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.

My marines catch tons of catapult fire if I actually deign to get within assault range. In other words, it's infinitely more useful for the Eldar than the bolter is for marines.

One on one, assuming we're within assault ranges, Dire Avengers are trading about even with a Tac squad, assuming straight bolters to Avenger Shuriken Catapults. The Dire Avengers are 1ppm less (or as much as a Chaos Marine). Hard to feel bad about anything there. Bolters are plenty fearsome against Dire Avengers. This isn't getting into the Tac squads other capabilities or qualities.

In any kind of straight up firefight against basic Guardians, the Marines should come out ahead, as the Guardians die like guardsmen but cost twice as much, with a very shortened weapons range.

 Vaktathi wrote:
One on one, assuming we're within assault ranges, Dire Avengers are trading about even with a Tac squad, assuming straight bolters to Avenger Shuriken Catapults. The Dire Avengers are 1ppm less (or as much as a Chaos Marine). Hard to feel bad about anything there. Bolters are plenty fearsome against Dire Avengers. This isn't getting into the Tac squads other capabilities or qualities.

In any kind of straight up firefight against basic Guardians, the Marines should come out ahead, as the Guardians die like guardsmen but cost twice as much, with a very shortened weapons range.

But the marines are severely degraded from scatter laser and serpent shield fire. It's always two squads of 5 DA shooting at the three lone survivors of a marine squad. That's what's being neglected in all these discussions. The Eldar first strike the marines for two or three turns and then we can talk about bolters and shuriken catapults. Intact marine squads never get to do anything, because as soon as the Eldar go, they are no longer intact.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
One on one, assuming we're within assault ranges, Dire Avengers are trading about even with a Tac squad, assuming straight bolters to Avenger Shuriken Catapults. The Dire Avengers are 1ppm less (or as much as a Chaos Marine). Hard to feel bad about anything there. Bolters are plenty fearsome against Dire Avengers. This isn't getting into the Tac squads other capabilities or qualities.

In any kind of straight up firefight against basic Guardians, the Marines should come out ahead, as the Guardians die like guardsmen but cost twice as much, with a very shortened weapons range.

But the marines are severely degraded from scatter laser and serpent shield fire. It's always two squads of 5 DA shooting at the three lone survivors of a marine squad. That's what's being neglected in all these discussions. The Eldar first strike the marines for two or three turns and then we can talk about bolters and shuriken catapults. Intact marine squads never get to do anything, because as soon as the Eldar go, they are no longer intact.

And we're assuming every Eldar unit hasn't taken any harm from autocannons, missile launchers, assault cannons, heavy bolters, lascannons, flamers, thunderfire cannons, etc?

We're just assuming the Eldar always get an alpha-strike in first with little in the way of return fire?

I mean, Eldar are a rough army, but we're being somewhat binary in our comparisons here...

Short answer to the whole argument is that small arms are a fine tool to deal with line infantry, but the way the game is these days line infantry see very little play and when they do the guns you're taking to drop light vehicles/elite infantry are just as good at handling lighter units.

Martel732 wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Marines are TOO CHEAP for all their special rules, guns, and unit upgrades. 16 points I think for a boltgun, power armor, 4s in WS,BS,S,T,I in the stat line, LD 8 though really with ATSKNF might as well be 10. Combat Squad rule (kinda iffy I'm not big on splitting my squads but others like it.), All the MEQ flavored special rules, That's a fricken' bargin. A xenos with that stat and saves, would push 20 if not more.

Marines are not too cheap at all. They are a serious joke in their base form. Their offense is pathetic for their cost.

I'd argue thats because Tatical Marines aren't intended to be a super offense unit. rather they're suppose to be a durability unit. they may not deal as much damage as say a Tau gunline, but they're MUCH more surviabile to make up for it. the arguement honestly right now stems as to "is survability a valueable thing to buy for infantry"?

Durability is secondary or even tertiary compared to firepower. It's been been this way since 5th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
One on one, assuming we're within assault ranges, Dire Avengers are trading about even with a Tac squad, assuming straight bolters to Avenger Shuriken Catapults. The Dire Avengers are 1ppm less (or as much as a Chaos Marine). Hard to feel bad about anything there. Bolters are plenty fearsome against Dire Avengers. This isn't getting into the Tac squads other capabilities or qualities.

In any kind of straight up firefight against basic Guardians, the Marines should come out ahead, as the Guardians die like guardsmen but cost twice as much, with a very shortened weapons range.

But the marines are severely degraded from scatter laser and serpent shield fire. It's always two squads of 5 DA shooting at the three lone survivors of a marine squad. That's what's being neglected in all these discussions. The Eldar first strike the marines for two or three turns and then we can talk about bolters and shuriken catapults. Intact marine squads never get to do anything, because as soon as the Eldar go, they are no longer intact.

And we're assuming every Eldar unit hasn't taken any harm from autocannons, missile launchers, assault cannons, heavy bolters, lascannons, flamers, thunderfire cannons, etc?

We're just assuming the Eldar always get an alpha-strike in first with little in the way of return fire?

I mean, Eldar are a rough army, but we're being somewhat binary in our comparisons here...

Marines' alpha strikes are a joke compared to the eldars' alpha strikes. Marines don't usually have that much 36"+ firepower compared to Eldar.

Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
One on one, assuming we're within assault ranges, Dire Avengers are trading about even with a Tac squad, assuming straight bolters to Avenger Shuriken Catapults. The Dire Avengers are 1ppm less (or as much as a Chaos Marine). Hard to feel bad about anything there. Bolters are plenty fearsome against Dire Avengers. This isn't getting into the Tac squads other capabilities or qualities.

In any kind of straight up firefight against basic Guardians, the Marines should come out ahead, as the Guardians die like guardsmen but cost twice as much, with a very shortened weapons range.

But the marines are severely degraded from scatter laser and serpent shield fire. It's always two squads of 5 DA shooting at the three lone survivors of a marine squad. That's what's being neglected in all these discussions. The Eldar first strike the marines for two or three turns and then we can talk about bolters and shuriken catapults. Intact marine squads never get to do anything, because as soon as the Eldar go, they are no longer intact.

And we're assuming every Eldar unit hasn't taken any harm from autocannons, missile launchers, assault cannons, heavy bolters, lascannons, flamers, thunderfire cannons, etc?

We're just assuming the Eldar always get an alpha-strike in first with little in the way of return fire?

I mean, Eldar are a rough army, but we're being somewhat binary in our comparisons here...

Well first off I've rarely seen a scatter laser, (Or multilaser for that matter) do diddly squat against anything with a 3+ save. Give a MEQ a save they tend to make it well above what math says they should. I've seen ten marines tank a 20 strong guardian squad + starcannon, and lose 3 models. And this hasn't been a 'one off' situation.

But still the basic troopers ARE guardians and armed with shuriken catapults. And a bolter is a better weapon.

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Marines are TOO CHEAP for all their special rules, guns, and unit upgrades. 16 points I think for a boltgun, power armor, 4s in WS,BS,S,T,I in the stat line, LD 8 though really with ATSKNF might as well be 10. Combat Squad rule (kinda iffy I'm not big on splitting my squads but others like it.), All the MEQ flavored special rules, That's a fricken' bargin. A xenos with that stat and saves, would push 20 if not more.

Marines are not too cheap at all. They are a serious joke in their base form. Their offense is pathetic for their cost.

I'd argue thats because Tatical Marines aren't intended to be a super offense unit. rather they're suppose to be a durability unit. they may not deal as much damage as say a Tau gunline, but they're MUCH more surviabile to make up for it. the arguement honestly right now stems as to "is survability a valueable thing to buy for infantry"?

Offense OR Defense if a xenos army had a marine's stats and rules they'd be 20+ points. Marines get a huge discount for what they do.

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Marines are TOO CHEAP for all their special rules, guns, and unit upgrades. 16 points I think for a boltgun, power armor, 4s in WS,BS,S,T,I in the stat line, LD 8 though really with ATSKNF might as well be 10. Combat Squad rule (kinda iffy I'm not big on splitting my squads but others like it.), All the MEQ flavored special rules, That's a fricken' bargin. A xenos with that stat and saves, would push 20 if not more.

Marines are not too cheap at all. They are a serious joke in their base form. Their offense is pathetic for their cost.

I'd argue thats because Tatical Marines aren't intended to be a super offense unit. rather they're suppose to be a durability unit. they may not deal as much damage as say a Tau gunline, but they're MUCH more surviabile to make up for it. the arguement honestly right now stems as to "is survability a valueable thing to buy for infantry"?

Does survivability win you games? If not, then no it isn't worth paying for.

What wins games at the moment?

Taking objectives, mobility.
Killing units, firepower.

Relative to their points cost of course.

What makes tacticals mobile? Rhinos, which are an armour 11 shoebox. As long as you're in the Rhino you're not contributing to the firepower rating of the army.
What gives tacticals firepower? Not much really. They're still just bolter carriers for the most part. Two special weapons for 200 points is not great.

In comparison bikes are innately mobile, and with twin-linked bolters their shooting per model is better than a Tactical marine and of course they can take maximum special weapons at the minimum squad size necessary for squads to count as troops.

Some might say that not dying contributes to winning by avoiding giving away victory points, but that's when it has to be pointed out that Tactical marines are not that tough. There are a lot of weapons that kill them easily, and for the rest there's volume of shooting. The New Zealand football team made it through a world cup by not losing games, they had great defence, but they didn't win the games either because they had sub-optimal offence. Being in the Rhino makes them more durable, but of course at the price of cutting their firepower down to whatever can fire out the top hatch.

SM are T4 s4 +3 sv and 24" range as a basic troop right ?

 Argive wrote:
SM are T4 s4 +3 sv and 24" range as a basic troop right ?

Yes, with S4 AP5 rapid fire weapons, frag and krak grenades (iirc) as their standard loadout

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:


Does survivability win you games? If not, then no it isn't worth paying for.

Tell that to every wombocombo 2++ rerollable nonsense armies (and hard to hit spam (sometimes they come together))

There's a difference between T4 3+ and 2++ rerollable, though...

Just answering his question bro.

There's a difference between survivability and survivability, ho.

Against low strength small arms, 2++ rerollable is overkill, comrade.

2++ is an aberration, and the developers that allowed that should consider it a professional fault to have made this kind of things possible. And launch themselves selflessly into self-redemptive crusades of penance too. Mates.

2++ is tolerable, I guess. 2++ rerollable is beyond dumb. Wouldn't use it if I could get it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
2++ is an aberration, and the developers that allowed that should consider it a professional fault to have made this kind of things possible.

I don't mind the 2++ on a Shadowfield, since it has a pretty severe downside and the model is typically dead on the first failed save.

However, other 2++ saves seem silly - like being able to tank wounds on Draigo - who has 4 wounds and EW.

2++ rerollable saves are lust ridiculous. Hell, I don't think any invulnerable saves should be rerollable - not when there's virtually nothing in the game that can negate them.

 vipoid wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
2++ is an aberration, and the developers that allowed that should consider it a professional fault to have made this kind of things possible.

I don't mind the 2++ on a Shadowfield, since it has a pretty severe downside and the model is typically dead on the first failed save.

However, other 2++ saves seem silly - like being able to tank wounds on Draigo - who has 4 wounds and EW.

2++ rerollable saves are lust ridiculous. Hell, I don't think any invulnerable saves should be rerollable - not when there's virtually nothing in the game that can negate them.

I think this is a fair set up. As you say, the shadowfield is one thing. I've never had a problem with it. But from Draigo on up, the abuses are crazy and not fun.

Yeah, the fact that 2++ rerollables are a thing and that 2++'s without some sort of major drawback are even possible is, as noted by Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl, a professional failure of game design. Just a couple years ago in 2012 that would have been the stuff of absurd internet hyperbole.

Now you've got players that think there's nothing wrong with it and that limiting the 2++ rerollables to a 4++ on the reroll is an onerous restriction

Back in the day, you could stack a 2++ vs shooting on top of a terminator save which was 3+ on (two dice - save penalty of the weapon) The 40K devs never seem to learn.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, the fact that 2++ rerollables are a thing and that 2++'s without some sort of major drawback are even possible is, as noted by Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl, a professional failure of game design. Just a couple years ago in 2012 that would have been the stuff of absurd internet hyperbole.

Now you've got players that think there's nothing wrong with it and that limiting the 2++ rerollables to a 4++ on the reroll is an onerous restriction

Can I also nominate 'Invisibility' as a further failure of game design?

Yeah, it's the kind of thing I save all my deny dice for. But it's still hard to stop.

Martel732 wrote:Back in the day, you could stack a 2++ vs shooting on top of a terminator save which was 3+ on (two dice - save penalty of the weapon) The 40K devs never seem to learn.

I think it's because almost nobody who designed 2E still works there and the institutional memory is gone

vipoid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, the fact that 2++ rerollables are a thing and that 2++'s without some sort of major drawback are even possible is, as noted by Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl, a professional failure of game design. Just a couple years ago in 2012 that would have been the stuff of absurd internet hyperbole.

Now you've got players that think there's nothing wrong with it and that limiting the 2++ rerollables to a 4++ on the reroll is an onerous restriction

Can I also nominate 'Invisibility' as a further failure of game design?

Absolutely. Also funnily enough, there was of course quite an uproar when a major tournament just tried nerf that too (changing it from Snapshots and 6's in CC to simple WS1/BS1 so hitting in CC on 5's and allowing blasts and templates to target invisible units)

They can take their uproar and get lost.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:Back in the day, you could stack a 2++ vs shooting on top of a terminator save which was 3+ on (two dice - save penalty of the weapon) The 40K devs never seem to learn.

I think it's because almost nobody who designed 2E still works there and the institutional memory is gone

vipoid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, the fact that 2++ rerollables are a thing and that 2++'s without some sort of major drawback are even possible is, as noted by Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl, a professional failure of game design. Just a couple years ago in 2012 that would have been the stuff of absurd internet hyperbole.

Now you've got players that think there's nothing wrong with it and that limiting the 2++ rerollables to a 4++ on the reroll is an onerous restriction

Can I also nominate 'Invisibility' as a further failure of game design?

Absolutely. Also funnily enough, there was of course quite an uproar when a major tournament just tried nerf that too (changing it from Snapshots and 6's in CC to simple WS1/BS1 so hitting in CC on 5's and allowing blasts and templates to target invisible units)

You know, that nerf is quite sensible. Area of effect attacks are, logically, highly effective against unseen targets.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


You know, that nerf is quite sensible. Area of effect attacks are, logically, highly effective against unseen targets.

Its the case with mr cluxsus and no one bats and eye at him for basically being invisible 24/7

Man that poor guy got alphaed by a buuuuch of flamers :(

Not being able to target invisible units with a flamethrower is perhaps the dumbest rule 40K has ever vomited out. That's EXACTLY what one would use vs invisible foes.

I think the main issue is that the tournament announced the rules change AFTER people had signed up/lined up vacation time/deposits on hotel and plane fare etc.

I don't think there would have been nearly as much if it was announced beforehand.

Personally seeing invisibility getting the nerf hammer is fine by me.