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.

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

Guard players = the new Eldar players

Nothing to add to that marm, nothing.

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau can't receive orders

What if we re-evaluated the price on orders? What if we did some sort of analysis of how much an order is worth, and costed commanders appropriately?

What if you made any effort to engage the posts where I've explained this?

 Marmatag wrote:
and don't scale nearly as well as Guardsmen do.

Literally meaningless. There is no number of models on the table where unbuffed Guard infantry start outperforming an equivalent number of Fire Warriors.

 Marmatag wrote:
Stop taking a narrow view on balance.

I'll take 'narrow' over 'entirely informed by being upset about the armies that I play against most'.

I'll take 'narrow' over 'entirely informed by being upset about the armies that I play against most'.

Exalt

It smells burnt.

Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)

With guardsmen not being the major issue but they are easily fixed with a point increase and switching around their organization and troop choices. (moving veterans back to troop choices, storm troopers to elite choices) requiring a regular guardsmen squad be a platoon at most... etc.

Space marines also as I've said previously have terrible rules and a points problem. Combat Squad is useless and will remain useless because no one wants a full space marine squad as it is far too expensive. But this is because of this editions stretch towards forcing players to have more detachments to have more CP generated. Because of that bigger squads are bad because they don't generate as much CP as they should. CP should be tied to points per a detachment or group. HQ, TROOPS, etc. It would punish certain horde armies but reward others. If your running 3 detachments and it only costs in total 690pts then that is an obvious oversight on the designers part.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)

With guardsmen not being the major issue but they are easily fixed with a point increase and switching around their organization and troop choices. (moving veterans back to troop choices, storm troopers to elite choices) requiring a regular guardsmen squad be a platoon at most... etc.

Space marines also as I've said previously have terrible rules and a points problem. Combat Squad is useless and will remain useless because no one wants a full space marine squad as it is far too expensive. But this is because of this editions stretch towards forcing players to have more detachments to have more CP generated. Because of that bigger squads are bad because they don't generate as much CP as they should. CP should be tied to points per a detachment or group. HQ, TROOPS, etc. It would punish certain horde armies but reward others. If your running 3 detachments and it only costs in total 690pts then that is an obvious oversight on the designers part.

Correct, except knights don't abuse the mechanics but rather break the meta via relic, rotate and the cp battery to Fund the shenanigans.
Then there are outliers like the smashcaptain that just ignore whole mechanics via relic. (No overwatch? Why?!?)
Csm just use the x ammount of dp' varations to go around the rule of three.
Any army that can't do atleast something of these is not top bracket.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)

Honestly not seeing that much lately, to be frank.

Top 5 lists from LCO, one of the premiere ITC events in the UK, saw lists either built with barely 8 CP, or revolved entirely around their troop choices being valuable contributors on the table.

If you're taking cheap detachments to spam CP, you're using a crutch to cover your poor play.

catbarf wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
and don't scale nearly as well as Guardsmen do.

Literally meaningless. There is no number of models on the table where unbuffed Guard infantry start outperforming an equivalent number of Fire Warriors.

Their might not be a number of model for model where unbuffed guard beat firewarriors, but their is a points cost which is 4ppm.
Adding officer's just makes it more one sided.

Ice_can wrote:

catbarf wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
and don't scale nearly as well as Guardsmen do.

Literally meaningless. There is no number of models on the table where unbuffed Guard infantry start outperforming an equivalent number of Fire Warriors.

Their might not be a number of model for model where unbuffed guard beat firewarriors, but their is a points cost which is 4ppm.
Adding officer's just makes it more one sided.

I think you missed the fact that this is a response to the first guy saying infantry squads should be costed at 7 points like firewarriors, wich is ridiculous.

 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

Catachans are Troops, more durable, take up more space and get to actually shoot while matching a Blood Angels CC specialist in melee. How is this in your favour again?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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

Catachans are Troops, more durable, take up more space and get to actually shoot while matching a Blood Angels CC specialist in melee. How is this in your favour again?

Since that was never spcified and only the points were to be regarded.

Secondly there were allready other builds that showed clearly that the challange is easy to break, even with troops that recently got nerfed cough cultists cough.

As for durability that is an very debatable statement and depedns wholly on what it is opposing.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)

With guardsmen not being the major issue but they are easily fixed with a point increase and switching around their organization and troop choices. (moving veterans back to troop choices, storm troopers to elite choices) requiring a regular guardsmen squad be a platoon at most... etc.

Space marines also as I've said previously have terrible rules and a points problem. Combat Squad is useless and will remain useless because no one wants a full space marine squad as it is far too expensive. But this is because of this editions stretch towards forcing players to have more detachments to have more CP generated. Because of that bigger squads are bad because they don't generate as much CP as they should. CP should be tied to points per a detachment or group. HQ, TROOPS, etc. It would punish certain horde armies but reward others. If your running 3 detachments and it only costs in total 690pts then that is an obvious oversight on the designers part.

An alternative would be to not have CPs generated from detachments at all.

Maybe each army starts with 3 (maybe losing 1 for each allied detachment), and then gets 2 per turn, +1 if their warlord is alive. Something like that. The idea is that you have a few CPs each turn - not a big pool that further encourages alpha-strikes.

I'd also alter the cost of stratagems so that, insofar as it's possible, they reflect the cost of the unit they're intended to buff. e.g. if a Stratagem that gives +1 to hit to a ~100pt unit costs 1CP, then a Stratagem that gives the same benefit to a ~500pt Knight should cost 5CPs.

This is just a rough outline, but hopefully you get the idea.

Incidentally, I'd also cut down on the number of Stratagems - especially in cases where they're basically substituted for wargear. I'd just have artefacts and similar wargear cost points, rather than CPs.

 vipoid wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Honestly if anything we need to look at the balance of the whole edition it just overall rewards spamming extremely cheap detachments to get more cp generation for certain races, while other races abuse their mechanics to the Nth degree. (knights, ynnari, dark eldar, and orks)

With guardsmen not being the major issue but they are easily fixed with a point increase and switching around their organization and troop choices. (moving veterans back to troop choices, storm troopers to elite choices) requiring a regular guardsmen squad be a platoon at most... etc.

Space marines also as I've said previously have terrible rules and a points problem. Combat Squad is useless and will remain useless because no one wants a full space marine squad as it is far too expensive. But this is because of this editions stretch towards forcing players to have more detachments to have more CP generated. Because of that bigger squads are bad because they don't generate as much CP as they should. CP should be tied to points per a detachment or group. HQ, TROOPS, etc. It would punish certain horde armies but reward others. If your running 3 detachments and it only costs in total 690pts then that is an obvious oversight on the designers part.

An alternative would be to not have CPs generated from detachments at all.

Maybe each army starts with 3 (maybe losing 1 for each allied detachment), and then gets 2 per turn, +1 if their warlord is alive. Something like that. The idea is that you have a few CPs each turn - not a big pool that further encourages alpha-strikes.

I'd also alter the cost of stratagems so that, insofar as it's possible, they reflect the cost of the unit they're intended to buff. e.g. if a Stratagem that gives +1 to hit to a ~100pt unit costs 1CP, then a Stratagem that gives the same benefit to a ~500pt Knight should cost 5CPs.

This is just a rough outline, but hopefully you get the idea.

Incidentally, I'd also cut down on the number of Stratagems - especially in cases where they're basically substituted for wargear. I'd just have artefacts and similar wargear cost points, rather than CPs.

I like the concept of spamming troops in order to get more CPs, I've always hated those lists with no troops at all. I also like the idea of "tax" units to get more CPs. Armies like orks desperately want 6-10 CPs per turn as many of their units are clearly costed with stratagems buffs in mind so I wouldn't even consider just 2 CPs allowed per turn. Some stratagems also cost 3 or even 4 CPs alone...

I'd just go with factions locking for CPs. A detachment generates CPs that can only be invested on units of the same factions. So no loyal 32 to have +5CPs as those CPs would be limited to AM units. I mean no allies just for disposing of more CPs, if you want the loyal 32 it's because the fact they can be a decent screen, not because they're 5 CPs for dirt cheap. To me soups are a plague and I'd ban them completely, but I can settle with faction locked CPs as it would solve some issues at least.

Maybe each army starts with 3 (maybe losing 1 for each allied detachment), and then gets 2 per turn, +1 if their warlord is alive. Something like that. The idea is that you have a few CPs each turn - not a big pool that further encourages alpha-strikes.

I'd also alter the cost of stratagems so that, insofar as it's possible, they reflect the cost of the unit they're intended to buff. e.g. if a Stratagem that gives +1 to hit to a ~100pt unit costs 1CP, then a Stratagem that gives the same benefit to a ~500pt Knight should cost 5CPs.

This is something that could be very intersting but in my opinion alot of stratagems would then need a rework.

Additionally certain stratagems should've never been stratagems in the first place, looking at AAmissiles , Grenadiers upgrade, Ard Boyz, f.e.

These should've been options for Units as seperate upgrade or should've been included in the wepaon itself or buyable.
A missile launcher still is 20 ppm for Marines, there is nothing speaking against the AA missile as a regular ammo type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I like the concept of spamming troops in order to get more CPs, I've always hated those lists with no troops at all. I also like the idea of "tax" units to get more CPs. Armies like orks desperately want 6-10 CPs per turn as many of their units are clearly costed with stratagems buffs in mind so I wouldn't even consider just 2 CPs allowed per turn. Some stratagems also cost 3 or even 4 CPs alone...

I'd just go with factions locking for CPs. A detachment generates CPs that can only be invested on units of the same factions. So no loyal 32 to have +5CPs as those CPs would be limited to AM units. I mean no allies just for disposing of more CPs, if you want the loyal 32 it's because the fact they can be a decent screen, not because they're 5 CPs for dirt cheap. To me soups are a plague and I'd ban them completely, but I can settle with faction locked CPs as it would solve some issues at least.

So long soup is making GW money and gives you a reason to buy that giant knight centerpiece that you can imunise via CP, so long GW will do nothing about CP.
CP locking would in my opinion indeed serve purpose but GW won't do it and dosen't want to do it.

My idea on sharing CP between detachments from different codices, is doubling the CP required to use codex-specific stratagems.
For example, using Rotate Ion Shield in mixed list with IG and IK would cost 6 CP when used by a knight-castellan in the said list.
Universal stratagems such as command re-roll are not affected.

While the penalty is harsh, it does not entirely forbid "borrowing" CP from cheaper Battalion/Brigade in the mixed list.
Hopefully it will make players use the important stratagem in critical moment, instead of spamming it every turn.

But these are just my two cents, so feel free to criticise.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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

Catachans are Troops, more durable, take up more space and get to actually shoot while matching a Blood Angels CC specialist in melee. How is this in your favour again?

Since that was never spcified and only the points were to be regarded.

Secondly there were allready other builds that showed clearly that the challange is easy to break, even with troops that recently got nerfed cough cultists cough.

As for durability that is an very debatable statement and depedns wholly on what it is opposing.

I would have assumed that everyone would realise that looking at just one part of a unit's performance was an exercise in futility. Even accounting for that lack in Marmatag's argument Guardsmen are absurd.

Catachan are still better than the Cultist example because they don't have to give up their shooting. Catachans can come near dedicated melee units like BA double Chainsword Vets and still retain their shooting (not to mention mobility from M^3).

Against what are the Catachan Guardsmen less durable than Veterans for their points?

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
My idea on sharing CP between detachments from different codices, is doubling the CP required to use codex-specific stratagems.
For example, using Rotate Ion Shield in mixed list with IG and IK would cost 6 CP when used by a knight-castellan in the said list.
Universal stratagems such as command re-roll are not affected.

While the penalty is harsh, it does not entirely forbid "borrowing" CP from cheaper Battalion/Brigade in the mixed list.
Hopefully it will make players use the important stratagem in critical moment, instead of spamming it every turn.

But these are just my two cents, so feel free to criticise.

I like it, it also doesn't punish the weird micro factions for the most part, while really giving min-max intra codex an actual cost.

I would probably make gelerpox,starstiders etc exemptions from that as they are more narative focused anyways, so if they get a smallish incidental nerf in matched play rules it's not like they are meta anyway.

I would have assumed that everyone would realise that looking at just one part of a unit's performance was an exercise in futility. Even accounting for that lack in Marmatag's argument Guardsmen are absurd.

Catachan are still better than the Cultist example because they don't have to give up their shooting. Catachans can come near dedicated melee units like BA double Chainsword Vets and still retain their shooting (not to mention mobility from M^3).

Against what are the Catachan Guardsmen less durable than Veterans for their points?

I made a specific melee argument with the cultists, ofcourse i could've also added a VotLW Slaaneshy combo with a Chaos lord behind it.
Infact this case would be even more onesided. Also the sentence went more like

"HURR DURR 3 S4 ATTACKS FOR 200 pts"

Which simply put was shown that the statement is and was wrong. And is easily outdoable.
Infact cultists are also troops so you could go and basically also easily form a Battalion, which you will since CSM sorcerers, DP's and lords are some of the only things left that makes it into competitive.

As for marines, against s3 weaponry.
3 Guardsmen (catachan brand or any non still sitting Cadians)
one of the more common Weapon types.

MOVE^3 also does not allow you to shoot or declare a charge....

Seriously Read the Codex.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
My idea on sharing CP between detachments from different codices, is doubling the CP required to use codex-specific stratagems.
For example, using Rotate Ion Shield in mixed list with IG and IK would cost 6 CP when used by a knight-castellan in the said list.
Universal stratagems such as command re-roll are not affected.

While the penalty is harsh, it does not entirely forbid "borrowing" CP from cheaper Battalion/Brigade in the mixed list.
Hopefully it will make players use the important stratagem in critical moment, instead of spamming it every turn.

But these are just my two cents, so feel free to criticise.

Well it certainly would lead to the preference of Brigades above battalions for CP shenanigans, but that would be more investment. So actually it would limit the CP eaters /heavy lifters.

M^3 still gives you much better mobility than Cultists walking across the board at the speed of foot. Not once did I even imply charging after using it. And yes, you can Warptime Cultists, but it's not automatic, you're not using it on something better, and the price difference between a Company Commander and a Sorcerer almost buys you another Infantry Squad. Further, the fact that you can make Slaanesh Cultists have good shooting output is irrelevant, because the entire point I was making was that the Catachan guardsmen can do both at once. The Slaanesh Cultists are nowhere near the melee output of Catachan Guardsmen, just like World Eater Cultists can't match their shooting.

I'll concede the point on durability. The Guardsmen still suffer a lot less from AP weaponry though, and are still nearly as tough as the Marines against S3 fire (8 hits per 12 points of guardsman as opposed to 9 hits per 13 points of Marine).

I'm entirely in agreement that just looking at the melee attacks is futile (although I'll note that I can't even get that many using Vanguard Veterans), which is why I'm expanding on the flawed argument to point out that even when you take a wider context into account Catachan Guardsmen backed by Straken are ridiculous.

S3 is also one of the most common weapon types because Guardsmen are everywhere. They and Cultists are the two primary sources of S3 attacks in the game.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
M^3 still gives you much better mobility than Cultists walking across the board at the speed of foot. Not once did I even imply charging after using it. And yes, you can Warptime Cultists, but it's not automatic, you're not using it on something better, and the price difference between a Company Commander and a Sorcerer almost buys you another Infantry Squad. Further, the fact that you can make Slaanesh Cultists have good shooting output is irrelevant, because the entire point I was making was that the Catachan guardsmen can do both at once. The Slaanesh Cultists are nowhere near the melee output of Catachan Guardsmen, just like World Eater Cultists can't match their shooting.

I'll concede the point on durability. The Guardsmen still suffer a lot less from AP weaponry though, and are still nearly as tough as the Marines against S3 fire (8 hits per 12 points of guardsman as opposed to 9 hits per 13 points of Marine).

I'm entirely in agreement that just looking at the melee attacks is futile (although I'll note that I can't even get that many using Vanguard Veterans), which is why I'm expanding on the flawed argument to point out that even when you take a wider context into account Catachan Guardsmen backed by Straken are ridiculous.

S3 is also one of the most common weapon types because Guardsmen are everywhere. They and Cultists are the two primary sources of S3 attacks in the game.

I allready answered the Chare range mobility problem, READ, TIDE OF TRAITORS EXISTS.--> and in any match you will since it gives you a point advantage, a mobility advantage and puts you into range for either Charging or shooting something to gak.

Secondly: Nobody on here is saying Straken especially isn't underpriced, because he is atleast worth 100 pts. Not 75, but that is not the issue, the issue is the insistence that is completely moronical that M^3 also does allow shooting, which it dosen't, because this makes the IG squads severly lacking in flexibility, yes you double your movement of 6" to 12 " plus a d6 but that's it, that squad ain't doing anything anymore. Tide of traitors on the otherhand, recycles and teleports.

S3 is indeed everywhere because CSM soup aswell as Imperial Soup require CP to function. The cheapest possible way to do so is to add in the respective battalion, in case of Chaos you can even use the good charachters you wanted to field anyways.
And belive me i am also fully in there to say that Guardsmen again should be 5 ppm, mainly because it makes zero sense in the scale that they are 4 whilest the objectively worse unit thanks to the SV is 5.

Edit: this is also the reason because i think a 3ppm pricedrop on any oldmarine model would be helpfull.
For chaos now you would have a serious choice: 10 HP and the capability to throw a blob, or 5 HP but better overall durability.--> both choices would equally well fill Detachments and now we are capable of actually considering base marines.
Secondly it would also be inline with the lowering of all the guardsmen, Cabalites and Firewarriors, which each dropped by 25%.

The real kicker is that CP still would be generated by these and are still generated by these options and they won't go away so long Knights /CSM / BA get their insane stratagem and free of debuff CP batteries.


Issues like Gulliman and Abbadon forcing the price up on any special weapon are in the face of these just drops on hot stones.

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

uhhh....it is a fact that ork boys are backbone in ork lists if you are talking about competitive orks. It's kind of like saying that the Castellan is the backbone of an imperial soup list. Because it is.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

uhhh....it is a fact that ork boys are backbone in ork lists if you are talking about competitive orks. It's kind of like saying that the Castellan is the backbone of an imperial soup list. Because it is.

Not entirely true. Competitive orks lists have 1-3 mobs of boyz tipycally and countless gretchins. That's 210-650ish points of boyz. Many lists only have a single blob of 30 since boyz are excellent as a distraction to throw in the opponent's face by deep strike, as they are 31W divided into 30 bodies that cost 210-223 points, otherwise they're not worthy in a top tier list. Truth is gretchins do absolutely nothing in terms of damage and ork players don't have many options, so boyz are taken even if they're not that great. It's also a fact that not everyone owns 100+ gretchins.

Usually there are more units of gretchins on the table than boyz ones, tipycally at least 2x the units of boyz, probably even more. 6x10 gretchins is the minimum required to play a green tide.

 Blackie wrote:


Not entirely true. Competitive orks lists have 1-3 mobs of boyz tipycally and countless gretchins. That's 210-650ish points of boyz. Many lists only have a single blob of 30 since boyz are excellent as a distraction to throw in the opponent's face by deep strike, as they are 31W divided into 30 bodies that cost 210-223 points, otherwise they're not worthy in a top tier list. Truth is gretchins do absolutely nothing in terms of damage and ork players don't have many options, so boyz are taken even if they're not that great. It's also a fact that not everyone owns 100+ gretchins.

Usually there are more units of gretchins on the table than boyz ones, tipycally at least 2x the units of boyz, probably even more. 6x10 gretchins is the minimum required to play a green tide.

Thank you.

Tide of Traitors is once per game and much less flexible than M^3. Further, the assumption that you're always going to use it is flawed; there are instances when more Cultists would achieve nothing (or at least not be worth the 2 CP). More points is not worth it if the opportunity cost of using the Stratagem is too high.

Back on topic somewhat, let all Marines with Chainswords or equivalent weapons (Reivers etc) fight twice (not stacking, so no double Chainswords for 3 fights per phase) and add one base A to non-Scout models. Fixes the anemic melee output without making people gnash and wail about Ironclad Dreadnoughts or Hammernators being playable. Would still require a rebalancing of Chapter Tactics and wouldn't fix shooting, but would somewhat compensate for the loss of Sweeping Advance and the loss of a bunch of attacks on non-Chainsword models.

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

uhhh....it is a fact that ork boys are backbone in ork lists if you are talking about competitive orks. It's kind of like saying that the Castellan is the backbone of an imperial soup list. Because it is.

Not entirely true. Competitive orks lists have 1-3 mobs of boyz tipycally and countless gretchins. That's 210-650ish points of boyz. Many lists only have a single blob of 30 since boyz are excellent as a distraction to throw in the opponent's face by deep strike, as they are 31W divided into 30 bodies that cost 210-223 points, otherwise they're not worthy in a top tier list. Truth is gretchins do absolutely nothing in terms of damage and ork players don't have many options, so boyz are taken even if they're not that great. It's also a fact that not everyone owns 100+ gretchins.

Usually there are more units of gretchins on the table than boyz ones, tipycally at least 2x the units of boyz, probably even more. 6x10 gretchins is the minimum required to play a green tide.

If you aren't taking 90 boys you seriously aren't trying to win. 1 ork boy unit is fething useless.

 Xenomancers wrote:

If you aren't taking 90 boys you seriously aren't trying to win. 1 ork boy unit is fething useless.

Mind that boyz are mostly there only to soak firepower as they aren't that killy. Still a purely melee unit that requires deep strike to actually kill something and can be easly countered by scouts equivalents and screeners. If you really want to win just bring 18 Smasha gunz, 25 lootas and 180 gretchins. You'd still have hundreds of points to complete the list spamming weirdboyz and other HQs.

They aren;t that killing compering to the best killer units in the game. And even that is because catachans buffed up are kind of a crazy. To marines for the points they cost, and the units marine players do run. The prospect of 90+ boys, and 2-3 units of lootaz, and other stuff is downright scary. For elite melee armies they are death incarante. they can shot better then your, they can score better then your, they can out melee you if they want or they can tar pit you. Sure they maybe won't melee an army of DE or eldar, becaus half their stuff flies sometimes. But the foot print of an orc army alone is huge. Plus outside of casual games they can play the clock.

Ork boyz are very killy no matter what unit you're comparing them to....Ork players are funny.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Guardsmen still suffer a lot less from AP weaponry though, and are still nearly as tough as the Marines against S3 fire (8 hits per 12 points of guardsman as opposed to 9 hits per 13 points of Marine).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
which is why I'm expanding on the flawed argument to point out that even when you take a wider context into account Catachan Guardsmen backed by Straken are ridiculous.

9 hits per 12 points of Guardsman, actually. But the thing is, as soon as we're throwing characters like Straken into the equation, it's no longer 9 hits per 12 points of Guardsmen. You can have Guardsmen who are point-for-point more powerful and more durable than their peers, or you can have Guardsmen who are super-powered melee monsters, but you can't have both.

In the example for Marmatag (CC, Straken, Priest, 3 squads), there's a 140pt 'tail' to that 120pts of roided-up supermen. For that 260pt sum, you can get 20 Tactical Marines. Compared to 30 Guardsmen, 20 Marines are twice as hard to kill with S3 fire in the open, and three times harder to kill in cover, while having three-quarters the anti-Marine firepower and two-thirds the anti-Guard firepower compared to FRFSRF. In a shootout, the Marines will win even with nobody in cover and the Guardsmen FRFSRFing and Straken overcharging his plasma pistol to help. And these are Tactical Marines with bolters we're talking about, the basic infantry that are recognized as being underpowered for their points, and the primary subject of the thread.

The price of dumping a bunch of points into characters to supercharge T3/5+ flashlight-armed units is that they're still T3/5+ flashlight-armed units, and now you have half as many of them. This is what I think is unfair about many of the comparisons in this thread and others- 'naked Guardsmen with no support' and 'Guardsmen with more than their points in support characters' might as well be two different units, and you can't fairly assess the abilities of the latter according to the cost of the former (eg Marmatag's hysterical '6 S4 attacks for 4ppm!!!'). Since it keeps getting ignored, I'll stress again that I still think Guardsmen should be 5ppm and Straken should be 100pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for Marines, others made a good case for the fundamental problem with power armor being the preponderance of units that make the difference between power armor and t-shirts irrelevant. But I don't think it's just the prevalence of high-S, high-AP attacks from titanic units. Artillery, tank guns, flamers, and titanic army-killers all should be better at killing densely-packed hordes than small units of specialists, but the loss of a blast mechanic has killed that ability. As well, the fact that the new AP system means you actually get to use a 5+ or 6+ save makes those units tougher than they used to be. It's just not Marines that have lost out, but elite infantry in general.

I think a small cost drop to Marines (12pts) combined with an implementation of some sort of change to blast weapons would go a long ways towards making Marines, and elite infantry in general, more useful. As for changing blast weapons, I can see it going one of two ways, or both:
-Making horde infantry more vulnerable, and/or
-Making elite infantry less vulnerable

Given that hordes are a little too effective, and elites a little too ineffective, I'd think both would be the best approach. Something like giving blast weapons bonus hits depending upon the size of the target unit, but limiting the number of hits based on the number of models, might do it.

The problem there is that Marines are supposed to operate in 10-man squads, the same as Guard, they just have a lot fewer of them. I don't like templates as a mechanic, but as far as gameplay effects they did a good job of making board density more important than unit size. I don't have a good resolution for that.

The Marines have to pay for HQs as well though. I'd certainly love the ability to take Helbrecht and have him turn everything into Khorne Berzerkers, but I can't. You're taking HQs regardless because you have to; is Straken's extra cost over a Commander not worth it?

Will elaborate more later, getting off my train now so can't post for a bit.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're taking HQs regardless because you have to; is Straken's extra cost over a Commander not worth it?

Straken is more expensive than a CC by more than the cost of a squad. You sacrifice a squad for the sake of his melee buff, with a corresponding reduction in both firepower and durability.

A Priest isn't an HQ. It's an Elite. It costs almost as much as a squad. Taking Straken and a Priest over just a CC is sacrificing exactly two squads. In the example of the Straken battalion- Straken, CC, Priest, three squads- you can replace Straken and the Priest with another CC and then afford another two squads. That's a 60% increase in durability, and a 50% increase in firepower (not quite enough orders for all of them), at the cost of having 63% the melee ability. There's a trade-off.

In any case: HQs aren't free, even if they're mandatory. You still have to pay points for them, and everything is supposed to pull its weight for the points. If Marine HQs are a straight tax, then that's something that needs to be addressed as well.