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.

Sister of Battle... 12 pts.
Chaos Space Marine... 12 pts

*sigh* Talk about problems... Sisters are the only army that almost always takes assault "marines," as Seraphim are a necessity. Just don't try to actually.... Assault... That's bad.

I actually find the reverse. 3+ armor is fundamentally disadvantaged by the core game mechanics, because units with reliable armor are unable to benefit from cover under normal situations. 4+ armor strikes me as the "sweet spot" where you're protected from the most common Ignores Cover weapons (flamers and smart missiles) and can still use cover to the utmost against many common attacks.

I find it odd considering the 3+save being superior to cover and not having to take the cover save is considered a disadvantage (essentially not having to worry about it), especially given the very limited number of Ap3 ignores cover weapons and how rare/expensive they are relative to the much more common Ap4 cover ignoring weapons (like heavy flamers).

3+ doesn't mean ignoring cover, it means terrain is generally a hindrance and not a help, since it will only benefit your enemy.

Heavy flamers are not nearly as common as the wide number of no cover and AP5 weapons I would say.

That said (and what I said before) I get your general point, but the numbers are too small to fix it really if we could multiply all the costs by ten we could gradate a bit more, for example.

I dunno, I see heavy flamers routinely slapped on many IG tanks, terminator units, land speeders, oblits, etc, while aside from normal flamers and Smart Missiles, the AP5 cover ignoring weapons aren't necessarily much more popular. Terrain is still useful for marines, there very definitely still is AP3/2/1 weapons out there, they just don't need to be bound to it all the time.

 TheKbob wrote:
Sister of Battle... 12 pts.
Chaos Space Marine... 12 pts

*sigh* Talk about problems... Sisters are the only army that almost always takes assault "marines," as Seraphim are a necessity. Just don't try to actually.... Assault... That's bad.

Add one to CSM and you got the actual cost.

But then again we knew Cruddance was already terrible at giving actual points costs, so whats new?

To be fair, 12pts isn't bad for a battle sister, it's their upgrade costs and support options that are bad, but 12pts for a bolter/BP/frag/krak/3+sv wielding troop isn't bad at all.

But yeah, we're getting a lot of awkward compression here in terms of what various units get for the prices they pay, and it's hard to differentiate, and I think that's where part of the issue is coming into play, and while diminishing returns are seemingly taken into account for MEQ units, they are not for 4+sv units.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, 12pts isn't bad for a battle sister, it's their upgrade costs and support options that are bad, but 12pts for a bolter/BP/frag/krak/3+sv wielding troop isn't bad at all.

But yeah, we're getting a lot of awkward compression here in terms of what various units get for the prices they pay, and it's hard to differentiate, and I think that's where part of the issue is coming into play, and while diminishing returns are seemingly taken into account for MEQ units, they are not for 4+sv units.

It is when your minimum troop size is friggen 10. That'd be the worst part, and yet can still take immolators..

We, in my local group, have played a lot of test games for pretty much the reasons discussed by the original poster. We always liked the way warhammer has been doing armour saves, with modifiers implemented based on the strength of the weapon.

So what we did was do the same thing for 40k, but we based the modifier off the AP value of the weapon fired, not its strength. In our minds it made sense, because a high strength weapon should wound easier, but futuristic armour being what it is, there really does need to be a secondary value like AP to reflect the weapons ability to penetrate what I like to call the "relative technology" of the armour.

No by the term "relative technology", I mean the kind of armour you can expect to see when you talk about a certain armour save. If a piece of armour grants a 6+ save, I don't expect there to be a lot in terms of coverage, technology, or general ability to stop the majority of basic weapons, yet alone advanced ones; typically just enough armour to deflect a basic hand to hand combat weapon. For 5+ and 4+, these become more complete armour sets covering the range of full body light armour, medium full body armour, flak jackets, and other purpose-built pieces of standard armour. When you get into the 3+ and 2+ range, technology becomes more apparent, with the armour having built-in power supplies, and those wearing it walking a thin line between creature\machine (use your imagination for the thickness of tyranid skin and such).

So, effectively, we've been allowing armour saves to be taken at modified values based on the AP of the weapon, thus all armour has a range of effectiveness relative to all other types of armour, instead of just being the white or black non-sense it is now.

We started the modifiers initially at AP6, but didn't find the balance to be quite right, so tried it at AP5 instead, and it seemed to be the sweet spot. Effectively, you suffer -1 to your armour saving throw from an AP5 weapon, with an additional -1 for each increase in AP (so AP4 is -2, AP3 is -3, etc.).

As a result, very tough save armies like space marines maintain their edge against less armoured armies, and less armoured armies don't feel like their armour was a waste of printing ink in their codex. Take a heavy bolter for example. It's an AP 4 round, so you take a -2 to your armour save. A space marine, therefor, is wounded on a 3 and gets a 5+ saving throw. A guardsmen is wounded on a 2 (because he is weaker) and gets a 6+ saving throw (because his armour is still good, just not as good as a space marines...that doesn't mean it's complete garbage!!).

It's a general house rule now, and we've loved it's effectiveness.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I find it odd considering the 3+save being superior to cover and not having to take the cover save is considered a disadvantage (essentially not having to worry about it), especially given the very limited number of Ap3 ignores cover weapons and how rare/expensive they are relative to the much more common Ap4 cover ignoring weapons (like heavy flamers).

Well, it all comes down to this. 3+ save units pay a premium for armor that makes them about as good as a unit in good terrain. However, good terrain then does very little for them, whereas other units can easily exploit it for similar levels of protection without paying points for armor. This was extremely evident in 5th edition, when practically every unit had 4+ cover almost all the time-- hence blob squads and Green Tides being very powerful-- but while 6th edition downplays this somewhat, it's still the case that a unit of, say, Wracks on a backfield objective in cover is often just as resilient or more resilient than a unit of Space Marines on the same objective would be.

Also, in practice I see more Heldrakes than heavy flamers these days.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I find it odd considering the 3+save being superior to cover and not having to take the cover save is considered a disadvantage (essentially not having to worry about it), especially given the very limited number of Ap3 ignores cover weapons and how rare/expensive they are relative to the much more common Ap4 cover ignoring weapons (like heavy flamers).

Because you are paying for that ability to ignore having to be in cover and you don't have the option of paying less for your units and taking advantage of that easy to get cover. Not to mention if you do use the cover to dodge AP2 and whatnot, you are paying extra points for a worthless armor save.

Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

Because you are paying for that ability to ignore having to be in cover and you don't have the option of paying less for your units and taking advantage of that easy to get cover.

Most units don't have the option. That said, how many people would really want to take MEQ units without the 3+s, this is literally the only thread I've ever seen a 3+sv considered a "burden" or overcosted in any way.

On top of that, it still begs the question why most 4+sv infantry are roughly MEQ price as such. Sure, lots of them have special abilities, but typically lack the statline and other wargear of MEQ's at the same time that makes their utility and cost effectiveness relative to MEQ units questionable at best (e.g. Stormtroopers who, at best, can manage an even footing with MEQ's in a shooting war at 9" or under against a target in the open, or DA's who are inferior to basic CSM's at all ranges excetp 12-24"), etc.

Not to mention if you do use the cover to dodge AP2 and whatnot, you are paying extra points for a worthless armor save.

Doesn't this apply to every unit in the game at that point? I'm not really sure what you're driving at there.

Kingsley wrote:
Well, it all comes down to this. 3+ save units pay a premium for armor

I guess here's the point I'm trying to make, either this isn't true, or that 4+sv's premium is vastly over-estimated for most armies, because it provides nowhere near the value but, where comparisons can be made, the 3+sv's premium is significantly less than the 4+'s.

that makes them about as good as a unit in good terrain. However, good terrain then does very little for them, whereas other units can easily exploit it for similar levels of protection without paying points for armor.

This was extremely evident in 5th edition, when practically every unit had 4+ cover almost all the time-- hence blob squads and Green Tides being very powerful-- but while 6th edition downplays this somewhat, it's still the case that a unit of, say, Wracks on a backfield objective in cover is often just as resilient or more resilient than a unit of Space Marines on the same objective would be.

And here I'd say that in this case it illustrates the issues with the 4+sv perfectly. 4+sv units are generally pay a higher premium that the 3+sv does, but are still generally much more restricted to cover than the 3+sv units (nobody is going to try and footslog 4+sv infantry across a table, they will try with 3+sv infantry) as most anti-infantry heavy weapons (especially Imperial heavy weapons) are AP4, while the 4+sv unit is getting less benefit from cover than the 5+sv units.

Also, in practice I see more Heldrakes than heavy flamers these days.

That's because Heldrakes are broken

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, 12pts isn't bad for a battle sister, it's their upgrade costs and support options that are bad, but 12pts for a bolter/BP/frag/krak/3+sv wielding troop isn't bad at all.

But yeah, we're getting a lot of awkward compression here in terms of what various units get for the prices they pay, and it's hard to differentiate, and I think that's where part of the issue is coming into play, and while diminishing returns are seemingly taken into account for MEQ units, they are not for 4+sv units.

I agree with the minimum squad size, and to be honest, the fold like wet sponges. Marines sisters are not. I'd rather see 10pt Sisters. They fold JUST like Tau FW against anything but... Tau Firewarriors. But they have a better ranged gun and the overwatch from hell. I got... a chance to reroll 1s to hit? IF I have enough faith (note, at 1850, you don't!).

I'm enjoying Sisters, but BSS are the absolute drag. I bring three at 1850 just to I can win objectives games. At 1500 or less, it's minimum 2. Compared to my Crons, which I nab for flyers and arks, or Wolves, which... yea, Grey Hunters rock. They're bland and a bit too pricey.

 Vaktathi wrote:
this is literally the only thread I've ever seen a 3+sv considered a "burden" or overcosted in any way.

I think it might be because people don't really openly complain about their own book and rather complain about their opponents.

MEQ at DA and CSM point values are actually quite good. In a vacuum. But when you look at the reality we face today, it's simply not the case. It should be pretty obvious with how poorly Deathwing and Draigowing are doing, and how everyone that plays MEQ books seek to run as few MEQ units as possible (Khan Thunderstorm with Scouts and IG allies, CSM with Cultists and Plague Marines instead of MEQ) that MEQ is simply an overcosted, inefficient liability in today's metagame.

Maybe you feel 4+ has its own pitfalls too, and some may agree with you while others disagree. But compared to the typical 3+ units? No, 4+ is way better. Maybe if you play without terrain you can attempt to abuse that 3+ cover save, but you'll just get shot off the board by 4+ and 5+ 30" guns.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Doesn't this apply to every unit in the game at that point? I'm not really sure what you're driving at there.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You waste less points compared to a 3+ standing in cover and a 4+ standing in cover. Not even factoring in the advantages you get for being a 4+ unit.

 Vaktathi wrote:
4+sv units are generally pay a higher premium that the 3+sv does

Your units cost less, how are you paying more?

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, 12pts isn't bad for a battle sister, it's their upgrade costs and support options that are bad, but 12pts for a bolter/BP/frag/krak/3+sv wielding troop isn't bad at all.

So you think SoB are good, 4/4/4/3+ is good, but Fire Warriors are bad?

Do you even play this game?

Yeah 4+ saves have never helped me. I made one vet unit in my guard army take the grenadiers doctrine, and believe me the models look sweet. I just used SM scouts with shotguns, then added IG head swaps. They look sick, and were all kitted out with demo charges, melta guns and the like, and would ride around in a valkyrie, dropping near objectives. But the thing was, if there was a big squad of marines down there waiting for em, my dirty dozen would get wiped. And thus, the 4+ save was irrelevant.

Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:I think it might be because people don't really openly complain about their own book and rather complain about their opponents.

I'm trying to discuss the general state of specifically the 4+sv, not a specific unit or army. I believe I stated that earlier. As an additional addendum, I'm not trying to hate on MEQ units either, I think the same cost difference that are issues between 4+sv units and 3+sv units exist between 4+sv units and 5+sv units as well.

MEQ at DA and CSM point values are actually quite good. In a vacuum. But when you look at the reality we face today, it's simply not the case. It should be pretty obvious with how poorly Deathwing and Draigowing are doing, and how everyone that plays MEQ books seek to run as few MEQ units as possible (Khan Thunderstorm with Scouts and IG allies, CSM with Cultists and Plague Marines instead of MEQ) that MEQ is simply an overcosted, inefficient liability in today's metagame.

This is the first time I've ever seen this claim made.

Maybe you feel 4+ has its own pitfalls too, and some may agree with you while others disagree. But compared to the typical 3+ units? No, 4+ is way better. Maybe if you play without terrain you can attempt to abuse that 3+ cover save, but you'll just get shot off the board by 4+ and 5+ 30" guns.

Can you show me any unit that are consistently going to be able to outshoot a MEQ unit outside of a specific, usually somewhat limited, range band and that usually lack the accompanying CC and heavy weapons capability of said MEQ unit? In an absolute sense, squad to squad, there isn't one. In a cost-effectiveness, "point for point" sense, only Fire Warriors will. You line up 13pt Dire Avengers against 13pt CSM's, the CSM's will outshoot them and outfight them at 12" and under and at greater than 24" if they have a heavy weapon. The only place the DA squad has an advantage is at the 12-24" band, and that's assuming no upgrade weapons in the CSM unit to keep cost parity. Stormtroopers will merely steand equal with MEQ squad at 9" or less (assuming no cover is involved) and in all other situations will be at a marked disadvantage (including the likely charge the next turn by the MEQ unit). Carapace Vets? Assuming a 145pt 3x plasma unit against a DA/CSM tac squad at optimal range, the tac squad will inflict a greater number of casualties and average pts cost loss against the Carapace Vets unit than the Carapace Vets unit will back, not taking any account of Gets Hot chances, and assuming nothing but bolters in the Tac squad. 'Ard Boyz? Tac squad will outshoot the 'Ard Boyz, only if the 'Ard Boys make it into combat (particularly if they get to shoot and then follow it up with an assault) do the 'Ard Boyz show any notable advantage. Necron Warriors are about on par only if you include the 33% chance to get back up (and don't look at increased chance to be forced to take morale tests, to say nothing of a marked CC gap).


Yeah, aside from a couple units in a few narrow range bands, the MEQ units are superior both in an absolute and cost efficiency sense in terms of shooting.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No because you mentioned an AP2 weapon, thus every unit in the game's armor save is "wasted".

You waste less points compared to a 3+ standing in cover and a 4+ standing in cover.

Assuming you're not being shot at by anything that ignores their saves and on the assumption that there's a significant cost difference, the latter being somewhat questionable. A 4+sv unit will receive the benefit of cover more often than a 3+sv unit, but will need to *stay* in cover much more as well, and, cover or no, is still failing saves at a greater rate either way.

Not even factoring in the advantages you get for being a 4+ unit.

Which next to a 3+sv unit are...what?

Your units cost less, how are you paying more?

Once again, I'm not trying to talk specifically about any one unit or army. Second, there are lots of 4+sv units that cost as much or only very slightly less than many/most MEQ units. Third, I'm referring to the premium of the 4+sv over the 5+sv (the relative difference in cost) being significantly more than the premium of the 3+sv over the 4+sv.

 RayND wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, 12pts isn't bad for a battle sister, it's their upgrade costs and support options that are bad, but 12pts for a bolter/BP/frag/krak/3+sv wielding troop isn't bad at all.

So you think SoB are good, 4/4/4/3+ is good, but Fire Warriors are bad?

Do you even play this game?

If you'd actually read my posts you'd have seen where I noted in a response on the first page that Fire Warriors were the primary exception to my statement

MEQ at DA and CSM point values are actually quite good. In a vacuum. But when you look at the reality we face today, it's simply not the case. It should be pretty obvious with how poorly Deathwing and Draigowing are doing, and how everyone that plays MEQ books seek to run as few MEQ units as possible (Khan Thunderstorm with Scouts and IG allies, CSM with Cultists and Plague Marines instead of MEQ) that MEQ is simply an overcosted, inefficient liability in today's metagame.

This is the first time I've ever seen this claim made.

Not really, you should see some of the major tournaments won.

Vaktathi wrote:So, the 4+sv has to pay more because it gets to ignore the AP of various weapons, but the 3+sv, because it's not invincible, doesn't have to pay the premium, despite significantly fewer weapons sporting AP3 than AP4? That makes no sense.

...against the many common AP4 weapons the survivability of a 3+sv unit is increased by 300%

Here's your problem. You're arguing in circles.

You #1: Sv4 is a better save than Sv5, but there are weapons that ignore both. Ap is the most important thing. The armor upgrade is worthless.

You #2: Yes, but there are cover saves. Smart players use cover. Therefore Ap upgrades are worthless.


And then to add to your discussion about if Ap is the best or worst thing, I'd add...

Me: But you can still weight of fire and kill things even with awful Ap weapons. Better armor is better in this case, so it should cost more, but it's relatively less better, so it shouldn't have the same relative price hike.


At which point it splits off into....


You #1: But it's not better because of Ap.

Me: Then Sv4+ should cost the same as Sv3+. The relative cost between the two is justified.

You #1: Then why does Sv4+ cost a lot more than Sv5+?

Me: Because there aren't as many Ap4 weapons as Ap5. You're more likely to use that Sv cancelling effect against Sv5+ armor thanks to a proliferation of Ap5.


... and...


You #2: If Sv is so useful sometimes (also including template weapons), then why doesn't Sv3+ cost a lot more than Sv4+?

Me: Because the relative amount you save isn't that much more. 6 wounds against Sv3+ to 2+ sees an increase in surviving models by only 25% (4 to 5). The upgrade from 5+ to 4+ sees an increase of 50% (2 to 3).


... and from the end of the second scenario, you say "yes, but what about when the Sv improvement doesn't help you at all, like with Ap", in which case, you repeat the first argument, and when you come to the end of the first argument, you say either "yes, but what about cover saves" where you fork to the main argument, or you say "then why isn't Ap4 cheaper, there's more of that, than Ap3," in which case you fork over to the second argument.

And what all of this means is that you're arguing in circles, in a convoluted way. No wonder you're confused and not thinking like the dialogue is really getting anywhere.

If you can come up with counterarguments for things that aren't recursive or are self-contingent between themselves, things will be able to progress.

Dire Avengers outshoot CSM in a shootout as long as the CSM don't have a Heavy weapon or hug cover. With Battle Focus (you know, that other rule they're paying for, as we've pointed out) the CSM won't ever be in Rapid Fire range. If the Bolters can shoot at the DA, the DA will be in range to fire back next/that turn, at which point Bladestorm will seal the deal. The CSM won't ever get into CC. So yeah, they're not only paying for their Armour Save, just as Stormtroopers can deliver prediction melta or plasma where it's needed.

It's. Not. Just. The. Save.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dire Avengers outshoot CSM in a shootout as long as the CSM don't have a Heavy weapon or hug cover. With Battle Focus (you know, that other rule they're paying for, as we've pointed out) the CSM won't ever be in Rapid Fire range. If the Bolters can shoot at the DA, the DA will be in range to fire back next/that turn, at which point Bladestorm will seal the deal. The CSM won't ever get into CC. So yeah, they're not only paying for their Armour Save, just as Stormtroopers can deliver prediction melta or plasma where it's needed.

It's. Not. Just. The. Save.

And stormtroopers are just rubbishly priced anyways, by someone who is pretty much the WORST on balancing costs for units (Cruddance), with grenadiers being priced more accurately.

Argueable, because Grenadier have to ride a pretty expensive Chimera for 75pts (Assault Brigade) or you have to take a 5 men team in a Centaur (Siege Regiment), foot Grenadiers die a messy death

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dire Avengers outshoot CSM in a shootout as long as the CSM don't have a Heavy weapon or hug cover.

Again, only within basically a 12" range band. Beyond or closer than that and this is simply not true. And a heavy weapon can be rather cheap.

Same thing against basic guardsmen, against equal points of guardsmen, they'll maintain rough parity in terms of value lost by both sides at 12-24" (assuming they always get a run move of 6"), assuming no heavy weapons, less than that and the guardsmen are killing twice as much points value of DA's as the DA's are back, and outside of that neither unit has range with basic weapons though the guardsmen certainly have the option of heavy weapons very much puts them ahead of the DA's.

With Battle Focus (you know, that other rule they're paying for, as we've pointed out) the CSM won't ever be in Rapid Fire range

If we're talking an infinite board, no other units, always rolling amazing on run moves, no transports and no other reasons to stick near something (objectives, etc), maybe. MEQ's can roll up in a transport, pod in, or the DA's may simply have had another target, and the board is only so big.

If the Bolters can shoot at the DA, the DA will be in range to fire back next/that turn, at which point Bladestorm will seal the deal. The CSM won't ever get into CC.

Apparently Dire Avengers are completely immune ever getting charged because of a run+shoot rule!

They can get charged (I've done it in two of three of my games against the new Eldar book thus far where Dire Avengers were present) They can't run from every enemy unit simultaneously, they can roll badly for run, and they can't do it forever, and if they're holding an objective or vital board position then, well...

And if they never get charged, then why are they paying for a Counter-Attack rule that's doing diddly squat even if they get charged (unless they're being charged by Guardsmen)?


Note: I'm not saying that Battle Focus can't be really useful or used to good effect, but making it out like they'll never get charged and they'll always be able to keep an enemy unit at optimal range is ridiculous.

So yeah, they're not only paying for their Armour Save, just as Stormtroopers can deliver prediction melta or plasma where it's needed.

So can a small MEQ unit in a pod.

Lets be real here, there's a reason ST's don't exist in tournament IG armies.

It's. Not. Just. The. Save.

I get that, and as I've been trying to show, outside of very specific and relatively narrow range bands, these units, even with their special rules, generally aren't matching up (and in some cases, even in their ideal ranges aren't matching up).

You need a 1" run to stay out of RF range until you run out of space. I dare say you'll manage that with Fleet... If we're going to start comparing Codices to Codices then where are the supporting Eldar units?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You need a 1" run to stay out of RF range until you run out of space

And that relies on the engagement range starting within the DA's sweetspot, as well as having sufficient room to maneuver and/or not needing to hold anything. They can't ensure that engagement range, they can manipulate with battle focus it but can't ensure it, and even then, if the MEQ squad gets off the first salvo, then they're put on an equal footing generally thereafter, and outside that range bubble the MEQ units has a clear advantage. Put them up against GEQ's and even in their sweetspot they're trading equal with the flashlights in terms of value of damage caused.

If we're going to start comparing Codices to Codices then where are the supporting Eldar units?

I'm assuming wherever the Oblits, Heldrakes, etc are. That said, I wasn't really trying getting into that.

Look, even with the CSM getting the first salvo off at max range the DA will win. The CSM deal 2.222... wounds whereas the DA deal 2.880... wounds back. 8 DA kill off more CSM than they take losses from a 10-man squad even if the CSM get the first round of shooting. Of course there's manoeuvreing involved, but the CSM player isn't the only one manoeuvring. If the DA get the first round of shooting off it's rather one-sided, even with the CSM getting one turn of rapid fire.

That's not mentioning what'd happen if the two units were firing at Terminators. Sure, the DA are worse against hordes of cheap stuff, but they're markedly better against MCs or 2+ saves than CSM. I'm sorry, but you don't really seem to be "getting it" at all.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Argueable, because Grenadier have to ride a pretty expensive Chimera for 75pts (Assault Brigade) or you have to take a 5 men team in a Centaur (Siege Regiment), foot Grenadiers die a messy death

I said the Grenadiers, not the vehicle options they had.

But you need the vehicles, otherwise they're completely useless

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Look, even with the CSM getting the first salvo off at max range the DA will win. The CSM deal 2.222... wounds whereas the DA deal 2.880... wounds back.

The do have an advantage there (hence why I said "generally"), but it's not exactly huge, close enough that variance on typical dice rolls could go either way, and that's still at the DA's optimal range.

8 DA kill off more CSM than they take losses from a 10-man squad even if the CSM get the first round of shooting. Of course there's manoeuvreing involved, but the CSM player isn't the only one manoeuvring.

I wasn't assuming they were.

If the DA get the first round of shooting off it's rather one-sided, even with the CSM getting one turn of rapid fire.

Yes, if they get off the first round of fire, won't debate that. That said, it really only works in one range band, too short and the MEQ unit can get off a charge and its over, too far and they're not doing anything.

That's not mentioning what'd happen if the two units were firing at Terminators. Sure, the DA are worse against hordes of cheap stuff, but they're markedly better against MCs or 2+ saves than CSM. I'm sorry, but you don't really seem to be "getting it" at all.

I do get it, really I do, but that only holds if you're discounting that the MEQ unit has weapon upgrade options like...plasma guns. Then of course the MEQ's have krak grenades to engage vehicles and MC's in CC, the option for powerfists, meltaguns, heavy weapons, etc.

Whenever you are given commonly-known information you say it's the first time you've heard of it.

When you are given calculations that disprove your already biased comparisons you dismiss them.

What is there to discuss?