Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Marmatag wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.

Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.

There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.

Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.

Agreed dude.

In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.

Yep. The price of having a single wound needs to be evaluated.

Just like the price of super heavies should be evaluated.

I find it hilarious that guard players think everything would be fair if the loyal32 would just cost 210 points instead of 180. Sorry, that isn't changing anything. I guess the goal is to remain the best faction in the game by a country mile, rather than achieve true & fair balance.

Again a generalization after you were showen that even a by you dictated challenge got out done.
Just stop it allready.

It didn't get out done, people haven't come up with a fair cost.

90 attacks at strength 4 should cost more than roughly 220 points. You flipped your lid when i said "roughly 220" and it came out to be like 225. Hint, that's roughly 220. Approximate costs are fine when something is so absurdly undercosted.

A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right? except it isn't, because guard melee is broken. Guard shooting is an entirely different thing, which we haven't even really touched on yet. (Hi, commander russ, artillery, etc).

Oh no, we have to add a company commander in the mix. WHERE WILL WE GET THE 30 POINTS TO MAKE A BATTALION? This conversation is clownish. Guard players = the new Eldar players.

Not Online!!! wrote:


You realise you could just, let's say double all the point costs and then beginn the finetuning.
That would yield better results.
I will however accept you removal idea especially in the case of primaris marines.

That would be sophism in rules writing form. If you doble the point costs the differences stay the same And now instead of saying that IG units cost 3,4,5 ,6 pts everyone would be going about how they csot 6,8,10 and 12 pts. There is no mechanical ground for units which should have little difference in rules between them. Want cheap "conscripts" buy 20-40 guardsman withtout weapons. Want vets buy all the hvy weapons, and plasma and upgrades a IG squad can take. Want "normal" IG take 10 with a mortar. And if you want really super elite IG, then here are scions. If someone wants play with actual veteran IG rules they can A house rule it or B play the version of the unit given for open or narrative play.

Karol wrote:
Couldn''t GW just remove some units from the normal game. In gaming terms a veteran IG and a noob IG shouldn't matter much, but the options could still exist for narrative games. GW could even give them power levels for those people that want to use them.

Then matched play designers wouldn't have to worry if a IG vet should cost 6.5 or 6,75pts.

We shouldn't have multiple Marine dexes - but we do.

Instead of deleting other armies units Merge the massive unwiedly blob of so so mnay ever so slightly different marine units, just keep actual unique units not the mass of fake ones and balance the remaining units.

 Marmatag wrote:
It didn't get out done, people haven't come up with a fair cost.

90 attacks at strength 4 should cost more than roughly 220 points. You flipped your lid when i said "roughly 220" and it came out to be like 225. Hint, that's roughly 220. Approximate costs are fine when something is so absurdly undercosted.

A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right? except it isn't, because guard melee is broken. Guard shooting is an entirely different thing, which we haven't even really touched on yet. (Hi, commander russ, artillery, etc).

You did and now you move the goalposts again.
Just to repeat myself since you are also selectivly blind it seems:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

I'll put my challenge back out there:

What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.

Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).

Challange accepted:

First: Colonel straken is 75 pts. Ministorum priests are 35 pts.
SUMMA SUMARUM 110 PTS.

Secondly it is a HQ and a elite.
So once again i caught you either lying or you are just ignorant again.

3 squads of IG = 120 pts.

So we are looking for a combination that costs 230 pts.

Chaos can have a full reroll dude for 70 pts.
leaves us with 140 pts.
which are 28 cultists atm.
Give them world eaters, that means they double their Attack value. Give them pistols and brutal assult weapons, they are now at three attacks.
use the double fighting stratagem.
They are now at six attacks.
28 x6 full rerolls. that would be a measly 168 attacks with rerolls.
Equal points.

Recyclable and have basically outflank.


Edit: if charged, you could still employ 28x4 attacks, which would be 112 attacks.
Not to mention that the exalted champion technically can mark an enemy Charachter for death.

Just for you to contemplate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


You realise you could just, let's say double all the point costs and then beginn the finetuning.
That would yield better results.
I will however accept you removal idea especially in the case of primaris marines.

That would be sophism in rules writing form. If you doble the point costs the differences stay the same And now instead of saying that IG units cost 3,4,5 ,6 pts everyone would be going about how they csot 6,8,10 and 12 pts. There is no mechanical ground for units which should have little difference in rules between them. Want cheap "conscripts" buy 20-40 guardsman withtout weapons. Want vets buy all the hvy weapons, and plasma and upgrades a IG squad can take. Want "normal" IG take 10 with a mortar. And if you want really super elite IG, then here are scions. If someone wants play with actual veteran IG rules they can A house rule it or B play the version of the unit given for open or narrative play.

Except If you actually read the full Text you would realise that i said after the doubling begin the finetuning which would have more effect because the points would be decompresed so you would see potentially a 9 pts guardsmen and a 18pts bog Standard marine in a new 4000pts match wich would replace the 2000 pts Standard.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Challange accepted:

First: Colonel straken is 75 pts. Ministorum priests are 35 pts.
SUMMA SUMARUM 110 PTS.

Yep, that's roughly 100 points. Which is what i said.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Secondly it is a HQ and a elite.
So once again i caught you either lying or you are just ignorant again.

Yep. Toss in a 30 point company commander with Kurov's. It's 30 points. 30 fething points. Which you'd be spending anyway. So up it by 30. Who cares? The result remains the same. Go ahead and give chaos 30 more points.

Not Online!!! wrote:

3 squads of IG = 120 pts.

So we are looking for a combination that costs 230 pts.

Throw in the company commander. It should be 260. That way you also need to produce 5 CP.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Chaos can have a full reroll dude for 70 pts.
leaves us with 140 pts.
which are 28 cultists atm.
Give them world eaters, that means they double their Attack value. Give them pistols and brutal assult weapons, they are now at three attacks.
use the double fighting stratagem.
They are now at six attacks.
28 x6 full rerolls. that would be a measly 168 attacks with rerolls.
Equal points.

#1. This requires you make a charge. This is not equal.

#2. I assume you're referring to the exalted champion. You can reroll failed wound rolls for units within 6". Only the champion himself can reroll hits.

#3. That leaves them at 2 attacks base, because they've got chainswords.

#4. You're counting pistols as attacks. LOL

#5. Since you're counting pistols let's count FRFSRF in the 260 points of guard. That's a fun 7 attacks per guardsmen.

So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).

 Marmatag wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Challange accepted:

First: Colonel straken is 75 pts. Ministorum priests are 35 pts.
SUMMA SUMARUM 110 PTS.

Yep, that's roughly 100 points. Which is what i said.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Secondly it is a HQ and a elite.
So once again i caught you either lying or you are just ignorant again.

Yep. Toss in a 30 point company commander with Kurov's. It's 30 points. 30 fething points. Which you'd be spending anyway. So up it by 30. Who cares? The result remains the same. Go ahead and give chaos 30 more points.

Not Online!!! wrote:

3 squads of IG = 120 pts.

So we are looking for a combination that costs 230 pts.

Throw in the company commander. It should be 260. That way you also need to produce 5 CP.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Chaos can have a full reroll dude for 70 pts.
leaves us with 140 pts.
which are 28 cultists atm.
Give them world eaters, that means they double their Attack value. Give them pistols and brutal assult weapons, they are now at three attacks.
use the double fighting stratagem.
They are now at six attacks.
28 x6 full rerolls. that would be a measly 168 attacks with rerolls.
Equal points.

#1. This requires you make a charge. This is not equal.

#2. I assume you're referring to the exalted champion. You can reroll failed wound rolls for units within 6". Only the champion himself can reroll hits.

#3. That leaves them at 2 attacks base, because they've got chainswords.

#4. You're counting pistols as attacks. LOL

#5. Since you're counting pistols let's count FRFSRF in the 260 points of guard. That's a fun 7 attacks per guardsmen.

So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).

100 = 110 pts now? Ok

Charge requirement easily met via tide of traitors.

I don't count pistol shots,
1 base 1 for brutal assult weapon 1 for WE charge = 3,
Fight again stratagem 3x2 = 6 PURE MELEE ATTACKS.

Soooooo again nonsense statement by you.

Edit if you throw in a company commander i can technically pick additional 6 cultists that would then lead to 34 cultists.
That would add another 36 attacks on a successful charge.

Hint brutal assult weapon is like a chainsword.

Not to mention that you also need a succsessfull charge for your comparison catachan wreking Ball.

 Marmatag wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.

Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.

There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.

Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.

Agreed dude.

In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.

Yep. The price of having a single wound needs to be evaluated.

Just like the price of super heavies should be evaluated.

I find it hilarious that guard players think everything would be fair if the loyal32 would just cost 210 points instead of 180. Sorry, that isn't changing anything. I guess the goal is to remain the best faction in the game by a country mile, rather than achieve true & fair balance.

I mean, maybe when you can remember what the actual costs and functionality of units in the Guard codex are, the discussion will move better.

You have a remarkable penchant for misrepresenting IG units, from doubling Russ plasma cannon sponson shots, orders functionality, making Battalion comparisons without actually filling the detachment, ignoring support unit costs, presenting cherry picked specialized builds as being universally representative, etc.

People are totally willing to talk about issues with the IG codex, just not when presented with the above scenarios.

Especially when you go around saying Guardsmen should be 7ppm and that IG characters should be tripled in cost.

It didn't get out done, people haven't come up with a fair cost.

90 attacks at strength 4 should cost more than roughly 220 points.

I pointed out the a single mob of Ork Boyz can put out a whole lot more CC hurt for the same price.

You flipped your lid when i said "roughly 220" and it came out to be like 225. Hint, that's roughly 220. Approximate costs are fine when something is so absurdly undercosted.

It's 230, 260 with the required additional Company Commander you forgot.

A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee.

I don't recall seeing a tremendous amount of opposition to improving Space Marine melee...

That sounds fair right? except it isn't, because guard melee is broken.

Oh no, we have to add a company commander in the mix. WHERE WILL WE GET THE 30 POINTS TO MAKE A BATTALION? This conversation is clownish. Guard players = the new Eldar players.

If you're making a comparison and you're points are off by 20% because you can't remember the costs, detachment requirements, and orders coverage you don't get to be mad at other people when they call you out on it.

You have a bad, and consistent, habit of "forgetting" stuff when talking about IG units.

260 vs 220 is a big difference, particularly if we're looking at direct comparisons.

If and IG brigade went up 60 points. It really doesn't change much. Not with the Castellan still being 600ish. It should be between 700 and 800 points. Plus the relics and WL traits ALSO need adjustment.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If and IG brigade went up 60 points. It really doesn't change much. Not with the Castellan still being 600ish. It should be between 700 and 800 points. Plus the relics and WL traits ALSO need adjustment.

This here would be a solution because it would force the lists to actually either get the bread or the chocolate.
Subsequently also lowering the ammount of AT required and therefore lowering the ammount of ap.

 Marmatag wrote:
A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right?

What I'm reading is that if your generalist basic infantry, with no other buffs, can't compete in melee on a point-for-point basis against a force using a specific character, named character, doctrine, and formation all explicitly geared towards melee- despite the fact that your basic, unbuffed infantry are better at shooting and more resilient than them even under current points costs- then you feel it's unfair.

You can feel free to address my post on the previous page anytime.

 Marmatag wrote:
So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).

Meanwhile you base your conclusions on bad data (you don't know where a Priest is on the FOC), unfair assumptions (all these infantry and characters will make it into melee without getting shot!) and flat out lulz (Fix Bayonets = fight twice!).

You ever wonder why even the people who agree that Guard are undercosted aren't clamoring for 7ppm Guardsmen? Especially people that are more familiar with the army than you? And don't constantly complain that their specific army is terrible and the specific one they face most is broken?

catbarf wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right?

What I'm reading is that if your generalist basic infantry, with no other buffs, can't compete in melee on a point-for-point basis against a force using a specific character, named character, doctrine, and stratagem all explicitly geared towards melee- despite the fact that you're better at shooting and more resilient than them even under current points costs- then you feel it's unfair.

You can feel free to address my post on the previous page anytime.

 Marmatag wrote:
So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).

Meanwhile you base your conclusions on bad data (you don't know where a Priest is on the FOC), unfair assumptions (all these infantry and characters will make it into melee without getting shot!) and flat out lulz (Fix Bayonets = fight twice!).

You ever wonder why even the people who agree that Guard are undercosted aren't clamoring for 7ppm Guardsmen? Especially people that are more familiar with the army than you? And don't constantly complain that their specific army is terrible and the specific one they face most is broken?

Nonononononon, catachan surely affects lasguns and makes them shoot harder and stronger, ain't that right Marmatag? /SARCASM

And additionally it is very much more likely that i get into melee with cultists thanks to tide of traitors, then catachan units will in the same way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guard players = the new Eldar players.

totally missed this pearl

I understand that it's the nature of conversations to flow and branch off, but I don't understand why we're having this conversation on IG when the topic is how to make Marines better. Yeah, IG is a stronger army then SM armies and yes Guard infantry is too efficient, but that's 1 piece of the puzzle for MEQs problems. Before IG was making MEQ obsolete it was Eldar, before them it was Tau (circa 6th), etc. For as long as I've been playing 40K (~5th edition) Marines have been by and large underwhelming with a few brief flashes of relevancy in the meta. There isn't just one faction or group of units that's responsible for making them look bad.

Actually i just realised that i completly fudged my math, i would've had 160pts for cultists that would've been 32 cultists in the 230 pts challenge.

That would've been 96 attacks without even the doubling stratagem, with it it would've been 192 attacks for 230 pts.

__________________________________________________________

No the real main issue is knights which dictate the heavy favoritism torwards AT weaponry in conjunction with the fact that the main counter for knights is a (preferably msu) horde to win via objectives.

Knights feth marines with their weaponry, hordes feth marines with their numbers.

Eldar soulbourst you out.

Conclusion the meta forces elite armies like marines out.

Additionally 7th to 8th edition changed various troop costs (guardsmen, kabalites and firewariors) went down whilest regular space marines stuck at 13ppm.

Bolters lost in essence 1 ap that would also be helpfull.

Space Marines and csm chapter /legion traits don't apply to vehicles.

Psy, especially sm is not really great.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I understand that it's the nature of conversations to flow and branch off, but I don't understand why we're having this conversation on IG when the topic is how to make Marines better. Yeah, IG is a stronger army then SM armies and yes Guard infantry is too efficient, but that's 1 piece of the puzzle for MEQs problems. Before IG was making MEQ obsolete it was Eldar, before them it was Tau (circa 6th), etc. For as long as I've been playing 40K (~5th edition) Marines have been by and large underwhelming with a few brief flashes of relevancy in the meta. There isn't just one faction or group of units that's responsible for making them look bad.

Aye, you could remove IG from the game and Marines would still have the problems they have now, not much would change. Issues of scale, weapons availability, the kinds of units GW is now introducing, etc have all really compressed the value of generalist eliteish single wound infantry.

Thus far, the easy solutions seem to be W2 A2 or cutting costs by 15-25% so that a Tac is 10/11pts. I'm ok with either.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually i just realised that i completly fudged my math, i would've had 160pts for cultists that would've been 32 cultists in the 230 pts challenge.

That would've been 96 attacks without even the doubling stratagem, with it it would've been 192 attacks for 230 pts.

__________________________________________________________

No the real main issue is knights which dictate the heavy favoritism torwards AT weaponry in conjunction with the fact that the main counter for knights is a (preferably msu) horde to win via objectives.

Knights feth marines with their weaponry, hordes feth marines with their numbers.

Eldar soulbourst you out.

Conclusion the meta forces elite armies like marines out.

Additionally 7th to 8th edition changed various troop costs (guardsmen, kabalites and firewariors) went down whilest regular space marines stuck at 13ppm.

Bolters lost in essence 1 ap that would also be helpfull.

Space Marines and csm chapter /legion traits don't apply to vehicles.

Psy, especially sm is not really great.

Basically this.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
If and IG brigade went up 60 points. It really doesn't change much. Not with the Castellan still being 600ish. It should be between 700 and 800 points. Plus the relics and WL traits ALSO need adjustment.

This here would be a solution because it would force the lists to actually either get the bread or the chocolate.
Subsequently also lowering the ammount of AT required and therefore lowering the ammount of ap.

Well 60 points isn't much for an IG brigade. IMO CC should be at least 45 and gaurdsmen should be 5 points with 6 point vets. Plus a lot of other infantry going down in price...like gardians/tactical marines/ direavengers/ termigants/ sorry for the have nots that I am not mentioning. Army traits need to be redesigned. They are quite simply way to powerful.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'll put my challenge back out there:

What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.

Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results.

Let me bite. Vanguard Veteran costs 14 points. Since we cherrypick everything toward melee, let's make them Blood Angels with chainswords. For 260 points, the real cost of IG above, you can field 19 of them, 3 units with 3 sarges. Together, they output, oh, only 79 attacks, with +1 to wound pretty much negating the difference, on faster and more durable unit. And they don't even need to be BA, unlike IG that can do it only with Catachans, SW, DW, or even several other chapters with similar bonuses work just as well.

So, yeah, SM have no way of matching dreaded Catachan boogeyman for the same points, none at all

catbarf wrote:
I mostly object to S4 on the grounds that it's odd from a design perspective. Catachans shouldn't rival Marines in strength, or be able to peel open tanks. And there are lots of humans in the game who are supposed to be big, buff dudes, but are S3.

WS3+ says 'I'm still a human, but I'm good at fighting' to me.

You guys realize S4 is lesser bonus than WS3+ and that change would make them better at attacking tanks, not worse?

Why so many people here just rely on gut feelings and don't bother to look at the math for even a second...?

The issue isn't even that unique, other "durability elite" armies face the same issues. Necrons f.e.

The scale escalation and the further compression has done nothing for marines.

It also does not help that gullliman or abbadon exist since they singlehandedly dictate the price for special and heavy weapons in the army.

Csm still stands better overall thanks to cultists but if we are really honest about CSM lists they mostly base themselves on daemon princes Ahirman or whoever atm is the top Psyker and spam smite. The one or the other bloodletter bomb and that's it.
AL legion got nerfed into the ground consequently taking the berzerker build with it.

As for the legions /chapters the internal balance is so over the place that it is nearly funny again. Compare that with many other dexes, there isn't nearly as much discrepancy between subfaction traits.

catbarf wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
A good solution is then to give marines the same level of offensive efficiency as imperial guard in melee. That sounds fair right?

What I'm reading is that if your generalist basic infantry, with no other buffs, can't compete in melee on a point-for-point basis against a force using a specific character, named character, doctrine, and formation all explicitly geared towards melee- despite the fact that your basic, unbuffed infantry are better at shooting and more resilient than them even under current points costs- then you feel it's unfair.

You can feel free to address my post on the previous page anytime.

 Marmatag wrote:
So your example fails and is wholly refuted. it was based on bad data (full hit rerolls when they don't have it) and unfair assumptions (guaranteed charge) and flat out lulz (pistols = attacks!).

Meanwhile you base your conclusions on bad data (you don't know where a Priest is on the FOC), unfair assumptions (all these infantry and characters will make it into melee without getting shot!) and flat out lulz (Fix Bayonets = fight twice!).

You ever wonder why even the people who agree that Guard are undercosted aren't clamoring for 7ppm Guardsmen? Especially people that are more familiar with the army than you? And don't constantly complain that their specific army is terrible and the specific one they face most is broken?

Just going to point out that IG infantry are so obviously undercosted that to argue against it - it basically makes you a troll.

Yeah I ran some numbers, and ten tactical marines at 13pts each can slightly outperform 20 guardsmen FRFSRFing (120pts of IG) if they have:

2 wounds each
Rapid Fire 2, Rend -1 boltguns
2 attacks apiece

However, this doesn’t take into account faction abilities, stratagems etc. They do complicate things.

EDIT: gak, I forgot IG are 4pts each these days.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
If and IG brigade went up 60 points. It really doesn't change much. Not with the Castellan still being 600ish. It should be between 700 and 800 points. Plus the relics and WL traits ALSO need adjustment.

This here would be a solution because it would force the lists to actually either get the bread or the chocolate.
Subsequently also lowering the ammount of AT required and therefore lowering the ammount of ap.

Well 60 points isn't much for an IG brigade. IMO CC should be at least 45 and gaurdsmen should be 5 points with 6 point vets. Plus a lot of other infantry going down in price...like gardians/tactical marines/ direavengers/ termigants/ sorry for the have nots that I am not mentioning. Army traits need to be redesigned. They are quite simply way to powerful.

Honestly 40pts is fine for a cc.
Maybee we would also see psykers again picked then but anyways that is hairsplitting.
Conscripts could also go back to 3 ppm in this scenario.
I am not sure about the gants though because of how synapses work.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yeah I ran some numbers, and ten tactical marines at 13pts each can slightly outperform 20 guardsmen FRFSRFing (120pts of IG) if they have:

2 wounds each
Rapid Fire 2, Rend -1 boltguns
2 attacks apiece

However, this doesn’t take into account faction abilities, stratagems etc. They do complicate things.

Honestly traits are just everywhere and mostly make or break a codex.
Ravenguard and AL got nerfed. IG just has solid traits.
Sm and csm traits don't affect half the codex and are in cases of word Bearers f.e. Useless as feth.

7 point infantry squads makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness of small arms fire versus Guardsmen compared to other factions.

I have said in the past that 7ppm assumes everything else stays fixed. You could easily drop marines points and have guardsmen only see a small increase, and achieve the same effect.

And, to repeat: all infantry should be reviewed. It's not healthy for the game to see it - in general - so cheap. Guardsmen are just the most glaring example, but you have other factions that are too cheap for what they are, as well. Such as Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, etc. It isn't just guard, but guard are the biggest offender.

Relative scale is a big reason why marines are bad.

I'm also on board with a fixed CP reward with penalties that Xenomancers created, or a system where CP are rewarded based on points spent in a detachment, up to a point. So it doesn't hurt marines that they spend 500 points to create a basic battalion, whereas guard can get it done for 180. You could still have the cheap guard battalion, but you'd get less CP than someone who spends 500 points filling out his battalion. It also damages "mono" armies less (although, such things do not exist in 8th).

 Irbis wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'll put my challenge back out there:

What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.

Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results.

Let me bite. Vanguard Veteran costs 14 points. Since we cherrypick everything toward melee, let's make them Blood Angels with chainswords. For 260 points, the real cost of IG above, you can field 19 of them, 3 units with 3 sarges. Together, they output, oh, only 79 attacks, with +1 to wound pretty much negating the difference, on faster and more durable unit. And they don't even need to be BA, unlike IG that can do it only with Catachans, SW, DW, or even several other chapters with similar bonuses work just as well.

So, yeah, SM have no way of matching dreaded Catachan boogeyman for the same points, none at all

catbarf wrote:
I mostly object to S4 on the grounds that it's odd from a design perspective. Catachans shouldn't rival Marines in strength, or be able to peel open tanks. And there are lots of humans in the game who are supposed to be big, buff dudes, but are S3.

WS3+ says 'I'm still a human, but I'm good at fighting' to me.

You guys realize S4 is lesser bonus than WS3+ and that change would make them better at attacking tanks, not worse?

Why so many people here just rely on gut feelings and don't bother to look at the math for even a second...?

LOL okay - try it sometime. Try to win games with BA VV with chainswords. Keep in mind - you have practically no shooting. Lets also keep in mind that - those aren't troops - you aren't getting CP for it. Plus you can't possibly get a brigade out of that army in a reasonable fashion ether. Guardsmen are a complete package. Range Damage/CC damage/CP/Durability + mobility. Just stop arguing about it. It is indisputable. What is your motivation here?

Just going to point out that IG infantry are so obviously undercosted that to argue against it - it basically makes you a troll.

Such generalization will not help.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
7 point infantry squads makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness of small arms fire versus Guardsmen compared to other factions.

I have said in the past that 7ppm assumes everything else stays fixed. You could easily drop marines points and have guardsmen only see a small increase, and achieve the same effect.

And, to repeat: all infantry should be reviewed. It's not healthy for the game to see it - in general - so cheap. Guardsmen are just the most glaring example, but you have other factions that are too cheap for what they are, as well. Such as Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, etc. It isn't just guard, but guard are the biggest offender.

Relative scale is a big reason why marines are bad.

I'm also on board with a fixed CP reward with penalties that Xenomancers created, or a system where CP are rewarded based on points spent in a detachment, up to a point. So it doesn't hurt marines that they spend 500 points to create a basic battalion, whereas guard can get it done for 180. You could still have the cheap guard battalion, but you'd get less CP than someone who spends 500 points filling out his battalion. It also damages "mono" armies less (although, such things do not exist in 8th).

Orks are offenders now? 7ppm boyz that got preemptivly pricehiked because of "da jump" which made the whole codex a one trick Pony?
Nuts.

Edit: the cp changes would however be good but then a lot, and I mean A LOT, of stratagems would need to be looked at.

 Irbis wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

catbarf wrote:
I mostly object to S4 on the grounds that it's odd from a design perspective. Catachans shouldn't rival Marines in strength, or be able to peel open tanks. And there are lots of humans in the game who are supposed to be big, buff dudes, but are S3.

WS3+ says 'I'm still a human, but I'm good at fighting' to me.

You guys realize S4 is lesser bonus than WS3+ and that change would make them better at attacking tanks, not worse?

Why so many people here just rely on gut feelings and don't bother to look at the math for even a second...?

You mind explaining that one?

WS4+ S4 vs T7/T8 is 4+ hit, 5+ wound = 0.166 ave wounds.

WS3+ S3 vs T7/T8 is 3+ hit, 6+ wound = 0.11 ave wounds.

It's 2/3 as effective as having S4.

Furthermore, while WS3+ versus WS4+ is a consistent 33% increase in hits, the difference between S3 and S4 against T4 is a 50% increase in wounds. WS3+ S3 is less effective against T4 than WS4+ S4.

I really don't know what you're talking about.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Just going to point out that IG infantry are so obviously undercosted that to argue against it - it basically makes you a troll.

Such generalization will not help.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
7 point infantry squads makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness of small arms fire versus Guardsmen compared to other factions.

I have said in the past that 7ppm assumes everything else stays fixed. You could easily drop marines points and have guardsmen only see a small increase, and achieve the same effect.

And, to repeat: all infantry should be reviewed. It's not healthy for the game to see it - in general - so cheap. Guardsmen are just the most glaring example, but you have other factions that are too cheap for what they are, as well. Such as Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, etc. It isn't just guard, but guard are the biggest offender.

Relative scale is a big reason why marines are bad.

I'm also on board with a fixed CP reward with penalties that Xenomancers created, or a system where CP are rewarded based on points spent in a detachment, up to a point. So it doesn't hurt marines that they spend 500 points to create a basic battalion, whereas guard can get it done for 180. You could still have the cheap guard battalion, but you'd get less CP than someone who spends 500 points filling out his battalion. It also damages "mono" armies less (although, such things do not exist in 8th).

Orks are offenders now? 7ppm boyz that got preemptivly pricehiked because of "da jump" which made the whole codex a one trick Pony?
Nuts.

Edit: the cp changes would however be good but then a lot, and I mean A LOT, of stratagems would need to be looked at.

Stop looking for a fight. Orks are one of the top factions in the game right now, and Boyz are the backbone of any Ork list.

And maybe Orks don't need to change. Again, all cheap infantry needs to be looked at.

And you should consider taking some time off of the forums. My goodness.

Xenomancers wrote:Just going to point out that IG infantry are so obviously undercosted that to argue against it - it basically makes you a troll.

In nearly every post I've made discussing Guard balance, I've said IG infantry are undercosted. I've also said Straken is undercosted, FRFSRF and MMM are too powerful, and the Catachan trait is too good. I suggested fixes in a couple of posts on the last page. They're right there.

And you're calling me a troll. Read the thread or get out.

Marmatag wrote:7 point infantry squads makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness of small arms fire versus Guardsmen compared to other factions.

Same price as Fire Warriors, worse gun, worse save, no advantages. Sure. Relative effectiveness.

Maybe when a Tau player shows up in your meta we'll start hearing about how Fire Warriors need to be 13pts because 'it makes sense if you consider the relative effectiveness'.

Stop looking for a fight. Orks are one of the top factions in the game right now, and Boyz are the backbone of any Ork list.

Nope, cp is the backbone of Orks thanks to "da jump".
Cp is generated by gretchin atm.
Ork boyz are merely one of the better targets to throw in your opponents face.

Also stating facts or calling you out for incorrect /non -factual
Statements is not lying.

Actually i've played with some top tier Tau players.

Tau can't receive orders and don't scale nearly as well as Guardsmen do.

Stop taking a narrow view on balance.