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.

Everything is a Marine killer, but not everything is a MEQ killer. Or people wouldn't complain so much about Spectres, Reapers, and then Spears.

Explain?

I complain about those units because they have crazy rules for their cost.

Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.

Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?

For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots

Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.

Because you need to multiply damage by cost to get points removed. Marines bleed points even to ap 0.

 0XFallen wrote:
Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.

Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?

For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots

Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.

AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.

An Infantry Squad with a Plasma Gun and Heavy Bolter is 10 points cheaper than a naked Tactical Squad. The Marines will do 1.5 wounds to the Guardsmen, who can do 1.1 wounds to them. Each Guardsman lost reduces your killing power by 0.05 wounds, since you can remove lasguns first. Every Marine lost reduces your killing power by 0.3 wounds, since you don't have a buffer. So even if the Marines get the first turn, they'll wipe first in a straightforward competition. In practice, the Guardsmen are more durable, more flexible, and more dangerous point-for-point than the Marines; a disparity which only gets worse as you build a whole army, and those 10 points start adding up. In a 500 point army, that's two extra squads.

Similarly, Ork Boyz are half the cost and more than twice as good in melee (which is where you want them). Sure, they don't have a 3+ save, but that just means AP is wasted on them; and besides, that 3+ save lets Space Marines soak up 66% extra wounds before AP... but being half the cost lets Ork Boyz soak up 100% extra wounds regardless of AP, D, or whatever else. Hell, you wanna know something horrifying? Give them shootas, and the Orks will win a pure shootout, too. The only hope Space Marines have is moving into 12" for Rapid Fire, at which point the Orks gleefully charge and win.

Now, yes, Space Marines are better than Guard at close combat and broadly better than Orks at range... but you can't do both at once, and they're not so much better that it's worth being twice the points. Specialists are more valuable than generalists in this game. Flexibility of build is better than flexibility of action.

 0XFallen wrote:
Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.

Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?

For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots

Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.

Space Marines are fairly costed when compared to most other infantry in an infantry v. infantry vacuum. The advantages of being a Space Marine rather than a cheaper infantryman are rendered pretty much moot by even low-grade heavy weapons fire, at which point the advantages of cheaper bodies (lower tax per upgrade gun, more targets on the table, more command points, better deep-strike screening...) start to come into play.

RevlidRas wrote:

 0XFallen wrote:
Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.

Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?

For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots

Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.

AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.

This is the dumbest argument.

Ive seen it before.

Lets explain. A hormagaunt takes 16% more damage from AP1. However they also take 100% of all damage from AP1 because they don't get a save.

Spacemarines might take more damage then they would otherwise (like everyone). And the amount of damage increase they take is the same as everyones. 1 Sv value less than what they would get otherwise. BUT they still soak 50% of all damage coming at them.

Your "Marines take 50% more damage" argument is both incredibly misleading and meaningless. You choose only the numbers to support your piss pour argument while ignoring all the context that would give it any kind of value.

 Lance845 wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:

 0XFallen wrote:
Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.

Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?

For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots

Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.

AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.

This is the dumbest argument.

Ive seen it before.

Lets explain. A hormagaunt takes 16% more damage from AP1. However they also take 100% of all damage from AP1 because they don't get a save.

Spacemarines might take more damage then they would otherwise (like everyone). And the amount of damage increase they take is the same as everyones. 1 Sv value less than what they would get otherwise. BUT they still soak 50% of all damage coming at them.

Your "Marines take 50% more damage" argument is both incredibly misleading and meaningless. You choose only the numbers to support your piss pour argument while ignoring all the context that would give it any kind of value.

...excuse you? Maybe step away from the keyboard and cool down a touch.

The statement made was "I don't think AP takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competitively almost always have good invuln".

My rebuttal made it clear that, in fact, AP-1 did have a big role against Marines. Bigger than it does against a more lightly armoured enemy. What are you disputing?

Also, hey, here's a thought experiment. You have one unit armed with AP-0 weapons and one unit armed with (otherwise identical) AP-1 weapons. Which do you use to shoot at the oncoming Cultists, and which do you use to shoot at the nearby Chaos Space Marines? By your logic, they should be interchangeable, right?

RevlidRas wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:

 0XFallen wrote:
Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.

Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?

For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots

Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.

AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.

This is the dumbest argument.

Ive seen it before.

Lets explain. A hormagaunt takes 16% more damage from AP1. However they also take 100% of all damage from AP1 because they don't get a save.

Spacemarines might take more damage then they would otherwise (like everyone). And the amount of damage increase they take is the same as everyones. 1 Sv value less than what they would get otherwise. BUT they still soak 50% of all damage coming at them.

Your "Marines take 50% more damage" argument is both incredibly misleading and meaningless. You choose only the numbers to support your piss pour argument while ignoring all the context that would give it any kind of value.

...excuse you? Maybe step away from the keyboard and cool down a touch.

Just because I explained in incredibly blunt terms how crap your statement was doesn't mean I was in any way not calm.

The statement made was "I don't think AP takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competitively almost always have good invuln".

My rebuttal made it clear that, in fact, AP-1 did have a big role against Marines. Bigger than it does against a more lightly armoured enemy. What are you disputing?

That whole statement. You're wrong. Again, termagants. No saves. Guards, a 6+. Marines, a 4+. The degree of impact on everyone is exactly equal. The end result of the over all effect puts marines at the tippy top best case scenario of facing AP-1.

Also, hey, here's a thought experiment. You have one unit armed with AP-0 weapons and one unit armed with (otherwise identical) AP-1 weapons. Which do you use to shoot at the oncoming Cultists, and which do you use to shoot at the nearby Chaos Space Marines? By your logic, they should be interchangeable, right?

I didn't say they were interchangeable. I said SM don't take 50% more damage and that SM did not end up getting it worse than anyone else. You have to ignore more than half the math to come to that conclusion.

 Lance845 wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:

 0XFallen wrote:
Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.

Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?

For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots

Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.

AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.

This is the dumbest argument.

Ive seen it before.

Lets explain. A hormagaunt takes 16% more damage from AP1. However they also take 100% of all damage from AP1 because they don't get a save.

Spacemarines might take more damage then they would otherwise (like everyone). And the amount of damage increase they take is the same as everyones. 1 Sv value less than what they would get otherwise. BUT they still soak 50% of all damage coming at them.

Your "Marines take 50% more damage" argument is both incredibly misleading and meaningless. You choose only the numbers to support your piss pour argument while ignoring all the context that would give it any kind of value.

It's a mathematically sound argument. Wounds that clear is the important number, not wounds soaked. -1 AP doubles the number of dead 2+ models, for example. It doesn't matter how many pass.

Amount of failed saves vs. AP0 by a Marine: 33.333...%. Amount of failed saves vs. AP-1 by a Marine: 50%. 50%-33.333...% is 16.666...%, which is 50% of 33.333...%. An AP-1 weapon thus increases the amount of dead marines by 50% compared to an AP0 weapon.

Amount of failed saves vs. AP0 by a Hormagaunt: 83.333...%. Amount of failed saves vs. AP-1 by a Hormagaunt: 100%. 100%-83.333...% is 16.666...%, which is only 20% of 83.333...%, thus increasing the amount of dead Hormagaunts by 20% compared to an AP0 weapon.

The fact that the percentage in absolute terms is the same does not mean that the relative impact on the Marine is lessened in any way. You may want to have a bit more of a clue about what you are talking about before you go full snark on everyone. A Marine is actually affected 250% (!!) more by moving from AP0 to AP-1 (50% is 250% of 20%).

It's easier to demonstrate with 2+ armor, but the above analysis is correct

technically there is a dropoff point. a model with a 5+ SV behaves the same way to a ap-2 or aany higher AP value if no cover springs to mind.

However you generally don't fire AP-3 guns at run of the mill infantry, especially now with splitfire for free.

Depends on how the Drukhari feel that particular day. So many -3 shots.

I said it misrepresents the situation and is a bs argument. 50% more SM dead could be 2 models instead of 1.

16% more hormagaunts could be 10 instead of 8.

10 wounds lost. 2 wounds lost. A 50% chance to save is still a pretty damn good chance. A 0% chance to save is a garanteed dead model for every wound. Again, SM have the VERY BEST that could be asked for against ap-1. The 50% increase isnt a good metric to be measuring. Especially if you are not stacking up the end effect against the rest of the spectrum.

AP-1 should increase the casualty rate of 3+ Sv models more than 5+ Sv models. That's the point of AP.

AP0 weapons should be better at removing 5+ Sv models than 3+ Sv models - and is.

AP-X weapons should see a higher increase in the rate it kills 3+ Sv models than 5+ Sv; because it's designed to cut through armor saves.

As X goes up, the kill rate vs 3+ models gets closer and closer to 5+ models, but never *exceeds* it. In other words, AP-X is never more deadly for MEQ than GEQ. But the higher the X, the less benefit MEQ have over GEQ (and, at AP-4 or better, there is no benefit).

With Armor Save Modfiers, an AP-1/-2 weapon is very much more anti-MEQ than anti-GEQ.

So the math works the way it should. The problem is execution.

Why the hell are Heavy Bolters and other anti-GEQ weaponry AP-1? Too many weapons are intended as anti-GEQ but statted to be anti-MEQ. These need to be AP0.

Now, Marines (and Termies) have other problems, too. But the problem with ASMs is that they handed out AP-1/-2 like candy, not because it just doesn't work for MEQs.

50% is not good when you are paying what they pay to exist. It gets much worse when you give them any kind of equipment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
AP-1 should increase the casualty rate of 3+ Sv models more than 5+ Sv models. That's the point of AP.

AP0 weapons should be better at removing 5+ Sv models than 3+ Sv models - and is.

AP-X weapons should see a higher increase in the rate it kills 3+ Sv models than 5+ Sv; because it's designed to cut through armor saves.

As X goes up, the kill rate vs 3+ models gets closer and closer to 5+ models, but never *exceeds* it. In other words, AP-X is never more deadly for MEQ than GEQ. But the higher the X, the less benefit MEQ have over GEQ (and, at AP-4 or better, there is no benefit).

With Armor Save Modfiers, an AP-1/-2 weapon is very much more anti-MEQ than anti-GEQ.

So the math works the way it should. The problem is execution.

Why the hell are Heavy Bolters and other anti-GEQ weaponry AP-1? Too many weapons are intended as anti-GEQ but statted to be anti-MEQ. These need to be AP0.

Now, Marines (and Termies) have other problems, too. But the problem with ASMs is that they handed out AP-1/-2 like candy, not because it just doesn't work for MEQs.

Marines also suffer from lack of table presence and lack of throw weight. On top of this, they have to stay clustered up for auras making their table coverage even WORSE.

Which is why there should be many, smaller changes to fix Marines - not just one big change in one place.

I don't think any of that is coming. GW has had many chances. It's 2nd ed redux. I think primaris is the best we can expect. Which is pretty sad, actually.

 Lance845 wrote:
Just because I explained in incredibly blunt terms how crap your statement was doesn't mean I was in any way not calm.

Oh, so you're not angry, you're just rude. Good to know.

Incidentally, while being rude is bad form to begin with, being rude and wrong is even worse.

 Lance845 wrote:
That whole statement. You're wrong. Again, termagants. No saves. Guards, a 6+. Marines, a 4+. The degree of impact on everyone is exactly equal. The end result of the over all effect puts marines at the tippy top best case scenario of facing AP-1.

I didn't say they were interchangeable. I said SM don't take 50% more damage and that SM did not end up getting it worse than anyone else. You have to ignore more than half the math to come to that conclusion.

If I fire 120 bolt pistol shots at a Terminator Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~7 unsaved wounds.
If I fire 120 heavy bolt pistol shots at a Terminator Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~13 unsaved wounds.

AP-1 got me ~7 extra wounds. ~7 is 100% of ~7. Therefore, AP-1 got me 100% extra wounds against a 2+ save.

If I fire 120 bolt pistol shots at a Tactical Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~13 unsaved wounds.
If I fire 120 heavy bolt pistol shots at a Tactical Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~20 unsaved wounds.

AP-1 got me ~7 extra wounds. ~7 is 50% of ~13. Therefore, AP-1 got me 50% extra wounds against a 3+ save.

If I fire 120 bolt pistol shots at a Scout Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~20 unsaved wounds.
If I fire 120 heavy bolt pistol shots at a Scout Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~27 unsaved wounds.

AP-1 got me ~7 extra wounds. ~7 is 33% of ~13. Therefore, AP-1 got me 33% extra wounds against a 4+ save.

In all three scenarios, AP-1 got me ~7 extra wounds. Even setting aside the cost of a Scout vs the cost of a Tactical Marine vs the cost of a Terminator, this was a more significant increase against the unit with the higher save.

What part of this do you not understand?

Honestly, I'm one of those people who never saw the problem with the old AP system. If you fire a pebble from a slingshot and a 20mm autocannon round at the main armour belt of a battleship, they are going to achieve exactly the same end result despite the autocannon round being orders of magnitude more powerful. People complained that it was strange that AP4 weapons didn't penetrate Power Armour better than AP- weapons, but that's the entire point of armour in the first place.

We should've had a bunch of weapons that are AP0 but with a special rule like "Ignores saves of 5+ or worse" (flamers come to mind); instead we got a bunch of weapons that relatively speaking are better against Marines than their intended targets, while dropping the offensive output of Marines at the same time.

Both systems have problems. But both systems break down when units are miscosted. Looking at you scatterbike from 7th and guardsmen from 8th.

That's not inherent in the systems though, that's more a problem with using points as a balancing factor. The old AP system at least had the advantage that it always had the same impact, so you could price it correctly more easily. AP5 in the old system either increased casualties by 50% or by 0%. Similarly, AP3 was always either 200% or 0%. How do you price a weapon that is sometimes a 100% increase, sometimes a 50% increase, and sometimes a 20% increase correctly?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's not inherent in the systems though, that's more a problem with using points as a balancing factor. The old AP system at least had the advantage that it always had the same impact, so you could price it correctly more easily. AP5 in the old system either increased casualties by 50% or by 0%. Similarly, AP3 was always either 200% or 0%. How do you price a weapon that is sometimes a 100% increase, sometimes a 50% increase, and sometimes a 20% increase correctly?

Lots of playtesting. You don't have to get any unit perfect. Just somewhere between autopass and autotake is good enough. GW can't even do that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, I'm one of those people who never saw the problem with the old AP system. If you fire a pebble from a slingshot and a 20mm autocannon round at the main armour belt of a battleship, they are going to achieve exactly the same end result despite the autocannon round being orders of magnitude more powerful. People complained that it was strange that AP4 weapons didn't penetrate Power Armour better than AP- weapons, but that's the entire point of armour in the first place.

We should've had a bunch of weapons that are AP0 but with a special rule like "Ignores saves of 5+ or worse" (flamers come to mind); instead we got a bunch of weapons that relatively speaking are better against Marines than their intended targets, while dropping the offensive output of Marines at the same time.

I would go so far as to argue that AP-1 should never be an option available one a basic gun for a basic troop. Bolters could compensate by being DMG 2 perhaps.
I would also say that AP-4 shouldn't exist except for in rare cases, weapons on tanks, or a single weapon available to a character or walker type.
There needs to be an equipment list for all armies. The ability to purchase things like a 5++ or a 6+++ for a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's not inherent in the systems though, that's more a problem with using points as a balancing factor. The old AP system at least had the advantage that it always had the same impact, so you could price it correctly more easily. AP5 in the old system either increased casualties by 50% or by 0%. Similarly, AP3 was always either 200% or 0%. How do you price a weapon that is sometimes a 100% increase, sometimes a 50% increase, and sometimes a 20% increase correctly?

Lots of playtesting. You don't have to get any unit perfect. Just somewhere between autopass and autotake is good enough. GW can't even do that.

Isn't Frontline doing the majority of the play-testing for GW? Shouldn't they share as much of the blame?

Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.

Martel732 wrote:
Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.

you realise that pointswise Guardsmen can't win against Marines right? Especially at 24"-12" range.

And yet, they constantly do in practice. Fine, insert aggressors instead. Happy? AP 0 works against power armor fine.

Martel732 wrote:
And yet, they constantly do in practice. Fine, insert aggressors instead. Happy? AP 0 works against power armor fine.

So what, it is a matter of fact that primaris were a bad idea and shrunk the design space for marines even more then necessary.
Only main issue is that CSM which are more restricted troop wise get to suffer from it indirectly due to their linkage with tacticals.

Primaris were kind of a good idea, and then they made the dissy cannon. And ton of other cheap, 2 damage sources.