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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
"an elite army one where your cheapest troop option is 10+ points."

So Space Marines are Elite (11 point Scouts) but Chaos Space Marines are not (4 Point Cultist)?

So loyalist marines get two wounds and csm stay at one? Am I reading that right?

I'm pretty sure this was already gone over.
Stating that what ever you do to a loyalist marine you do for chaos.
They are two aide of the same coin after all

And now Necron Warriors are even more garbage, as Silver Tide is done better by a wide margin by playing Loyalist Marines.

Dire Avengers go from half the durability to a quarter the durability of a Marine, for 1ppm less.

Fire Warriors fighting as line troops, with their superior guns, lose firefights with Marines even while getting the alpha. By a wide margin.

Marines play like IG. But better. Who cares if they have 30 Infatry. Those 10 Marines just stand there and return fire. Because they're Guardsmen++ instead of Marines. They could advance then charge to kill them faster, but why bother?

My Imperial Guard list has 3 IG models at ~1850.

Are IG an elite army?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My Imperial Guard list has 3 IG models at ~1850.

Are IG an elite army?

Admittedly, +1 Wound to a Baneblade isn't much.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My Imperial Guard list has 3 IG models at ~1850.

Are IG an elite army?

Admittedly, +1 Wound to a Baneblade isn't much.

True.

 alextroy wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

They don't?

A single Marine-fired Bolter shot has a nearly 30% chance of killing a Guardsman (2/3 Hit * 2/3 Damage * 2/3 bypass Armor).

A single Guardsman-fired Lasgun shot has a ~6% chance of killing a Space Marine (1/2 Hit * 1/3 Damage * 1/3 bypass Armor).

The kill chances in Close Combat are exactly the same for a Marine with no Close Combat Weapon versus a Guardsman with no Close Combat Weapon. It takes nearly 6 Guardman to be as destructive as a single Space Marine. They do have the advantage of having 6 wounds to 1, but maybe that is why a Space Marine is only 3 times as expensive as the Guardsman.

It's not a true apples-to-apple comparison when comparing them on model by model basis. A better depiction of comparison shows as such:

1x marine @ 13 ppm = 13 pts | 3.25x guardsmen @ 4 ppm = 13 pts

1x Marine's bolter on guardsmen: 67% to hit, 67% to wound, 67% wound not saved = 0.30 damage inflicted
3.25x Guardman's lasgun on marine: 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% wound not saved = 0.18 damage inflicted

Another comparison at 52pts as you can't have a 1/4 of a guardsmen:

4 marine @ 13 ppm = 52 pts | 13 guardsmen @ 4 ppm = 52 pts

4x Marine's bolter on guardsmen: 67% to hit, 67% to wound, 67% wound not saved = 1.19 damage inflicted
13x Guardman's lasgun on marine: 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% wound not saved = 0.72 damage inflicted

In sum, marines damage output performs about 1.64 times better than guardsmen point for point, but a single marines would need 11 turns to successfully shoot & destroy a group of 3.25 guardsmen, while it would take 6 turns for 3.25 guardsmen to kill 1 marine. (theoretically)

.50*.33*.33 is about .05, not .18.

0.05 * 3.25 ~= 0.18.

While this thread wasn't started to compare guardsmen and marines like many of the posts.

But if I were to take this particular case and applied the "give +1 W to 'Elite" units" idea, a single marine with 2W will require 11.08 turns from 3.25 guardsmen, while it takes 10.97 turns for a marine to kill the 3.25 guardsmen.

Would Primaris Marines go up to 3W?

And would people consider increasing the weapon damage for heavy weapons (e.g. Autocannons) that already do multiple damage?

So in essence, you'd have most weapons stay the same (1 damage small arms), but certain weapons could go up to 2 (Heavy Bolters) and still further weapons could go up by 1 as well (Autocannons to 3, Baneblade cannons to 4) and then you could change the 1d6 damage weapons to 2d3, essentially giving them a +1 as well (e.g. a Lascannon goes up to 2d3, so it is guaranteed to kill a Space Marine, instead of doing 1 damage).

The below list is the initial list for the proposed +1W upgrades:

Space Marines (less characters w/ +4W)
-Power armor
-Terminator armor & variants (including Custodes, GK)
-Primaris armor (Mark X, was it?)
-Gravis armor & variants
-Centurion armor

CSM (less characters w/ +4W)
-Power armor
-Terminator armor
-Oblits/mutilators

AdMech – not very experienced with this army/playstyle so this is just a rough proposal
-Battle servitors
-Electro-priests

Ork
-All non-‘boy’ orks (lootas/burnas/bustas/gitz/commandos/nobs)
-Killa kans

Necron - this one is opening a huge can of worms but here it goes
-Lychguard/praetorians
-Immortals/death marks
-Warriors

Tau
-Crisis
-Broadside
-Stealth

CWE
-Aspects (avengers/banshees/scorpions/spiders/dragons/reapers/hawks)

DE
-Incubi
-Wrack
-Scourge
-Mandrake

Tyranid
-Warriors/shrikes
-Hive/tyrant guard
-Bio/Pyrovores

The idea of those Aspect Warriors going up 1W/model just feels wrong.

Yeah crisis suits have 3 wounds I don't know about them getting a 4th.
But I suppose that if marines get an extra wound for pretty much everything I guess it's a fair trade off.
Bolters should have ap -1.
It wouldn't be broken or anything. For the most part it just counteracts cover, and then if they have stuff out of cover they pay for it.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Yeah crisis suits have 3 wounds I don't know about them getting a 4th.

Astra Militarum commanders have 3 wounds :p

M.

The general rationale behind the proposed list is to identify & characterize primary types of infantry/non-vehicle units in the game - namely:
-light infantry (1W)
-'medium' infantry (2W)
-heavy infantry (3W)
-super heavy infantry (4W)

Then for characters:
-non-HQ characters (5W)
-HQ characters (6W)

Obviously for armies that have a lot of minor 'characters' are adjusted (or not adjusted) accordingly (i.e. commisars)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Would Primaris Marines go up to 3W?

And would people consider increasing the weapon damage for heavy weapons (e.g. Autocannons) that already do multiple damage?

So in essence, you'd have most weapons stay the same (1 damage small arms), but certain weapons could go up to 2 (Heavy Bolters) and still further weapons could go up by 1 as well (Autocannons to 3, Baneblade cannons to 4) and then you could change the 1d6 damage weapons to 2d3, essentially giving them a +1 as well (e.g. a Lascannon goes up to 2d3, so it is guaranteed to kill a Space Marine, instead of doing 1 damage).

I am on the boat for increasing all 1d6 weapons to 2d3.

What about Scions? They certainly feel elite and more in the medium class of infantry, rather than just light

 skchsan wrote:

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

You are taking two individual models out of the greater context of their factions. What does "3 times better" mean anyway? 18"inch movement? 3 wounds? It doesn't make sense to compare indiviual models in that way.

 Bobthehero wrote:
What about Scions? They certainly feel elite and more in the medium class of infantry, rather than just light

Scions are only elite in comparison to the chaff that makes up the rest of their army's infantry. They'd be chaff units in any of the elite armies (SM, Necrons, etc).

I am pretty sure they're better than Ork boys with different weapons, yet they all get an extra wound for reasons.

 Hollow wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

You are taking two individual models out of the greater context of their factions. What does "3 times better" mean anyway? 18"inch movement? 3 wounds? It doesn't make sense to compare indiviual models in that way.

It was more or less a figure of speech using vague examples. It wasnt supposed to be math verified, factual statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
I am pretty sure they're better than Ork boys with different weapons, yet they all get an extra wound for reasons.

Ork proposals were roughly based on their models and comparative sizes - those 'non-boys' models looked bigger much in line with nob models. It is directed at nob sized models only.

Adepta Sororitas?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Adepta Sororitas?

I think for their pt value, they're good where they are. Repentia squad may benefit from +1W for their melee only battle role.

Wait, so the ultra-light Swooping hawk gets 2w, but you're leaving Sisters at 1w?

Its not so much elite armies (why are Orks in this? But Sisters and Scions aren't?) as much as armies that could use a boost, I guess.

 skchsan wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Do you really expect people to track remainders for each squad in said armies?

M.

Well most of the competitive choices in elite armies already have 2W's anyways. I dont think it'll overly raise the book keeping.

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

Because they are 2x as durable are better in CC and have better weapon options.

.3267 wounds per turn for 3 guardsman 2 attacks each vs MEQ

.5749 wounds per turn for 1 SM with w attacks vs GEQ

This doesn't seem like much, but If the SM gets off the charge he will likely kill all 3 guradsman if he gets a kill the first turn.

Same goes for shooting. The numbers are literally exactly the same while within rapid fire range. .3267 and .5749. Again it all comes down to who goes first.

A superior commander that positions his troops so they can get the first shot off and then charge will win every single game no matter what.

Its part of the reason why some people think mobility is the most important stat in the game right now, which I happen to agree with.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

They don't?

A single Marine-fired Bolter shot has a nearly 30% chance of killing a Guardsman (2/3 Hit * 2/3 Damage * 2/3 bypass Armor).

A single Guardsman-fired Lasgun shot has a ~6% chance of killing a Space Marine (1/2 Hit * 1/3 Damage * 1/3 bypass Armor).

The kill chances in Close Combat are exactly the same for a Marine with no Close Combat Weapon versus a Guardsman with no Close Combat Weapon. It takes nearly 6 Guardman to be as destructive as a single Space Marine. They do have the advantage of having 6 wounds to 1, but maybe that is why a Space Marine is only 3 times as expensive as the Guardsman.

It's not a true apples-to-apple comparison when comparing them on model by model basis. A better depiction of comparison shows as such:

1x marine @ 13 ppm = 13 pts | 3.25x guardsmen @ 4 ppm = 13 pts

1x Marine's bolter on guardsmen: 67% to hit, 67% to wound, 67% wound not saved = 0.30 damage inflicted
3.25x Guardman's lasgun on marine: 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% wound not saved = 0.18 damage inflicted

Another comparison at 52pts as you can't have a 1/4 of a guardsmen:

4 marine @ 13 ppm = 52 pts | 13 guardsmen @ 4 ppm = 52 pts

4x Marine's bolter on guardsmen: 67% to hit, 67% to wound, 67% wound not saved = 1.19 damage inflicted
13x Guardman's lasgun on marine: 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% wound not saved = 0.72 damage inflicted

In sum, marines damage output performs about 1.64 times better than guardsmen point for point, but a single marines would need 11 turns to successfully shoot & destroy a group of 3.25 guardsmen, while it would take 6 turns for 3.25 guardsmen to kill 1 marine. (theoretically)

It would take about 5 turns, not 11.

2*.66*.66*.66=.5749

.5749*5=2.874

 skchsan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Adepta Sororitas?

I think for their pt value, they're good where they are. Repentia squad may benefit from +1W for their melee only battle role.

Then you need to stop pretending this has anything to do with "elite" status and say its a pure re-balancing due to your perceived problems with the system.

I can't see how you can add a wound to all Marines and Aspect Warriors - both of whom have all their codex bonuses and not adjust points but not do the same to Sororitas who get one relic and 2 stragems ?

-light infantry (1W)
-'medium' infantry (2W)
-heavy infantry (3W)
-super heavy infantry (4W)

Sororitas are at least medium infantry by your own table?

Why are Dark Eldar Wyches and their upgrades not getting this?

Scions are hardly Chaff.

They shoot as well as a Space Marine, with better guns than a space Marine. For less points than a space marine.




But you forgot to Include Ogyrns in any case.

And Eldar do definately not deserve to be as durable as SM, and Necrons would be much better represented by +T than +1 Wound.

Was working with pt values from battle scribe for eldar and didnt realize how much of the unit pt is from weapons themselves.

As for sisters comments, I feel that 9 pt for baseline sisters and 11 pts for celestians lay on the same line of logic for scouts. 9-11 pt boltgun platforms are fairly valued IMO. I feel they may benefit better with point reduction, say in the 7-8 for sisters and 9-10 for celestians.

I agree with the T bonus on necrons.

Will consider it into future revision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Adepta Sororitas?

I think for their pt value, they're good where they are. Repentia squad may benefit from +1W for their melee only battle role.

Then you need to stop pretending this has anything to do with "elite" status and say its a pure re-balancing due to your perceived problems with the system.

I can't see how you can add a wound to all Marines and Aspect Warriors - both of whom have all their codex bonuses and not adjust points but not do the same to Sororitas who get one relic and 2 stragems ?

-light infantry (1W)
-'medium' infantry (2W)
-heavy infantry (3W)
-super heavy infantry (4W)

Sororitas are at least medium infantry by your own table?

Why are Dark Eldar Wyches and their upgrades not getting this?

I believe the perceived notion being 'elite' and my opinion on balance is one and the same.

Current army building is restircted to largely "bring as many cheap wounds as you can to cover your big guns", "spam the big scary guys", and "kill or be killed in turn 1 glass cannon" kinds of builds.

What this proposal is aiming for is giving better play time for the middle guys that are overpriced

I agree that my proposal is largely biased and doesnt cover the minorities in equal manner. I am only experienced with SM and variants, tau, tyranids, orks and necrons that I have played with/against in the past. I actually would love constructive inputs on other armies that are currently poorly represented in my list.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Thousand-Son-Sorcerer - again, the post isn't about comparing guardsmen to marines or any other comparisons. The 'guardsman to marine' comparison is a figure of speech, that when something is costed X-much higher, it should function X-much better.

The math was just for fun, to show how guardsmen stack up to marines for the purpose of the post. It is not in any way claiming one is better than the other. The calculation was made at 24" range with no rapid fire double tap. Yes, if you bring them in rapid fire range your math is right.

AGAIN, this is a post regarding +1W as a means to compensate for overpriced units in the game, which so happens to be referred to as "elite" in my post. This is because it is easier to mess around with characteristics than trying to re-price things through a home brew rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Its part of the reason why some people think mobility is the most important stat in the game right now, which I happen to agree with.

Then why aren't all bike armies winning tournaments?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
2*.66*.66*.66=.5749

.5749*5=2.874

if you really want to be nitpicky about numbers, you can't use rounded number for the calculations.
It should be 1*2*2/3*2/3*2/3=.5926
3.25/.5926=5.4844 turns to kill 3.25 guardsmen

While if same points worth of guardsmen got double tap,
3.25*2*1/2*1/3*1/3=.3611
1/.3611=2.7692 turns to kill 1 marine

Wait so if 9 points is fair for a boltgun platform; how come 13 pts is unfair with ATSKNF, chapter tactics, and +1 WS, +1Str, +1T, more weapon options (plasma guns!)?

 skchsan wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Do you really expect people to track remainders for each squad in said armies?

M.

Well most of the competitive choices in elite armies already have 2W's anyways. I dont think it'll overly raise the book keeping.

Why does a single marines cost nearly 3 times a guardman when they dont perform nearly three times better?

Because they have 5 times the options, nearly impervious leadership, and can stack passive bonuses to a 2+ armor save and 2+ BS