs to be. And it further puts us here, where formerly dangerous xenos units get trounced upon for the sake of Marines. . . again. It's a sorry state of affairs.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That is way too many words and doesn't even make sense as carbines tend not be as accurate as full sized rifles due to the shorter barrel. So really it would just be a bolt carbine that's really accurate compared to other bolt carbines, but not that impressive when compared to bolt rifles.
Yeah...so it's a carbine with a longer barrel? That would be a rifle then. Or it's a carbine firing heavier ammo with a fancy scope? That would be...pointless?
One annoying thing about adding all these weapons so you can make units different is it ignores the obvious possibility of using special rules on the model/unit instead. In 40k Incursors and Infiltrators carry weapons with the same profile as a bolter. If they added the special rule for each weapon to the unit we'd reduce a small amount of the weapon bloat at least.
I can't wait for the mastercrafted stalker marksmen auto bolt carbine (+1, of smiting).
Yeah, I think it would be simpler if the unit just had a rule or unit upgrade like "Scopes. This unit put optics on their rifles. They get a +6" increase to range when they make a ranged attack with their rifles." GW used to do something like that, before they made 100+ different weapons with slight stat differences and put unit upgrades in stratagems for some silly reason. It's funny, because the weapon bloat used to be an issue in 6th-7th ed and was one of the things that was dropped when they "streamlined" the game during the dawn of 8th ed. So much for that I guess.
I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.
This, GW seems to want a unique profile for each unit, especially for the new ones. And since there are countless different bolter platforms we ended up with countless bolter variants.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.
This, GW seems to want a unique profile for each unit, especially for the new ones. And since there are countless different bolter platforms we ended up with countless bolter variants.
Specifically only with Marines, I think. Possible because they didn't like people swapping in marines as Tacticals, Devastators, whatever?
Insectum7 wrote: I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.
This, GW seems to want a unique profile for each unit, especially for the new ones. And since there are countless different bolter platforms we ended up with countless bolter variants.
Specifically only with Marines, I think. Possible because they didn't like people swapping in marines as Tacticals, Devastators, whatever?
And to be fair, I'm FINE with three profiles (Rapid Fire, Assault, and Heavy), but there's far too much after that. Just make Tacticool Marines and Reivers take the assault variant and call it a day.
It seems like there's a policy of every unit having its own weapon stats so it gives GW another thing you can alter to try and create a niche or balance it against other options.
Whereas if you go "X is a platform for bolters, Y is also a platform for bolters, and who'd have guessed it, Z is also a platform for bolters", people will inevitably go "that platform is best for the points, the end."
Tyel wrote: It seems like there's a policy of every unit having its own weapon stats so it gives GW another thing you can alter to try and create a niche or balance it against other options.
Whereas if you go "X is a platform for bolters, Y is also a platform for bolters, and who'd have guessed it, Z is also a platform for bolters", people will inevitably go "that platform is best for the points, the end."
TBH I think it's much more about discouraging 3rd party bits sources and encouraging the purchase of more kits to get variation.
Tyel wrote: It seems like there's a policy of every unit having its own weapon stats so it gives GW another thing you can alter to try and create a niche or balance it against other options.
I think it's more a misguided attempt to make each unit unique. The problem is the game doesn't allow for the number of niches GW is trying to create. There's a limit to how different you can make a single weapon type before you're just pointlessly shifting numbers around.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.
This, GW seems to want a unique profile for each unit, especially for the new ones. And since there are countless different bolter platforms we ended up with countless bolter variants.
Specifically only with Marines, I think. Possible because they didn't like people swapping in marines as Tacticals, Devastators, whatever?
And to be fair, I'm FINE with three profiles (Rapid Fire, Assault, and Heavy), but there's far too much after that. Just make Tacticool Marines and Reivers take the assault variant and call it a day.
My point was - wasn't it true in the past that players would use bolter-armed marines to fill out the numbers in Devastator and Tactical squads? This prevents that. Now they're bespoke.
Right, it's to prevent an easy "respecializing" of a squad. In a Tac squad you swap a heavy weapon for a different one. The Primaris paradigm requires a swap of every model. Plus many squads of true Space Marines are highly interchangeable. Command, Sternguard, Tactical and Devastator can use all the same models. If you want a different list you can just reorganize the same collection of models.
