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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.

They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.

What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.

Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.

I'm not going to ignore you, but I will say this:

If all you want is changing the equipment options, then sure, you can have an extra heavy or special per 5. Same as sisters. You get 2 specials or 1 special / 1 heavy for the squad of any size, plus the sergeant's weapon.

Tactical marines fixed?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
grots. T2 s2 ws5+ bs 4+(!) Ld5, move 5, 6+ armor, have s3 ap- 12' pistols. Cost 3 ppm.

The only thing they're good at is filling troop slots if you DON'T have 30 pts to get boyz instead. But you should always have 30 pts to field boyz unless you're playing <60 pt games.

The answer to the OP's question was, is, and shall forever be, grots.

Though, in honestly, they are able to effectively ignore morale via warbossess/runtherds, but in the end, they don't have any kind of combat effectiveness whatsoever.

In the past, their best feature was providing a cover save to units behind them, but that's not a thing anymore.

I suppose there's something to be said for having 30 point troops choices, but many detachments don't even require troops.

The quoted stat line also gave them a +1 LD buff, they are only LD 4.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.

They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.

What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.

Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.

I'm not going to ignore you, but I will say this:

If all you want is changing the equipment options, then sure, you can have an extra heavy or special per 5. Same as sisters. You get 2 specials or 1 special / 1 heavy for the squad of any size, plus the sergeant's weapon.

Tactical marines fixed?

Kinda. At 10 man squads they get an extra purchase like Skitarii. It's my main proposal to fix the regular Sister squad as well.
Equipment options were always their issue. Think about it:
1. Before the 6th edition codex, the Chaos Marine had more utility like Grey Hunters. The 4th edition Tactical Marine also had the option of using a Trait to get a second special weapon, which made them see a little use (though not much more).
2. The extra attack was only part of this. It was because:
3. You could make a generalist unit be able to specialize somewhat at a task
4. These units were taken.
5. Skitarii were doing okay as well until power creep got more ridiculous. I was actually planning to take a pure army to Vegas until I lost all my models because I actually believed in the army enough. That's more anecdotal though and I probably would've done terribly haha!
6. Look at the regular Battle Sister in the same manner. Equipment is done better than the Marine, but you have Dominions and Command Squads too.

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece

So Sisters of Battle should be seven points apiece?

They should at worst be 1 point less than a standard marine. Considering they have better options and can take 3 specials and have a 6++ save. Maybe they should be the same price.

The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.

Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?

Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.

Sternguard can carry all combiweapons, so the entire squad can be specialized. Company Veterans can have all but the sarge have non-combi special weapons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.

Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?

Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.

Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.

What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).

 Xenomancers wrote:
Considering they have better options

This is objectively untrue. Sisters have vastly inferior weapon options to tactical marines.

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.

10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.

33% is a lot more vulnerable than 8%.

And bear in mind, you can do the same damage to sisters with standard plasma as you do against marines with overcharged. Assault cannons also wound sisters on a 2+, which is terrifying with how many TLAC units there are out there-- and sisters already need to get in short range to begin with. Battle Sisters are also uniquely vulnerable to basic power swords or... any melee, really, they fall apart like tissue paper, and no, tacticals do not.

Using Tacticals over Battle Sisters provides a marked improvement in unit performance. You can just do so much more with Tacticals than you can ever hope to with basic Battle Sisters. Which is why Sisters players don't use battle sisters unless we have to to gain CP or ObSec.

I was talking about their durability per-point. Sorry, I thought this was clear when I said that the Sisters would still shoot 22% better than 11 point Marines, even though the individual models are all BS3+ and armed with bolters. Yes, the Sisters take 33% more wounds than Marines per-model. But of course if they cost 81% of what the Marines do then you only expect to lose 9% more points' worth of models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.

Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?

Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.

Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.

What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).

You don't see the problem with Tac Marines becoming "these are sternguard but troops?"

As soon as you put elite units in the troops slot, you make their elite-slot versions pointless.

In general - GW charges too much for toughness and saves and not enough for a wound. Doesn't charge enough for BS upgrades ether. Most weapons are too cheap also.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.

10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.

33% is a lot more vulnerable than 8%.

And bear in mind, you can do the same damage to sisters with standard plasma as you do against marines with overcharged. Assault cannons also wound sisters on a 2+, which is terrifying with how many TLAC units there are out there-- and sisters already need to get in short range to begin with. Battle Sisters are also uniquely vulnerable to basic power swords or... any melee, really, they fall apart like tissue paper, and no, tacticals do not.

Using Tacticals over Battle Sisters provides a marked improvement in unit performance. You can just do so much more with Tacticals than you can ever hope to with basic Battle Sisters. Which is why Sisters players don't use battle sisters unless we have to to gain CP or ObSec.

I was talking about their durability per-point. Sorry, I thought this was clear when I said that the Sisters would still shoot 22% better than 11 point Marines, even though the individual models are all BS3+ and armed with bolters. Yes, the Sisters take 33% more wounds than Marines per-model. But of course if they cost 81% of what the Marines do then you only expect to lose 9% more points' worth of models.

Don't forget that a reduction in defense is also a reduction in offense, because over the course of the game the number of shots a model fires is reduced when it dies obviously.

100 Marine bolter shots at 24" is 1300 points
100 Sororitas bolter shots at 24" is 900 points.

Reduce the Sororitas by 9% per turn and the Marines by 0% per turn (to represent the 9% durability reduction) and you end up with 100 Marine bolter shots for 1300 points and 46 degraded Sororitas bolter shots after six turns for 900 points, which means the Sororitas actually payed way more per shot at listbuilding.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.

They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.

What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.

Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.

I actually like this. I'd be a lot more inclined to take tacs if I could get 2 special weapons. For example, 2 plasma guns then a combi-plasma on the sergeant. If taking 10 man lets me take 2 plasma guns and 2 lascannons even better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think what it comes down to has already been mentioned, 40k is a specialist unit game and generalist units like tac squads, ig troops, etc. tend to suffer.

Even the fix slayer posted is really just letting you specialize tac squads into something like we can dev squads.

 ILegion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.

They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.

What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.

Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.

I actually like this. I'd be a lot more inclined to take tacs if I could get 2 special weapons. For example, 2 plasma guns then a combi-plasma on the sergeant. If taking 10 man lets me take 2 plasma guns and 2 lascannons even better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think what it comes down to has already been mentioned, 40k is a specialist unit game and generalist units like tac squads, ig troops, etc. tend to suffer.

Even the fix slayer posted is really just letting you specialize tac squads into something like we can dev squads.

The problem is that that squad is literally Sternguard, essentially.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Don't forget that a reduction in defense is also a reduction in offense, because over the course of the game the number of shots a model fires is reduced when it dies obviously.

100 Marine bolter shots at 24" is 1300 points
100 Sororitas bolter shots at 24" is 900 points.

Reduce the Sororitas by 9% per turn and the Marines by 0% per turn (to represent the 9% durability reduction) and you end up with 100 Marine bolter shots for 1300 points and 46 degraded Sororitas bolter shots after six turns for 900 points, which means the Sororitas actually payed way more per shot at listbuilding.

This is a bizarre and completely wrongheaded approach to trying to think through this. You can't represent a difference in durability like this and then conclude something about how many shots you're getting over the course of a game -- you get a very different result if you actually model a certain amount of incoming fire each turn, because it results in our shooting being front-loaded instead of 1300 points of Marines firing at full efficiency all game. You're also completely ignoring the other side's losses; the Sisters are inflicting more casualties on the enemy starting from turn 1, because they have 400 extra points of stuff elsewhere and the collections we're interested in are shooting identically, so they expect to take less incoming fire as the game goes on.

sterngaurd aren't very good ether. Their special issue bolters aren't bad - but they lose them when they upgrade to combis.

They need a special rule that allows them to shoot special ammo out of combis AND OR the ability to shoot both weapons without -1 to hit penalty. Reduction in drop pod cost would go a long way too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ILegion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.

They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.

What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.

Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.

I actually like this. I'd be a lot more inclined to take tacs if I could get 2 special weapons. For example, 2 plasma guns then a combi-plasma on the sergeant. If taking 10 man lets me take 2 plasma guns and 2 lascannons even better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think what it comes down to has already been mentioned, 40k is a specialist unit game and generalist units like tac squads, ig troops, etc. tend to suffer.

Even the fix slayer posted is really just letting you specialize tac squads into something like we can dev squads.

The problem is that that squad is literally Sternguard, essentially.

But it's not. I can kit sternguard out with all combi-plasma, combi-melta, or just keep their regular bolters that don't suck. They have more attacks for CC and higher leadership. They still have a role and a tac squad that is a little more specialized won't be stepping on sternguard toes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
sterngaurd aren't very good ether. Their special issue bolters aren't bad - but they lose them when they upgrade to combis.

They need a special rule that allows them to shoot special ammo out of combis AND OR the ability to shoot both weapons without -1 to hit penalty. Reduction in drop pod cost would go a long way too.

I do think it's silly they suddenly can't take the special ammo in a combi weapon. It just doesn't make any sense. And drop pods price increase was a little much.

Personally, I haven't played against all armies or anything, but I think one of the worst troops is the pink horror. at 8 points you get a S3T3 model with 18' S3 AP0 shooting, and the psychic ability is only worth while at over 10 models, and even then only goes off 33% of the time anyway. Sure they get the 4++ save, but every time I have used them any sort of volume of fire puts them down relatively easily then moral usually finishes them unless you waste a CP to save them. Also their save is not improved via cover. I suspect blue horrors are probably worse as they have all the disadvantages of pink, without the shooting, and are still 5 points, while the brimstones are the same but cheaper. Brimstones are awful units but for the price which is what makes them good because you can block deep strikers for cheap or hold objectives for cheap. Pink horrors which are only marginally better than a brimestone are 8 points, almost three times as much. Hands down I think Pink maybe Blue, horrors are the worst troop unit.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I was talking about their durability per-point.

Then I'm still not sure how you got to either 8 or 9 percent; sisters at 9ppm vs marines at 11ppm take 15% more damage per point by my calculation (marines are 18% more costly while taking 33.3% less damage, 33-18=15% difference).

As for damage, assuming same points (99 points, or 9 tacs at 11ppm vs 11 battle sisters at 9ppm, both of which are valid if unorthodox squad sizes):

18 bolter shots vs T3 3+ save: 2.667 kills
22 bolter shots vs T4 3+ save: 2.444 kills

The tacticals will do more damage to sisters point per point before upgrades in a pure shooting competition (in melee, their advantage is even larger, killing twice as many sisters as sisters are capable of killing marines, in spite of their 18% price difference). Point per point, 11 point marines would be flat out better than 9 point sisters in every possible way. So if marines got a reduction to 11 points, why should sisters have to be stuck at 9-- to make whiny marine players who are incapable of using their units properly feel better about themselves?

 Melissia wrote:
Then I'm still not sure how you got to either 8 or 9 percent; sisters at 9ppm vs marines at 11ppm take 15% more damage per point by my calculation (marines are 18% more costly while taking 33.3% less damage, 33-18=15% difference).

As for damage, assuming same points (99 points, or 9 tacs at 11ppm vs 11 battle sisters at 9ppm, both of which are valid if unorthodox squad sizes):

18 bolter shots vs T3 3+ save: 2.667 kills
22 bolter shots vs T4 3+ save: 2.444 kills

The tacticals will do more damage to sisters point per point before upgrades in a pure shooting competition (in melee, their advantage is even larger, nearly two times better).

Point per point, 11 point marines would be flat out better than 9 point sisters. So if marines got a reduction to 11 points, why should sisters have to be stuck at 9-- to make whiny marine players who are incapable of using their units properly feel better about themselves?

Marines don't take 33% less damage than Sisters against S4. They take 25% less damage than Sisters -- they're wounded on only 3 of the 4 rolls that would put a wound on a Sister. Sisters take 33% more damage than Marines. You've switched the basis of comparison. You get the number you're looking for here by taking 11/9 * 3/4, which gives you that Sisters are about 92% as durable as (11 point) Marines against S4 attacks, or that Marines are about 109% as durable as Sisters (this is just one over the other result).

You then do this shootout calculation and weirdly conclude something about tacticals doing more damage point per point even though you were only looking at kills. If we actually look at what your calculation says about how each side is doing, "point per point", we see that the Marines are killing 24 points of Sisters while the Sisters are killing almost 27 points of (11 point) Marines -- the Sisters are coming out ahead. Edit: Sorry, I did the Marines' points with 13 just now. And this is S4 shooting, where, if Sisters are balanced against Marines, the Marines should be coming out on top, since the Sisters are relatively more durable in the face of higher-strength weaponry.

p5freak wrote:
A 20 model buffed necron warriors unit is almost unkillable. A cryptek nearby gets +1 to RP, thats a 50% chance. They cryptek also gives a 5+ invuln sv. A ghost ark lets you do RP rolls for slain models, which means you get two RP rolls for one slain model. Thats a 75% chance that a warrior gets up again. Those who dont reanimate arent lost, they can be reanimated next turn, slain models arent removed. You can remove losses from the back of the unit, and place reanimated models in front of the unit, making it move forward faster. And if they get within 12" their shots double. Which model get a AP-1, rapid fire 1 weapon for 12ppm ??

In theory yes this is true, however the vast majority of weapons pointed at warriors do not have ap-2, just huge amount of shots, so the 5++ is pointless.. I stopped bringing ghost arks as they never made it past t1. 20 warriors is actually quite easy to murder in one turn, not granting their RP.

I understand that a lot of people playing necrons don't know how to deal with RP but trust me, once you know how to deal with them you almost never get RP. Once you focus fire you knock the wind out of our sails

Basically, if you want marines to be 11 points you'll have to drop them to T3. If you want them to be 9 points you'll have to drop them to T3, S3, and WS4+. ATSKNF might end up on the chopping block too.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Then I'm still not sure how you got to either 8 or 9 percent; sisters at 9ppm vs marines at 11ppm take 15% more damage per point by my calculation (marines are 18% more costly while taking 33.3% less damage, 33-18=15% difference).

As for damage, assuming same points (99 points, or 9 tacs at 11ppm vs 11 battle sisters at 9ppm, both of which are valid if unorthodox squad sizes):

18 bolter shots vs T3 3+ save: 2.667 kills
22 bolter shots vs T4 3+ save: 2.444 kills

The tacticals will do more damage to sisters point per point before upgrades in a pure shooting competition (in melee, their advantage is even larger, nearly two times better).

Point per point, 11 point marines would be flat out better than 9 point sisters. So if marines got a reduction to 11 points, why should sisters have to be stuck at 9-- to make whiny marine players who are incapable of using their units properly feel better about themselves?

Marines don't take 33% less damage than Sisters against T4. They take 25% less damage than Sisters -- they're wounded on only 3 of the 4 rolls that would put a wound on a Sister. Sisters take 33% more damage than Marines. You've switched the basis of comparison. You get the number you're looking for here by taking 11/9 * 3/4, which gives you that Sisters are about 92% as durable as Marines against S4 attacks, or that Marines are about 109% as durable as Sisters (this is just one over the other result).

You then do this shootout calculation and weirdly conclude something about tacticals doing more damage point per point even though you were only looking at kills. If we actually look at what your calculation says about how each side is doing, "point per point", we see that the Marines are killing 24 points of Sisters while the Sisters are killing almost 27 points of (11 point) Marines -- the Sisters are coming out ahead. Edit: Sorry, I did the Marines' points with 13 just now. And this is S4 shooting, where, if Sisters are balanced against Marines, the Marines should be coming out on top, since the Sisters are relatively more durable in the face of higher-strength weaponry.

What? Sisters are less durable against assault cannons / multilasers / autocannons / S3 powerfists / Missile pods / non-overcharged plasma / tau plasma / everything else strength 6 and 7 than marines...

... and anything heavier is antitank weaponry, in most cases.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What? Sisters are less durable against assault cannons / multilasers / autocannons / S3 powerfists / Missile pods / non-overcharged plasma / tau plasma / everything else strength 6 and 7 than marines...

... and anything heavier is antitank weaponry, in most cases.

Once again, I'm talking per-point. I have a hard time believing this was not clear from my post. At 11 points, Marines would be about as durable as Sisters per-point against S6 and S7, and then less durable against S5 and S8+.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Marines don't take 33% less damage than Sisters against T4.

Show your math, then.

I quote from the math I used:

10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.

(I do not actually round any of these numbers until the end, but the differences are minute, so I round to 3 decimal places for ease of
display)

10*(2/3)=6.667 hits.
Vs T3: 6.667*(2/3)=4.444 wounds. 3+ save: 4.444*(1/3)=1.481 kills
Vs T4: 6.667*(2/3)=3.333 wounds. 3+ save: 3.333*(1/3)=1.111 kills
1.481-1.111=0.37 actual increase in damage taken by 10 bolter shots in comparison to tacticals.
Converted in to percent: 0.37/1.111= 33.3% increase in damage taken by boltguns in comparison to tacticals.
In other words, if a tactical squad took 1.481 damage instead of 1.111, it would be a 33% increase in the damage it took, thus demonstrating the value of T4 over T3.

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Marines don't take 33% less damage than Sisters against T4.

Show your math, then.

I quote from the math I used:

10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.

(I do not actually round any of these numbers until the end, but the differences are minute, so I round to 3 decimal places for ease of
display)

10*(2/3)=6.667 hits.
Vs T3: 6.667*(2/3)=4.444 wounds. 3+ save: 4.444*(1/3)=1.481 kills
Vs T4: 6.667*(2/3)=3.333 wounds. 3+ save: 3.333*(1/3)=1.111 kills
1.481-1.111=0.37 actual increase in damage taken by 10 bolter shots in comparison to tacticals.
Converted in to percent: 0.37/1.111= 33.3% increase in damage taken by boltguns in comparison to tacticals.
In other words, if a tactical squad took 1.481 damage instead of 1.111, it would be a 33% increase in the damage it took, thus demonstrating the value of T4 over T3.

Yes, I agree with all of this. This is not what you said earlier. Earlier you said that Marines take 33% less damage, not that Sisters take 33% more. I explained this. Your switching of the basis of comparison in this way gave you the wrong number for durability.

Edit: Just to be clear, the issue here is that 3/4 is 75%, or 25% less than 100%. 4/3 is 133%, or 33% more than 100%.

I think a lot of the misconceptions surrounding this discussion have to do with misunderstanding the math behind it. I will try to whip up some graphs over the weekend to demonstrate what the issue is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.

Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?

Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.

Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.

What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).

You don't see the problem with Tac Marines becoming "these are sternguard but troops?"

As soon as you put elite units in the troops slot, you make their elite-slot versions pointless.

Not really?

It's their analogue to the Elite slot in the same manner as Assault Marines to Vanguard, but that's a different topic right there (and I have my fixes for them if you're at all interested). So you would expect them to be kitted out similarly.
If you're going solely for Special Weapons and Heavy Weapons, Sternguard are maybe 4-5 points more for the extra Attack, LD, and Special Issue Boltgun. That's not a bad deal really in the first place. So you're paying for a more "elite" version of the unit, which is how it should be. They're same durability but Sternguard are better offensively even without special weapons.

In fact, Sternguard are almost perfectly balanced outside their Combi-Weapons not using Special Ammo for no good reason, and their Storm Bolters not being special issue.

It's weird to me that this thread got derailed because I asserted that Marines are not that underpowered.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.

Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?

Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.

Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.

What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).

You don't see the problem with Tac Marines becoming "these are sternguard but troops?"

As soon as you put elite units in the troops slot, you make their elite-slot versions pointless.

Not really?

It's their analogue to the Elite slot in the same manner as Assault Marines to Vanguard, but that's a different topic right there (and I have my fixes for them if you're at all interested). So you would expect them to be kitted out similarly.
If you're going solely for Special Weapons and Heavy Weapons, Sternguard are maybe 4-5 points more for the extra Attack, LD, and Special Issue Boltgun. That's not a bad deal really in the first place. So you're paying for a more "elite" version of the unit, which is how it should be. They're same durability but Sternguard are better offensively even without special weapons.

In fact, Sternguard are almost perfectly balanced outside their Combi-Weapons not using Special Ammo for no good reason, and their Storm Bolters not being special issue.

Martel would probably disagree... but here's a question:

Why is it okay for Sternguard to pay 4-5 points for an extra attack, LD, and special issue boltgun (all of which are generalist upgrades) but it's not okay for tacts to pay to be generalists? Would tacts be good if you simply gave them 2-3 points more and +1 Atk and LD?