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.

Spoletta wrote:
Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.

It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.

This just isn't true. A Marine used to be 15pts or so. It took 18 Lasguns to kill 1 Marine. Thats 18 shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save for 1 dead Marine. At half range you could lower that to 9 guardsmen but usually it was 18. So i took 18 guardsmen who I think were 4pts each (Can't remember) So 72pts to kill 15pts Thats a really bad return on investment.

Shoota boyz, At 18' range it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Orkz were 6ppm so 54pts to kill 15pts of Marine...still a really bad return on investment.

Firewarriors at 30' range it took 9 shots or 9 firewarriors. 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Tau are notorious for being good at ranged firepower, I believe back then a Firewarrior was either 6-7pts. So 54-63pts to kill 15pts of Marine. Again, a really bad return on investment.

My general rule of thumb is and has always been, a shooting unit should make back its points in 3 turns against its target to be considered effective. None of those weapons are anywhere close to that. So no, the problem for Marines was never small arms weapons, it just "felt" that way because you never remember the time you rolled 27 saves in a row, but you do remember the time you rolled 5 bad saves in a row to lose a combat squad. Same thing is true for Terminators. To kill 1 Terminator with shoota boyz took 36 shots, or 18 Shoota boyz all in range. Thats 108pts at 6ppm to kill 1 Terminator. But again, you don't remember that, you remember that time a shoota boy mob unloaded on you and you rolled 3 1s

Statistically Small arms fire has never been a problem for Marines, like I said, it just felt that way do to how you remember games.

SemperMortis wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.

It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.

This just isn't true. A Marine used to be 15pts or so. It took 18 Lasguns to kill 1 Marine. Thats 18 shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save for 1 dead Marine. At half range you could lower that to 9 guardsmen but usually it was 18. So i took 18 guardsmen who I think were 4pts each (Can't remember) So 72pts to kill 15pts Thats a really bad return on investment.

Shoota boyz, At 18' range it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Orkz were 6ppm so 54pts to kill 15pts of Marine...still a really bad return on investment.

Firewarriors at 30' range it took 9 shots or 9 firewarriors. 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Tau are notorious for being good at ranged firepower, I believe back then a Firewarrior was either 6-7pts. So 54-63pts to kill 15pts of Marine. Again, a really bad return on investment.

My general rule of thumb is and has always been, a shooting unit should make back its points in 3 turns against its target to be considered effective. None of those weapons are anywhere close to that. So no, the problem for Marines was never small arms weapons, it just "felt" that way because you never remember the time you rolled 27 saves in a row, but you do remember the time you rolled 5 bad saves in a row to lose a combat squad. Same thing is true for Terminators. To kill 1 Terminator with shoota boyz took 36 shots, or 18 Shoota boyz all in range. Thats 108pts at 6ppm to kill 1 Terminator. But again, you don't remember that, you remember that time a shoota boy mob unloaded on you and you rolled 3 1s

Statistically Small arms fire has never been a problem for Marines, like I said, it just felt that way do to how you remember games.

I'd add, too, that it doesn't seem a good thing from a gameplay perspective when many basic anti-infantry weapons are now so inefficient as to be all but useless against the most common infantry in the game.

LOL, well now you can basically DOUBLE that math and change the points values mostly in favor of the Marines.

For example, to kill a Marine now takes 36 shoota shots which at max range is 18 shoota boyz who are now 9ppm So the math is now 162pts of Shootaboy to kill 18pt of Tac Marine.

I literally forego my shooting from boyz 90% of the time anyway

SemperMortis wrote:
LOL, well now you can basically DOUBLE that math and change the points values mostly in favor of the Marines.

For example, to kill a Marine now takes 36 shoota shots which at max range is 18 shoota boyz who are now 9ppm So the math is now 162pts of Shootaboy to kill 18pt of Tac Marine.

I literally forego my shooting from boyz 90% of the time anyway

Weirdly that tactical marine used to kill 0.333 orks at max range or 45 points of marines to kill 6 points of orks.

That tactical marine now kills 0.444 orks if stationary and in tactical doctrine or 0.37 if out. Or it now takes 54 points of marines to kill 9 points of orks.

The ratios really aren't that bad nor far off what they were in return and standard tactical marine bolters still suck even with umpteen layers of crap on top.

Edit: yes boyz shooting sucks atm and always has, that's the other thread, but the point is marines aren't miles ahead of where they were in terms of small arms output.

 vipoid wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.

It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.

This just isn't true. A Marine used to be 15pts or so. It took 18 Lasguns to kill 1 Marine. Thats 18 shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save for 1 dead Marine. At half range you could lower that to 9 guardsmen but usually it was 18. So i took 18 guardsmen who I think were 4pts each (Can't remember) So 72pts to kill 15pts Thats a really bad return on investment.

Shoota boyz, At 18' range it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Orkz were 6ppm so 54pts to kill 15pts of Marine...still a really bad return on investment.

Firewarriors at 30' range it took 9 shots or 9 firewarriors. 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Tau are notorious for being good at ranged firepower, I believe back then a Firewarrior was either 6-7pts. So 54-63pts to kill 15pts of Marine. Again, a really bad return on investment.

My general rule of thumb is and has always been, a shooting unit should make back its points in 3 turns against its target to be considered effective. None of those weapons are anywhere close to that. So no, the problem for Marines was never small arms weapons, it just "felt" that way because you never remember the time you rolled 27 saves in a row, but you do remember the time you rolled 5 bad saves in a row to lose a combat squad. Same thing is true for Terminators. To kill 1 Terminator with shoota boyz took 36 shots, or 18 Shoota boyz all in range. Thats 108pts at 6ppm to kill 1 Terminator. But again, you don't remember that, you remember that time a shoota boy mob unloaded on you and you rolled 3 1s

Statistically Small arms fire has never been a problem for Marines, like I said, it just felt that way do to how you remember games.

I'd add, too, that it doesn't seem a good thing from a gameplay perspective when many basic anti-infantry weapons are now so inefficient as to be all but useless against the most common infantry in the game.

I think its worth noting that in a game where the actual win condition gives a huge advantage to "Token" units you would actually want/expect the cheaper a unit gets the less effective for the points it gets, with sub-50ppm units like meks and such being basically next to worthless in actual combat due to the outsized impact of their ability to score points, perform secondaries and actions.

I believe a kabalite warrior is 8ppm at this point, correct? And shooting a splinter rifle into intercessors it returns 2.2 points of value, for a 27.5% points return. Given that there do exist units in the game that the kabalite warrior is arguably more specialised in dealing with (high toughness targets, where the Poison rule actually matters somewhat) I dont think that's a particularly unreasonable baseline return. A guardsman sans orders is 22% effective, which doesnt seem fantastic but then again an intercessor shooting back at the same guardsman is 20.3% effective, and I dont think anyone would make the argument that intercessors arent meant to be an anti-GEQ choice.

Could it be that both Guardsmen and Intercessors are models with most of their power budget in defense compared to the more elite combatants in the armies? That'd be a screaming hot take huh.

I feel that Lasguns shouldn't be cost efficient against MEQ and above units. If they need more than 3 shooting phases to kill their points in marines it is a good thing. Like the one thing in the game that marines should be almost invulnerable towards is str 3 attacks with no ap. Just because guardsmen and marines are both troops doesnt mean they should be equally good against each other with their standard equipment. Because if they are reasonably effective against each other with just bolt guns vs lasguns, what happens when you add plasmaguns to the squads? The guard unit becomes much stronger against MEQ while the marine unit mostly just gets more expensive when fighting guardsmen. The space marine is the perfect anti light infantry unit so comparing the units vs each other is rather pointless.

Even if the lasguns become even more useless vs marines doesn't mean that the basic guardsman is a useless model on the battlefield. They still have a footprint that is vastly superior to a marine for its cost so they can still hold area and delay the marines while you have special weapons/heavy weapon teams in the squads, veteran squads/heavy weapon teams with multiple special/heavy weapons and vehicles with heavier armament to actually kill the marines.

If an infantry horde with just basic guardsmen without many upgrades are even remotely viable against a marine list with lots of basic marine bodies then the basic Space Marine units have no reason to exist in this game. Guard horde vs Marine horde should be a one sided slaughter. If the guard horde should even have a chance they should have to buy lots of anti marine weapons.

Basic Space marines should be hard to kill(very point inefficient) with cheap and basic troops that are equipped to kill light infantry. On the other hand Marines should be worse at occupying space due to being more expensive. Them being 2W and more costly should help with both of those.

Klickor wrote:

If an infantry horde with just basic guardsmen without many upgrades are even remotely viable against a marine list with lots of basic marine bodies then the basic Space Marine units have no reason to exist in this game. Guard horde vs Marine horde should be a one sided slaughter. If the guard horde should even have a chance they should have to buy lots of anti marine weapons.

Basic Space marines should be hard to kill(very point inefficient) with cheap and basic troops that are equipped to kill light infantry. On the other hand Marines should be worse at occupying space due to being more expensive. Them being 2W and more costly should help with both of those.

The only problem with this is if you say

"OKAY EVERYBODY STEP RIGHT UP COME ON DOWN CHOOSE YOUR FACTION, YOU CAN EITHER HAVE MORE EXPENSIVE MODELS THAT ALWAYS WIN BUT TAKE UP LESS SPACE ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR CHEAPER MODELS THAT YOU HAVE TO BUY WAY MORE OF THAT ALWAYS LOSE!!!"

then you have...well...what we have now. 90% of players choosing to play an 'elite' army. Because its cheaper moneywise by like 50%, and more enjoyable, and...why would you not?

like i've said before - i'm perfectly happy as the horde player to give up my 'footprint' advantage AND give the elite players the edge in unit-on-unit combat...just give me mechanics whereby I get to recycle my troops basically at will. Make the battle actually FEEL like an endless horde vs elite heroes trying to race a ticking clock.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If an infantry horde with just basic guardsmen without many upgrades are even remotely viable against a marine list with lots of basic marine bodies then the basic Space Marine units have no reason to exist in this game. Guard horde vs Marine horde should be a one sided slaughter. If the guard horde should even have a chance they should have to buy lots of anti marine weapons.

Basic Space marines should be hard to kill(very point inefficient) with cheap and basic troops that are equipped to kill light infantry. On the other hand Marines should be worse at occupying space due to being more expensive. Them being 2W and more costly should help with both of those.

The only problem with this is if you say

"OKAY EVERYBODY STEP RIGHT UP COME ON DOWN CHOOSE YOUR FACTION, YOU CAN EITHER HAVE MORE EXPENSIVE MODELS THAT ALWAYS WIN BUT TAKE UP LESS SPACE ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR CHEAPER MODELS THAT YOU HAVE TO BUY WAY MORE OF THAT ALWAYS LOSE!!!"

then you have...well...what we have now. 90% of players choosing to play an 'elite' army. Because its cheaper moneywise by like 50%, and more enjoyable, and...why would you not?

like i've said before - i'm perfectly happy as the horde player to give up my 'footprint' advantage AND give the elite players the edge in unit-on-unit combat...just give me mechanics whereby I get to recycle my troops basically at will. Make the battle actually FEEL like an endless horde vs elite heroes trying to race a ticking clock.

I like the easy you're thinking, guard as well probably would benefit from support squads and vehicles being their heavy lifters again, make them the firepower and the chaff... well, chaff. Make a way to keep the deadlier units alive by forcing you to gun through the squishy meatbags first.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If an infantry horde with just basic guardsmen without many upgrades are even remotely viable against a marine list with lots of basic marine bodies then the basic Space Marine units have no reason to exist in this game. Guard horde vs Marine horde should be a one sided slaughter. If the guard horde should even have a chance they should have to buy lots of anti marine weapons.

Basic Space marines should be hard to kill(very point inefficient) with cheap and basic troops that are equipped to kill light infantry. On the other hand Marines should be worse at occupying space due to being more expensive. Them being 2W and more costly should help with both of those.

The only problem with this is if you say

"OKAY EVERYBODY STEP RIGHT UP COME ON DOWN CHOOSE YOUR FACTION, YOU CAN EITHER HAVE MORE EXPENSIVE MODELS THAT ALWAYS WIN BUT TAKE UP LESS SPACE ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR CHEAPER MODELS THAT YOU HAVE TO BUY WAY MORE OF THAT ALWAYS LOSE!!!"

then you have...well...what we have now. 90% of players choosing to play an 'elite' army. Because its cheaper moneywise by like 50%, and more enjoyable, and...why would you not?

like i've said before - i'm perfectly happy as the horde player to give up my 'footprint' advantage AND give the elite players the edge in unit-on-unit combat...just give me mechanics whereby I get to recycle my troops basically at will. Make the battle actually FEEL like an endless horde vs elite heroes trying to race a ticking clock.

Well, if people run only basic guardsmen without any special weapons, heavy weapons or sergeant upgrades then they can't really complain about not being able to do much against Space Marines, Custodes, Monster lists or Vehicle lists. I don't think it should ever be a viable strategy even if they can take up more board space and win on points technically. I also don't want 100 tacticals/intercessors without upgrades to be viable either. If people don't want their basic troops to fold over as soon as they see Marines or tougher units and want them to do something else than just hold objectives in cover then they should upgrade them. If you do get those upgrades you won't just stand there and only lose. And if you dont upgrade them, perhaps you should only take 20-30 of them and not 180 guardsmen and complain they only lose.

Of course GW should balance the unit upgrades so they are actually worth taking over just spamming more bodies. Not just for guardsmen but for marines in the troop slot as well. I remember older editions with special weapons in both basic marine and guard squads being taken but for the latest 2 the troops have only been there to fill out detachments or hold ground. Special weapons being not worth the additional cost when you could spend those points better upgrading elite units with the same weapons that also have other special rules to make them more effective.

I still think this lasgun argument is silly.

Boltguns against crisis suits are basically the same concept. I don't expect my marines to do much of anything except maybe take pot shots.

Sure there's the argument of troop slot but against a farsight list they're only taking min fire warriors anyway.

SemperMortis wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Yes, basic weapons were the problem for marines.

It is true that turkeys removed them in swats, like many weapons do now by the way. The difference is that right now you need an anti heavy infantry weapon to clear them, while they resist quite well to small caliber weapons.

This just isn't true. A Marine used to be 15pts or so. It took 18 Lasguns to kill 1 Marine. Thats 18 shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save for 1 dead Marine. At half range you could lower that to 9 guardsmen but usually it was 18. So i took 18 guardsmen who I think were 4pts each (Can't remember) So 72pts to kill 15pts Thats a really bad return on investment.

Shoota boyz, At 18' range it took 9 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Orkz were 6ppm so 54pts to kill 15pts of Marine...still a really bad return on investment.

Firewarriors at 30' range it took 9 shots or 9 firewarriors. 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save. Tau are notorious for being good at ranged firepower, I believe back then a Firewarrior was either 6-7pts. So 54-63pts to kill 15pts of Marine. Again, a really bad return on investment.

My general rule of thumb is and has always been, a shooting unit should make back its points in 3 turns against its target to be considered effective. None of those weapons are anywhere close to that. So no, the problem for Marines was never small arms weapons, it just "felt" that way because you never remember the time you rolled 27 saves in a row, but you do remember the time you rolled 5 bad saves in a row to lose a combat squad. Same thing is true for Terminators. To kill 1 Terminator with shoota boyz took 36 shots, or 18 Shoota boyz all in range. Thats 108pts at 6ppm to kill 1 Terminator. But again, you don't remember that, you remember that time a shoota boy mob unloaded on you and you rolled 3 1s

Statistically Small arms fire has never been a problem for Marines, like I said, it just felt that way do to how you remember games.

Correct rule of thumb, but used wrongly.

1/3 is a good return for a unit shooting at a target against which it is effective, without overly exposing itself, in which case you need returns higher than 1/2.

Here we are talking about the return of a unit shooting at a bad target in bad conditions (long range).

Let's see those percentages you mentioned:

Guards: 20,8% at long range, 41.6% at short range.
Shootas: 27,8%
Firewarriors: 23,8% at long range, 47,6% at short range. (assuming they were 7 points, I kind of remember that)

These rates are absurdly high.
Just to put things into perspective, guards at short range have a 7% return on a rhino, half at long range. THAT is a correct rate. You are shooting at the wrong target!
Vehicles are overly exposed to being blasted by AT weapons because in return they are hard targets for small caliber weapons.
In the same way, the marine profile is very vulnerable to anti MEQ weapons, but is (now) impervious to small caliber ones. A guard at short range on an intercessor is a 9%, half at long range. Like it should be.
A lascannon dev marine shooting into guards is 9% because he is firing the wrong weapon at the wrong target.
These are correct rates for wrong weapons into wrong target.
20,8% is definitely not, especially at long range.

Spoletta wrote:
You are shooting at the wrong target!

What is the right target for Guardsmen in a Marine army then?

Spoletta wrote:

A guard at short range on an intercessor is a 9%, half at long range. Like it should be.

Source?

If a Guardsmans return against a Rhino is 7%, and againat a Marine is 4.5-9% (average 7) umm, congrats? Nice target differentiation there. You've created a paradigm where it's more cost efficient for Guardsmen to fire Lasguns at Predator tanks than at infantry. Is the Predator the proper intended target for lasguns then?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You are shooting at the wrong target!

What is the right target for Guardsmen in a Marine army then?

Spoletta wrote:

A guard at short range on an intercessor is a 9%, half at long range. Like it should be.

Source?

If a Guardsmans return against a Rhino is 7%, and againat a Marine is 4.5-9% (average 7) umm, congrats? Nice target differentiation there. You've created a paradigm where it's more cost efficient for Guardsmen to fire Lasguns at Predator tanks than at infantry. Is the Predator the proper intended target for lasguns then?

Do they need a good target for their lasguns though? Isn't it enough that they are cheap and have multiple other uses than firing their flashlights? If you equip them with some plasma or other special weapons then they aren't bad against marines. If the lasguns are good against marines then what is the need for buying other stuff than normal guardsmen? Marine vehicles are crap and should probably get more wounds and be a bit cheaper so Lasguns aren't more effective against them than Intercessors. They still shouldn't be good at the marine troops though,

Do we need to nerf Knights so that a tactical squad can get a good target for their bolt guns? or should we expect a Tactical Marine squad that wants to fight other targets than light infantry to have to buy some upgrades?

 the_scotsman wrote:

I think its worth noting that in a game where the actual win condition gives a huge advantage to "Token" units you would actually want/expect the cheaper a unit gets the less effective for the points it gets, with sub-50ppm units like meks and such being basically next to worthless in actual combat due to the outsized impact of their ability to score points, perform secondaries and actions.

I accept that units can have value beyond their ability to kill other units.

The issue is that guardsmen were already inefficient at killing Marines. If guardsmen could won the objective game whilst also effortlessly mowing down Marines with massed Lasgun fire, I'd entirely agree with you.

However, GW instead took a unit that was already highly inefficient against Marines and then made Marines twice as durable against them.

There's also the 'fun' element. Having an army that only exists to be swept off the board so that Marine players can get that bolter-porn feeling is not fun. Same with playing against an all-knight army that your army doesn't have enough anti-vehicle weapons to beat. Maybe you can play the objective game and ultimately win, but it's neither fun nor satisfying to remove models with a dustpan and brush each turn whilst doing bugger-all save hoping that enough of your men survive to clog up the enemy's legs.

 the_scotsman wrote:

I believe a kabalite warrior is 8ppm at this point, correct? And shooting a splinter rifle into intercessors it returns 2.2 points of value, for a 27.5% points return. Given that there do exist units in the game that the kabalite warrior is arguably more specialised in dealing with (high toughness targets, where the Poison rule actually matters somewhat) I dont think that's a particularly unreasonable baseline return.

It's funny that you bring up poison because that has suffered a very similar issue to the one being discussed in this thread.

Back in 5th, a Splinter Rifle was Rapid Fire 24" S- AP5 Poison 4+, and a Carnifex had 4 wounds (maybe 5 with the right upgrade?). Now a Splinter Rifle is Rapid Fire 24" S1 AP- D1 Poison 4+, yet that same Carnifex is now 8 wounds. A 4-wound Hive Tyrant is now 12 wounds. A 1-wound Biker is now 2 or 3 wounds. etc.. Yet all DE's poison weapons are basically unchanged. So while DE can shoot high-toughness targets with poison, it's almost never an efficient choice compared with shooting anti-vehicle weapons at such targets. Not to mention that the change to the toughness chart has made low- and mid-strength weapons far more effective against higher toughness targets (further diluting the advantages of Poison).

I bring this up because it seems quite relevant to the current discussion in terms of how units and weapons can be pushed out if they remain the same while their targets gain extra wounds or such. Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, Kabalites have been all but abandoned by DE players as their weapons just don't cut it anymore. For reasons outlined above, they were already bad against most monsters and other targets that they once excelled against, but now they're not even good against common infantry.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I still think this lasgun argument is silly.

Boltguns against crisis suits are basically the same concept. I don't expect my marines to do much of anything except maybe take pot shots.

Since when are Crisis Suits troops?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Sure there's the argument of troop slot but against a farsight list they're only taking min fire warriors anyway.

Then you've missed the point entirely. No one is arguing that lasguns should have an optimum target against an all-dreadnought Marine army. They're arguing that they should have a role against basic Marine troops.

 vipoid wrote:
No one is arguing that lasguns should have an optimum target against an all-dreadnought Marine army. They're arguing that they should have a role against basic Marine troops.

They do have a role. And that role is the same as it's always been: to be the models that absorb wounds instead of that Plasma gun etc &/or heavy weapon. Or, if melee occurs, to be the models you remove 1st rather than the Sgt with the Power Sword or whatever.
That's their purpose. To keep those specialized weapons fighting as long as possible.
Secondary role is causing as much extra damage as possible. Any wound or kill they achieve is just a bonus.

I find the argument that a lasgun is somehow good against space marines fairly laughable.

let assume a perfect case scenario for the guard, 1 min squad guard (10 man 10 wounds, 55 points) vs 1 min squad of tac marines (5 man, 10 wounds, 90 points), the marines are within 12" of the guardsmen but failed a charge. Also assuming neither squad has taken a casualty, giving the guardsmen the best chance here, we know if that range they would have taken bolters first but again best guard scenario.

neither is given any upgrades or special weapons (more realistic for the guard than the marines but to make it fair)

guard shoot first.

18 lasgun shots and 1 laspistol shot for a total of 19 str 3 ap0 D1 shots.

9.5 shots hit, 3.2 wounds, after armor saves the 10 guardsman do... 1.06 wounds so 1 wound on one marine.

guard player may charge the marines but probably not worth it to delay further (scenario dependent)

marine turn

sarg has a proper bolt gun so 10 shots str 4 ap-0 D1
6.6 hits, wound on 3's 4.4 wounds, 1.5 saves, so 3 guardsman go down
marines charge... and its downhill for the guard from there

best case the guard pass morale and a few leave combat next turn to act as bubble wrap again the next turn or if fortune favors them might have 1 or 2 left inthe marine phase to keep them tied up.

If anythign i think guardsman need a buff though I don't think lethality is the best fix, having the flakk jacket a proper 4+ would probably do the job better

ccs wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
No one is arguing that lasguns should have an optimum target against an all-dreadnought Marine army. They're arguing that they should have a role against basic Marine troops.

They do have a role. And that role is the same as it's always been: to be the models that absorb wounds instead of that Plasma gun etc &/or heavy weapon. Or, if melee occurs, to be the models you remove 1st rather than the Sgt with the Power Sword or whatever.
That's their purpose. To keep those specialized weapons fighting as long as possible.
Secondary role is causing as much extra damage as possible. Any wound or kill they achieve is just a bonus.

You know, there was a time when I was highly sympathetic towards Marine players.

However, after reading dozens of posts like 'the only purpose of lasguns is to die' or 'be grateful you only need 40 guardsmen to kill a marine - it should be 100', that sympathy is really wearing thin.

At this point I'm hoping that your basic Marines go up to 100pts per model, just to show how rare and special they are.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I find the argument that a lasgun is somehow good against space marines fairly laughable.

Are you just kind of laughing at a suggestion you made yourself then, because I dont think i've seen anyone make that argument...

 GoldenHorde wrote:
It seriously added nothing positive to the game except power/lethality creep and was nothing but a sales ploy

Personally, I've wanted 2W marines since I started playing back in 3rd edition and house ruled them into custom campaigns with around a 50% points hike. (Very casually mind you, but still.) They never felt to me to be anywhere near as tough as they should be from the fluff and that always bothered me.

That being said, I didn't like the implementation. Putting so many things up to multiple points of damage made it feel not all that much different. Rather than bring everything up to match the new 2W marines, the marines should have had a points hike to make them field less models that were much more resilient instead. But then they'd sell less Space Marines, so that was never going to happen.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I find the argument that a lasgun is somehow good against space marines fairly laughable.

Are you just kind of laughing at a suggestion you made yourself then, because I dont think i've seen anyone make that argument...

it seemed to be implied by Klickor "I feel that Lasguns shouldn't be cost efficient against MEQ and above units." then says maybe in 3 turns though honestly those guardsmen are already useless against marines and cannot get back their points in the whole game shooting lasguns against marines as it is.

I have to say that the bigger problem with marines durability was not that basic infantry had good investment against the cheapest troop of the army but the fact that 70% of your army has the same defensible profile.
Those lasguns slauthered from a point efficience perspective veteran , assault, devastator, etc... Squads because allí were equally durable as a táctical while being doble or thrice as expensive.

And yeah a veteran guardsmen with plasma was more expensive than a normal one. But you didnt had the same expectations from your infantry in a ig army than a marine one.
I play marines for the marines and the dreads. Thats the fantasy gw sells for most marines with a couple exceptions. And those armies have always sucked . Vehicle and biker spams were neccesary

 the_scotsman wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I find the argument that a lasgun is somehow good against space marines fairly laughable.

Are you just kind of laughing at a suggestion you made yourself then, because I dont think i've seen anyone make that argument...

Right here, dude:

Spoletta wrote:
. . .
Let's see those percentages you mentioned:

Guards: 20,8% at long range, 41.6% at short range.
Shootas: 27,8%
Firewarriors: 23,8% at long range, 47,6% at short range. (assuming they were 7 points, I kind of remember that)

These rates are absurdly high.

Absurdly high. As in "efficient/good".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

You know, there was a time when I was highly sympathetic towards Marine players.

However, after reading dozens of posts like 'the only purpose of lasguns is to die' or 'be grateful you only need 40 guardsmen to kill a marine - it should be 100', that sympathy is really wearing thin.

Yeah this. And I AM a Marine player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:

Do they need a good target for their lasguns though? Isn't it enough that they are cheap and have multiple other uses than firing their flashlights? If you equip them with some plasma or other special weapons then they aren't bad against marines. If the lasguns are good against marines then what is the need for buying other stuff than normal guardsmen? Marine vehicles are crap and should probably get more wounds and be a bit cheaper so Lasguns aren't more effective against them than Intercessors. They still shouldn't be good at the marine troops though,

Do we need to nerf Knights so that a tactical squad can get a good target for their bolt guns? or should we expect a Tactical Marine squad that wants to fight other targets than light infantry to have to buy some upgrades?

Translation: feth your troops so I get mine.

 vipoid wrote:

ccs wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
No one is arguing that lasguns should have an optimum target against an all-dreadnought Marine army. They're arguing that they should have a role against basic Marine troops.

They do have a role. And that role is the same as it's always been: to be the models that absorb wounds instead of that Plasma gun etc &/or heavy weapon. Or, if melee occurs, to be the models you remove 1st rather than the Sgt with the Power Sword or whatever.
That's their purpose. To keep those specialized weapons fighting as long as possible.
Secondary role is causing as much extra damage as possible. Any wound or kill they achieve is just a bonus.

You know, there was a time when I was highly sympathetic towards Marine players.

However, after reading dozens of posts like 'the only purpose of lasguns is to die' or 'be grateful you only need 40 guardsmen to kill a marine - it should be 100', that sympathy is really wearing thin.

At this point I'm hoping that your basic Marines go up to 100pts per model, just to show how rare and special they are.

100 ppm SMs? That's fine. My primary army here in 9e is Necrons & I have plenty of other armies to rotate between other than SMs while I await a SM pts drop.

But I was speaking as a Guard player.
Guard were my primary army 2e-6e. And one of these days, if plastic Krieg arrive en-force/should I grow bored of all my pretty 9e Necrons, they will be again.
Keeping my special/heavy weapons firing (and bringing plenty of them) is the core of my approach to playing Guard. It worked for 5 editions and I've seen nothing in 8e/9e that makes me think it won't work today. In fact, now that SMs have 2+W? Keeping those weapons firing is even more important.

Why bother even having different stat profiles if fething basic guardsmen armed only with lasguns should be able to take on a counter unit efficiently? A space marine is to a normal guardsman as a fully armoured knight were against a peasant. The knight is almost invincible unless the peasant have brought the right tools, like a polearm/plasma for the job.If you are so upset by your guardsmen not being good against all the other troops in their basic load out GW for once have done something good(sure they did this decades ago) and allowed you the option to buy special weapons so your guardsmen aren't worthless.

Tactical marines with bolters are even more useless than guardsmen against the troops that Custodes bring. Should we now make Custodes weaker so a marine player with a 100+ bolter marines in his list doesn't feel sad? Or maybe we should expect him to fill his list with not just the most basic troop model, elites and heavy support exist for a reason and if he do insist on a demi company of tacticals he should buy special weapons, heavy weapons and close combat weapons.

Never heard anyone in wfb complain that their basic goblins or basic state troopers were inefficient in killing chaos warriors. But both are core!!!! You had them to take up space and delay the enemy so you could send a unit of Knights in their flank.

I haven't and haven't seen anyone else say that Guardsmen as a unit should be useless against certain targets when it comes to killing. Only the most basic load out and none have said their options should be removed. Unlike the guard players complaining we seem to know that guardsmen can take upgrades.

Klickor wrote:
Why bother even having different stat profiles if fething basic guardsmen armed only with lasguns should be able to take on a counter unit efficiently? A space marine is to a normal guardsman as a fully armoured knight were against a peasant. The knight is almost invincible unless the peasant have brought the right tools, like a polearm/plasma for the job.If you are so upset by your guardsmen not being good against all the other troops in their basic load out GW for once have done something good(sure they did this decades ago) and allowed you the option to buy special weapons so your guardsmen aren't worthless.

Tactical marines with bolters are even more useless than guardsmen against the troops that Custodes bring. Should we now make Custodes weaker so a marine player with a 100+ bolter marines in his list doesn't feel sad? Or maybe we should expect him to fill his list with not just the most basic troop model, elites and heavy support exist for a reason and if he do insist on a demi company of tacticals he should buy special weapons, heavy weapons and close combat weapons.

Never heard anyone in wfb complain that their basic goblins or basic state troopers were inefficient in killing chaos warriors. But both are core!!!! You had them to take up space and delay the enemy so you could send a unit of Knights in their flank.

I haven't and haven't seen anyone else say that Guardsmen as a unit should be useless against certain targets when it comes to killing. Only the most basic load out and none have said their options should be removed. Unlike the guard players complaining we seem to know that guardsmen can take upgrades.

First off, I don't play Guard. I'm a Marine player, and have been for 20 years.

Second, ignore the fact that it's Guardsmen. Leave them out of it if you're stuck on it. The question is this instead: How many Marines firing Bolters should it take to drop a Marine?

 Insectum7 wrote:
The question is this instead: How many Marines firing Bolters should it take to drop a Marine?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZgIDEdNzQs

3 at > 12", 2 at 12" or less - asuming you're shooting at loyalists. Vs CSM? 2/1.

As I see it average units shooting average units should get a 20-25%ish return on their points. With the 10 unlooked for special rules of synergy, this can maybe go up towards 30%.

The problem is lots of things get around a 40% return versus most things - and with the 10 unlooked for special rules this jumps up towards 100%.

So yeah - I think it should take about 4 or even 5 marines shooting a marine to expect to kill them. Otherwise its going to be crazy when you get super bolter doctrine+reroll everything for the lols.

Dudeface wrote:

Weirdly that tactical marine used to kill 0.333 orks at max range or 45 points of marines to kill 6 points of orks.

That tactical marine now kills 0.444 orks if stationary and in tactical doctrine or 0.37 if out. Or it now takes 54 points of marines to kill 9 points of orks.

The ratios really aren't that bad nor far off what they were in return and standard tactical marine bolters still suck even with umpteen layers of crap on top.

Edit: yes boyz shooting sucks atm and always has, that's the other thread, but the point is marines aren't miles ahead of where they were in terms of small arms output.

Now add in the morale benefits kill 5-6 of those boyz and they likely fail morale and have more run away from attrition. Boyz are actually less durable then they used to be thanks to morale.

I believe most of these posts are arguing "lasguns should not be effective against marines (or other elite, high-sv infantry)" rather than "lasguns are currently effective against marines."

Do you dispute the fact that presently the objective of the game Warhammer 40,000 generally has little to do with killing models? That it has much more to do with having models that exist at critical locations on the battlefield, thus making "more bodies" an inbuilt advantage that probably should, in some way, be paid for?

The minimum point value of a W2 space marine unit to perform an Action is 90 points. That unit has 5 models to hold objectives. As a guard player, the minimum point value of a unit to perform an Action is 55 points, and that unit has 10 models to hold objectives.

it absolutely stands to reason that if those two units are to engage in direct combat, the one with a natural disadvantage at winning the actual game should pretty much always win the combat.

 the_scotsman wrote:

I believe most of these posts are arguing "lasguns should not be effective against marines (or other elite, high-sv infantry)" rather than "lasguns are currently effective against marines."

Do you dispute the fact that presently the objective of the game Warhammer 40,000 generally has little to do with killing models? That it has much more to do with having models that exist at critical locations on the battlefield, thus making "more bodies" an inbuilt advantage that probably should, in some way, be paid for?

The minimum point value of a W2 space marine unit to perform an Action is 90 points. That unit has 5 models to hold objectives. As a guard player, the minimum point value of a unit to perform an Action is 55 points, and that unit has 10 models to hold objectives.

it absolutely stands to reason that if those two units are to engage in direct combat, the one with a natural disadvantage at winning the actual game should pretty much always win the combat.

The postulate included in "Lasguns should not be effective against marines [so the two wound change is good]" is "Lasguns were effective against marines but are not now."

I think that's what Insectum is pointing out; they weren't effective then either.