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.

The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

An additional benifit of that solution is that it would scale across to their vehicals, however balancing the improvements required to compete with IG tanks and cheap hoard models while not needing to adjust every other non IG vehicals.

But you alao risk just making mortal wound spam even more of a thing if armour saves get buffed, but it's not a bad suggestion.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+

Sure, if we want to ignore the clearly better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bikes, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice.
1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.

Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does.
At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.

-

Just get rid of it. It was a ham-fisted patch anyway. I got rid of it in my D10 7th ed revison.

If you look at a model and it has a gun in its hands it’s weird for that gun to not have rules, so it needs rules. Nobody expects an ornament to have rules.

The crux has never even had rules, it’s a stone ornament, and separately from that a few months into third edition GW realized a flat 2+ didn’t work against star cannons etc so they got 5++ for no real reason.

 Galef wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+

Yes, if we want to ignore the better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bike, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice.
1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.

Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does.
At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.

-

Just for clarity - I am saying all Power armour at 2+ (including Inquisitors, Sisters (of both kinds), Ad Mech etc) - Artificer Armour and Terminator armour at 1+

I am happy to keep or drop the 5++ - there are some wepaons (IIRC) that ignore armour - or am I misremembering?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+

Yes, if we want to ignore the better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bike, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice.
1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.

Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does.
At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.

-

Just for clarity - I am saying all Power armour at 2+ (including Inquisitors, Sisters (of both kinds), Ad Mech etc) - Artificer Armour and Terminator armour at 1+

I am happy to keep or drop the 5++ - there are some wepaons (IIRC) that ignore armour - or am I misremembering?

I assumed you meant all Power armour, and agree. If we don't want 2W Marines (which is my favorite solution) than 2+ works instead
No weapons ignore armour. That is what the Mortal Wound mechanic is for.

Termies with 1+ armour makes having a 5++, which I agree can just be dropped outright. It does, however, make Storm shield much less valuable as they would only protect against weapons with AP-3 or better. Considering most Termies forgo a shooting weapon for a Storm Shield, this should mean the SS is a basically free choice.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+

Yes, if we want to ignore the better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bike, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice.
1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.

Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does.
At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.

-

Just for clarity - I am saying all Power armour at 2+ (including Inquisitors, Sisters (of both kinds), Ad Mech etc) - Artificer Armour and Terminator armour at 1+

I am happy to keep or drop the 5++ - there are some wepaons (IIRC) that ignore armour - or am I misremembering?

I assumed you meant all Power armour, and agree. If we don't want 2W Marines (which is my favorite solution) than 2+ works instead
No weapons ignore armour. That is what the Mortal Wound mechanic is for.

Termies with 1+ armour makes having a 5++, which I agree can just be dropped outright. It does, however, make Storm shield much less valuable as they would only protect against weapons with AP-3 or better. Considering most Termies forgo a shooting weapon for a Storm Shield, this should mean the SS is a basically free choice.
-

I would also combine Tactical and Assault Terminators into one entry and stop pretending that only Snowflake Chapters do it.

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+

Yes, if we want to ignore the better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bike, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice.
1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.

Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does.
At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.

-

Just for clarity - I am saying all Power armour at 2+ (including Inquisitors, Sisters (of both kinds), Ad Mech etc) - Artificer Armour and Terminator armour at 1+

I am happy to keep or drop the 5++ - there are some wepaons (IIRC) that ignore armour - or am I misremembering?

I assumed you meant all Power armour, and agree. If we don't want 2W Marines (which is my favorite solution) than 2+ works instead
No weapons ignore armour. That is what the Mortal Wound mechanic is for.

Termies with 1+ armour makes having a 5++, which I agree can just be dropped outright. It does, however, make Storm shield much less valuable as they would only protect against weapons with AP-3 or better. Considering most Termies forgo a shooting weapon for a Storm Shield, this should mean the SS is a basically free choice.
-

I would also combine Tactical and Assault Terminators into one entry and stop pretending that only Snowflake Chapters do it.

Exactly my thoughts!

So a 5ppm infantry is crippling but 13ppm 2W model will implode the game and leave nothing but SM is a bit ridiculous point to make.

13ppm 2W marines still barely scratch the effectiveness of 4ppm guardsmen.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?

Because it cheapens everybody else's troops and basic weapons. Stop reading bolter porn.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?

It disguists me from a game mechanichal standpoint, not in a fluff way. The game is not capable of representing true bolter porn fluff anyway as that would not make a practical game (1 marine rips aparts tanks and kill normal men or aliens by the dozen). I prefer the game to be fun rather than fluffy, and I just think 2w basic marines would turn small arms pointless. I would be satisfied with points rebalance (5ppm guard, 11ppm marines for example). Otherwise, why roll 40-60dice of lasguns/shootas if they barely kill one marine? I want action!

Gitdakka wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?

It disguists me from a game mechanichal standpoint, not in a fluff way. The game is not capable of representing true bolter porn fluff anyway as that would not make a practical game (1 marine rips aparts tanks and kill normal men or aliens by the dozen). I prefer the game to be fun rather than fluffy, and I just think 2w basic marines would turn small arms pointless. I would be satisfied with points rebalance (5ppm guard, 11ppm marines for example). Otherwise, why roll 40-60dice of lasguns/shootas if they barely kill one marine? I want action!

Okay so - you agree marines are bad - you just want to balance the game differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.

I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.

Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?

Because it cheapens everybody else's troops and basic weapons. Stop reading bolter porn.

It has already been proven in simulations that Infantry and Firewarriros still beat 2 wounds 14 point marines.

^So what? Why is that the metric? Marines can get much more dangerous weapons than Fire Warriors, can therefore meaningfully threaten more targets. Or they can drive up in a Rhino and punch them in the face. Your simulation sucks.

14 Fire Warriors:
14x2x(1/2)(2/3)(1/3) = 28x(1/9) = 21.77... points worth of 14pt 2W marines killed.

7 Marines:
7x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 14x(2/9) = 21.77... points wort of 7pt Fire Warriors.

Not sure where it was shown that they were equal. Both do the same wound count. One wounds twice as often, the other has twice as many bodies. Same woundcount. Except the Fire Warriors now take Morale at -3, so will lose more.

14 Guardsmen:
14x2x(1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 28x(1/18) = 10.88... points worth of 14pt 2W marines

4 Marines:
4x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 8x(8/27) = 9.48 points of Guardsmen from shooting

That does look like Guardsmen win. Until you realize that Marines are then on average not even taking a Morale roll, nowhere close to even having a chance to lose a guy. Guardsmen, on average, lose guys to Morale from this, bringing their lost points above the Marines.

So one of the two claims is flat-out wrong, and the other is only true if you ignore morale. And again, all this is in the open.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^So what? Why is that the metric? Marines can get much more dangerous weapons than Fire Warriors, can therefore meaningfully threaten more targets. Or they can drive up in a Rhino and punch them in the face. Your simulation sucks.

And then they fall back and then the rest of the army shoots them?

Also more dangerous weapons? 4 Bolters and a Plasma Gun at 80 points is more dangerous than 8 of those dudes and drones? You're on something when you're posting I swear...

There isn't a 'rest of the army' unless you've decided to take 70 points against 2000 points for some reason. Otherwise, you're charging what remains of their 70 points. Sure, they could do 2 5-mans of Fire Warriors. But you shot the 5-man you didn't charge, right? And even if not, if you think a 5-man FW squad is "shooting Marines off the table", something is very, very wrong.

Bharring wrote:
14 Fire Warriors:
14x2x(1/2)(2/3)(1/3) = 28x(1/9) = 21.77... points worth of 14pt 2W marines killed.

7 Marines:
7x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 14x(2/9) = 21.77... points wort of 7pt Fire Warriors.

Not sure where it was shown that they were equal. Both do the same wound count. One wounds twice as often, the other has twice as many bodies. Same woundcount. Except the Fire Warriors now take Morale at -3, so will lose more.

14 Guardsmen:
14x2x(1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 28x(1/18) = 10.88... points worth of 14pt 2W marines

4 Marines:
4x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 8x(8/27) = 9.48 points of Guardsmen from shooting

That does look like Guardsmen win. Until you realize that Marines are then on average not even taking a Morale roll, nowhere close to even having a chance to lose a guy. Guardsmen, on average, lose guys to Morale from this, bringing their lost points above the Marines.

So one of the two claims is flat-out wrong, and the other is only true if you ignore morale. And again, all this is in the open.

Why are we even considering morale when these units are averaging around 2 kills?

The point is, 2W Marines that are roughly double the cost of other basic Troop choices are even and fair because those other options have more actual models, thus more guns. And guns that are typically better than bolters too.

5 Marines with 2W at ~15ppm, 3 Bolters, 1 Plasma & 1 Combi-Plas = 103pts?
That's about the same as 10 Eldar Guardians w/ Shuricannon platform (95pts)
Well more than 10 Fire Warriors (70pts), which we've already done the math that proves they can kill 5 2W Marines

I am not saying Marines at 2W shouldn't cost more than now, but 15-16ppm is about the sweet spot, Any more expensive and they end up sucking like they do now.
And for only 1W, they need to be equal to other comparable choices. i.e. >10ppm, which while balanced, seems wrong.

-

I don't care anymore. Bring on the power armor hordes! It's the only way to survive the dissy cannons.

Bharring wrote:
There isn't a 'rest of the army' unless you've decided to take 70 points against 2000 points for some reason. Otherwise, you're charging what remains of their 70 points. Sure, they could do 2 5-mans of Fire Warriors. But you shot the 5-man you didn't charge, right? And even if not, if you think a 5-man FW squad is "shooting Marines off the table", something is very, very wrong.

\
No man - it's simple math. They do shoot you off the table. We aren't even being realistic with these comparisons.

Tau will have a cadre fireblade - so 3 shots instead of 2. probably reroll 1's
Gaurd will have order to shoot twice. Probably reroll 1's

What will the marine squad have? Reroll 1's to hit and wound captain and lieutenant.
I assure you without even doing the math - this just makes things worse for the marines.

Like how are you even defending this? Without even taking game conditions into account (which are going to favroite the IG or Tau every time) literally doubling the wounds marines currently have does not produce a favorable situation for space marine tacs. Which supposed to be strong against infantry. This is troll level defense.

I always see people describe marines as generalist...not sure where this messed up notion even came from. The lose in every situation vs everything - that is just a unit that sucks. They lose in assault to friggen guardsmen.

Drive a Rhino into the Fire Warriors. Boom, can't shoot. They fall back, Rhino does the same thing next turn. And so on and so on. A 72 point Rhino just defeats the Fire Warriors, because they can't hurt the thing enough to stop it, because they only have S5 no AP guns. So Marines don't even have to engage the Fire Warriors because their cheap Transport can just keep them out of the game. 10 Fire Warriors is 20x.5x.333x.333 = 1.1 wound against the Rhino. So those Fire Warriors better be climbing up in those buildings to get away from that unstoppable marauding Rhino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^So what? Why is that the metric? Marines can get much more dangerous weapons than Fire Warriors, can therefore meaningfully threaten more targets. Or they can drive up in a Rhino and punch them in the face. Your simulation sucks.

And then they fall back and then the rest of the army shoots them?

Also more dangerous weapons? 4 Bolters and a Plasma Gun at 80 points is more dangerous than 8 of those dudes and drones? You're on something when you're posting I swear...

Lots of targets fall to Plasma and Grav faster than massed S5 no AP. This shouldn't be a hard sell.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Drive a Rhino into the Fire Warriors. Boom, can't shoot. They fall back, Rhino does the same thing next turn. And so on and so on. A 72 point Rhino just defeats the Fire Warriors, because they can't hurt the thing enough to stop it, because they only have S5 no AP guns. So Marines don't even have to engage the Fire Warriors because their cheap Transport can just keep them out of the game. 10 Fire Warriors is 20x.5x.333x.333 = 1.1 wound against the Rhino. So those Fire Warriors better be climbing up in those buildings to get away from that unstoppable marauding Rhino.

Nope -
74 point rhino is now being tied up by 3-4 firewarriors that cost 28 points...
Plus - thanks to tau sept and FTGG. Your rhino might not even make it because the 4 melta commander hitting on 5's in overwatch - plus everything else in range - get to shoot you.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Drive a Rhino into the Fire Warriors. Boom, can't shoot. They fall back, Rhino does the same thing next turn. And so on and so on. A 72 point Rhino just defeats the Fire Warriors, because they can't hurt the thing enough to stop it, because they only have S5 no AP guns. So Marines don't even have to engage the Fire Warriors because their cheap Transport can just keep them out of the game. 10 Fire Warriors is 20x.5x.333x.333 = 1.1 wound against the Rhino. So those Fire Warriors better be climbing up in those buildings to get away from that unstoppable marauding Rhino.

Nope -
74 point rhino is now being tied up by 3-4 firewarriors that cost 28 points...
Plus - thanks to tau sept and FTGG. Your rhino might not even make it because the 4 melta commander hitting on 5's in overwatch - plus everything else in range - get to shoot you.

Oh, so there ARE other units in the game then? For a second I thought you were just offering "proofs" via. isolated standoffs.

(The Rhino can charge 2 teams, and hence tie up more than it's points worth. Rhino wins again.)

Lets see. 4 grav 10 marines and a drop pod. That's 327 points. I'll tell you one thing - that is a much better squad than the tactical.

Wow even more value for each shuriken shot.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets see. 4 grav 10 marines and a drop pod. That's 327 points. I'll tell you one thing - that is a much better squad than the tactical.

Wow even more value for each shuriken shot.

Wrong thread.

Just quite engaging him. I have. It's pointless.

"No man - it's simple math."
Yes. Very simple. Very easy to not screw up.

"They do shoot you off the table."
Per above, they only "shoot you off the table" when they take 4x as many points or so. Otherwise, no, they don't shoot you off the table any more than you shoot them off the table.

"We aren't even being realistic with these comparisons."
Well, "realistic" is code for "not how I envision it". A claim that 2W 14ppm Marines lose to these units toe-to-toe just trading fire is about the units directly trading fire. Saying "But if they took a Basalisk or Riptide..." or anything else isn't just the two units going toe to toe.

"Tau will have a cadre fireblade - so 3 shots instead of 2. probably reroll 1's "
Because that Fireblade is free. Maybe if we gave Marines a way to reroll 1s to hit, that might help balance things out? If only they could get that or reroll wounds. That might make things fair.

Alternately, those 14 Fire Warriors don't last long in CC against 7 Tac Marines with a Captain in toe! Equally pointless.

"Gaurd will have order to shoot twice. Probably reroll 1's"
Again, free points for Guard to prove that equal points of Guard vs equal points of Marines mean Guard win? That's like arguing the earth is flat because when you drop something it falls. Zuh?

"Like how are you even defending this?"
Seriously? How am I defending arguing that the math does *not* show that Fire Warriors always win a shootout with Marines at 2W 14pt? After running the math and seeing that, no that is not the case?

I get that you can't believe I'm defending Marines as being fine as is. That should be unbelieveable. Because I'm explicitly *NOT DOING THAT*.

"Without even taking game conditions into account[...]"
When looking at a claim made about situations in a void, looking at the situation outside game conditions - of course the counterclaim doesn't take game conditions into account.

"Without even taking game conditions into account (which are going to favroite the IG or Tau every time) literally doubling the wounds marines currently have does not produce a favorable situation for space marine tacs"
-CC - Marines win
-Cover - Marines win
-Objective/ground holding - Marines win
Each one of these 3 are clearly "a favorable situation for space marine tacs". So it produces at least 3. With the toe-to-toe shootout being either a tie (if you ignore Morale) or a win (if you include Morale).

"Which supposed to be strong against infantry."
Umm... Isn't that Fire Warriors? Per point/resource expenditure/commitment, aren't Fire Warriors supposed to be outshooting most other infantry?
If you're talking all-around, sure, Marines do better in CC and vs Morale. But in shooting, in any comparision other than per model, what are Fire Warriors supposed to be good at if not outshooting Troops?
Aren't Guardsmen supposed to be strong at soaking fire, as well?

It's like you think Marines should be better per point at everything.

"This is troll level defense."
No. This is pointing out a very easily disputed claim. I'm not trolling. If you weren't so consistent, with these wild claims, I'd be suspicious that you were trolling me. You keep making the same claims and then recaracterize any counterpoint as arguing something totally different, usually as arguing something the poster has explicitly agreed with.

"They lose in assault to friggen guardsmen.". Well, maybe, don't assault 8 Marines into 3 units of 26 guardsmen. Charge 2 units, kick the snot out of them, then deal with the remaining unit. Or just make it hard for all 26 or 50 or whatever Guardsmen to all get into CC with your smaller numbers. Or take just about any CC option, if you want to leverage CC. Or shoot them first to thin them out. Marines are supposed to be super soldiers. But Guardsmen are supposed to be supernumerous. I want Marines to work. But I don't want them to auto-win against other troops.