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.

Bharring wrote:
Xeno/Martel - the point is that, if we want to constructively discuss balance, we need to understand how they have performed.

Claims like they've always been avoided like the plague make it a lot harder to actually discuss balance. And how can saying "They have not always been trash that was avoided" somehow mean I'm justifying the *current* points?

And do you really still think lists from before the 7e SM codex were using Gladius? And that lists with 6 Tac squads beyond min in that era were "avoiding PA like the plague"?

Do you also think Gladius was involved in the Rhino Rush tactics that preceeded 7th Ed?

Do we really need another 10 pages of denial and revisionism?

Rhino rush in 7th was never a thing - I played marines all through 7th. Never once did I think - man - I'd rather take a rhino over a drop pod. EVER. Never once did I consider putting tacs in a drop pod ether except as bare minimum tax with a 2x flamer or melta or gravcannon. I always took scouts in a LSS over them because they were clearly better. Scouts in LSS compared favorably to a tac squad with a free razor lol.

Plus - warhammer world tornaments are a joke. Bunch of fluff players that got beat by a power gamer.

Hyperbole is absolutely ridiculous to bring up in a discussion that essentially revolves around whether it's more fair to round a point value to 10 or 11.

 Galef wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Galef wrote:
If we have to change the points rather than change the stats, then I'd say 11ppm for Tac Marines and CSMs with just bolters

I still think they should be elevated in durability instead, but if that is too much to ask, then 11ppm it is.

What do you have in mind in terms of increasing their durability?

I already mentioned it: +1 Wound for all Marines/ CSMs. If things like Bikes have 3 wounds and Jump pack Marines have 2wounds each, that takes more pressure off the Troops, which by having 2 wounds each, now you kinda have to use multi-damage weapons on them. 3 wounds also makes Terminators closer to viable.

Yes, I know the counter argument is that "players will just use more multi-damage weapons", but think that through. Most armies CANNOT take that much multi-damage weaponry, and MOST multi-damage weapons do more than 2 wounds. If your opponent is having to use a Lascannon to take out a 13ppm Marine, who is the real winner there?

Yes, there are units and armies that can take a ton of 2-3 damage weapons, but those weapons are still killing Marines right now anyway.
Having +1W across the board for non-vehicle/non-character Marines/CSMs is a simple and quite frankly elegant solution for help not only Tac Marines, but also Jump packs and Terminators be more efficient, particularly against small arms fire, which is the point
.
-

My buddy already has his 13 autocannon list ready for dw. Lascannons are old news thanks to the last three codices.

Recalculate for S3 or cover?

S3:
13x(1/3)(1/3) = 13/9 pts/hit vs Marines
12x(1/2)(1/2) = 3 pts/hit vs DAs
7x(1/2)(1/2) = 7/4 pts/hit vs FWs

Ap4, Cover:
13x(1/2)(1/6) = 13/12 pts/hit vs Marines
12x(2/3)(1/3) = 24/9 pts/hit vs DAs
7x(2/3)(1/3) = 14/9 pts/hit vs FWs

S3, Cover:
13x(1/3)(1/6) = 13/18 pts/hit vs Marines
12x(1/2)(1/3) = 2 pts/hit vs DAs
7x(1/2)(1/3) = 7/6 pts/hit vs FWs

The other end of the spectrum:
S8 AP -4:
13x(2/3)(1)
12x(2/3)(1)
7x(2/3)(1)

So in the worst case, they die evenly by model, putting DAs at
*08%* cheaper/wound than SM, although FW become 85% cheaper.

Worst case the other way, DAs are 270% more expensive per wound, and 60% more expensive per wound.

Marines really are more durable per point, overall.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno/Martel - the point is that, if we want to constructively discuss balance, we need to understand how they have performed.

Claims like they've always been avoided like the plague make it a lot harder to actually discuss balance. And how can saying "They have not always been trash that was avoided" somehow mean I'm justifying the *current* points?

And do you really still think lists from before the 7e SM codex were using Gladius? And that lists with 6 Tac squads beyond min in that era were "avoiding PA like the plague"?

Do you also think Gladius was involved in the Rhino Rush tactics that preceeded 7th Ed?

Do we really need another 10 pages of denial and revisionism?

Rhino rush in 7th was never a thing - I played marines all through 7th. Never once did I think - man - I'd rather take a rhino over a drop pod. EVER. Never once did I consider putting tacs in a drop pod ether except as bare minimum tax with a 2x flamer or melta or gravcannon. I always took scouts in a LSS over them because they were clearly better. Scouts in LSS compared favorably to a tac squad with a free razor lol.

Plus - warhammer world tornaments are a joke. Bunch of fluff players that got beat by a power gamer.

He did say pre 7th Ed Rhino Rush

 Mr Morden wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Stormbolters. They get 3 per 5 chicks. That's amazingly efficient.

Slightly less efficient in that they pay Deathwatch rather than regular marine prices for their SB's (4 points vs 2, unless I've missed something in a FAQ) but a 40% increase in price for a 100% increase in firepower is pretty solid though.

Does kind of make your price point complaint interesting that you're factoring in the sisters as having no gear (9ppm) when they're getting shot, but you're factoring them as having 3 storm bolters per 5 when they're shooting. Raises the average price of a sister in the squad to 11.4.

Yep you did miss it in CA - Sisters now pay 2pts for Stormbolters.

Sisters get -1 in WS, S and T, far less heavy weapon selections, no ATSKNF, currently don't have Regimental tactics or loads of Stratagems and only "may" get them in 6-8 months time "Emperor Willing".

They have a 6++ Save (occasionally useful), a ultra crap Deny the Witch and a couple of Acts of Faith which are seldom used on Battle Sisters.

If you make Marines 10pts then make Sisters 7-8pts max.

On the problem - no easy answer - GW always wanted to sell lots of SM so they were relatively weak compared to fluff, they also had the snowflake chapter marines who have to be a bit better than their vanilla equivalents to justify their own existence.

I vote - just give battle sisters the exact same stats as space marines for the exact same points. Removing the stats that don't really matter str, T, Leadship reroll to make yourself cheaper will always be better than paying for stats that matter...3+ save number of shots per point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno/Martel - the point is that, if we want to constructively discuss balance, we need to understand how they have performed.

Claims like they've always been avoided like the plague make it a lot harder to actually discuss balance. And how can saying "They have not always been trash that was avoided" somehow mean I'm justifying the *current* points?

And do you really still think lists from before the 7e SM codex were using Gladius? And that lists with 6 Tac squads beyond min in that era were "avoiding PA like the plague"?

Do you also think Gladius was involved in the Rhino Rush tactics that preceeded 7th Ed?

Do we really need another 10 pages of denial and revisionism?

Rhino rush in 7th was never a thing - I played marines all through 7th. Never once did I think - man - I'd rather take a rhino over a drop pod. EVER. Never once did I consider putting tacs in a drop pod ether except as bare minimum tax with a 2x flamer or melta or gravcannon. I always took scouts in a LSS over them because they were clearly better. Scouts in LSS compared favorably to a tac squad with a free razor lol.

Plus - warhammer world tornaments are a joke. Bunch of fluff players that got beat by a power gamer.

He did say pre 7th Ed Rhino Rush

So 3rd eddition?

the_scotsman wrote:
a couple points of melee stats that aren't worth much[/quoteYeah, that'd be a steal, obviously not on the assault marine but on the other two all day every day.

It's kind of a package deal though - part of the trade off for being cheaper is that all of your units would be worse in that category, not just the ones that get to ignore the penalty for the most part.

How does T not matter - just played 3 games of 40k in 40 mins last night and T was important for us all.

Consequently I think Str does matter as well and WS.

re which edition was Rhino Rush - just saying he was saying pre 7th - likely he will come back on specifics.

Same cost/stats for Sisters as marines - well it would be a shame - I think it would be better to get rid of all the snowflake marines variants and give them to basic Marines as an option.

So Combine the Tac Marines, Grey Hunters etc as one "marine" option which would allow more variety for Chapters. Same with Terminators, combine the two squads so you can have squads of shooty and fighty Marines.

Martel732 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Galef wrote:
If we have to change the points rather than change the stats, then I'd say 11ppm for Tac Marines and CSMs with just bolters

I still think they should be elevated in durability instead, but if that is too much to ask, then 11ppm it is.

What do you have in mind in terms of increasing their durability?

I already mentioned it: +1 Wound for all Marines/ CSMs. If things like Bikes have 3 wounds and Jump pack Marines have 2wounds each, that takes more pressure off the Troops, which by having 2 wounds each, now you kinda have to use multi-damage weapons on them. 3 wounds also makes Terminators closer to viable.

Yes, I know the counter argument is that "players will just use more multi-damage weapons", but think that through. Most armies CANNOT take that much multi-damage weaponry, and MOST multi-damage weapons do more than 2 wounds. If your opponent is having to use a Lascannon to take out a 13ppm Marine, who is the real winner there?

Yes, there are units and armies that can take a ton of 2-3 damage weapons, but those weapons are still killing Marines right now anyway.
Having +1W across the board for non-vehicle/non-character Marines/CSMs is a simple and quite frankly elegant solution for help not only Tac Marines, but also Jump packs and Terminators be more efficient, particularly against small arms fire, which is the point
.
-

My buddy already has his 13 autocannon list ready for dw. Lascannons are old news thanks to the last three codices.

That's fine. That list will still kill as many Marines as they currently are. I am not seeing your point. An Autocannon still gives a Marine a 4+ armour (or 3+ in cover)
If that save is failed, it should kill the Marine outright.
Having an additional wound would make Marines twice as durable against the lasgun fire accompanying those Autocannons. Which, again, should be the point.

Heavier weapons should still be able to kill Marines, but small arms fire should not. And if you also bump Bikes and Terminators up to 3 wounds each, those Autocannons won't be as effective against those units. Everything gets improved effectiveness in one go with out rejigging points cost to making those units immune to X

-

First off, assuming cover is a huge mistake, but almost everyone I know puts all the objectives they can out in the open vs marines. Also, armies like Drukhari ignore it just cuz.

I didn't say S3. I said S5. And yes, DA are in deep crap in 8th b/c of their price point. I wasn't talking about DA. YOU brought them up. I'm talking about the cheap, throwaway troops that are 7 pts or less, or those rocking power armor for 9 pts.

Splinter:

0.17 marines per hit, or 2.16 points
0.25 firewarroris per hit, or 1.75 points

cover is a bad assumption against drukhari, but with it,

0.08 marines per hit, 1.08 points
0.16 firewarriors per hit, or 1.12 points.

Marines have a marginal advantage in cover, but this is completey neglecting the fact the firewarriors have almost double the shots!

Now for the really bad stuff

Disintegrators:

0.56 marines per hit, or 7.2 points
0.66 firewarrior per hit, or 4.6 points.

In cover:

0.44 marines per hit, or 5.7 points
0.55 firewarriors, or 3.9 points.

The price point of the model always dominates. Quit acting like it doesn't. DA are bad because they are costed like marines. But that doesn't make marines good, it just makes DA really bad.

What do you want to compare them to? A guardsman vs a marine has a 6% chance of killing a marine vs a 30% chance of a marine killing a guardsman (or to put it another way outside of rapid fire range you need 18 guardsmen to shoot their lasguns to kill a marine, or 3.4 marines to fire their bolters to kill a guardsman. Note give marines a -1AP and it changes to 2.7 marines needed).

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Galef wrote:
If we have to change the points rather than change the stats, then I'd say 11ppm for Tac Marines and CSMs with just bolters

I still think they should be elevated in durability instead, but if that is too much to ask, then 11ppm it is.

What do you have in mind in terms of increasing their durability?

I already mentioned it: +1 Wound for all Marines/ CSMs. If things like Bikes have 3 wounds and Jump pack Marines have 2wounds each, that takes more pressure off the Troops, which by having 2 wounds each, now you kinda have to use multi-damage weapons on them. 3 wounds also makes Terminators closer to viable.

Yes, I know the counter argument is that "players will just use more multi-damage weapons", but think that through. Most armies CANNOT take that much multi-damage weaponry, and MOST multi-damage weapons do more than 2 wounds. If your opponent is having to use a Lascannon to take out a 13ppm Marine, who is the real winner there?

Yes, there are units and armies that can take a ton of 2-3 damage weapons, but those weapons are still killing Marines right now anyway.
Having +1W across the board for non-vehicle/non-character Marines/CSMs is a simple and quite frankly elegant solution for help not only Tac Marines, but also Jump packs and Terminators be more efficient, particularly against small arms fire, which is the point
.
-

My buddy already has his 13 autocannon list ready for dw. Lascannons are old news thanks to the last three codices.

That's fine. That list will still kill as many Marines as they currently are. I am not seeing your point. An Autocannon still gives a Marine a 4+ armour (or 3+ in cover)
If that save is failed, it should kill the Marine outright.
Having an additional wound would make Marines twice as durable against the lasgun fire accompanying those Autocannons. Which, again, should be the point.

Heavier weapons should still be able to kill Marines, but small arms fire should not. And if you also bump Bikes and Terminators up to 3 wounds each, those Autocannons won't be as effective against those units. Everything gets improved effectiveness in one go with out rejigging points cost to making those units immune to X

-

It's an anti-primaris ploy that also works over Durkhari and Tau and Necrons pretty well. The +1 W thing is a good idea, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
What do you want to compare them to? A guardsman vs a marine has a 6% chance of killing a marine vs a 30% chance of a marine killing a guardsman (or to put it another way outside of rapid fire range you need 18 guardsmen to shoot their lasguns to kill a marine, or 3.4 marines to fire their bolters to kill a guardsman. Note give marines a -1AP and it changes to 2.7 marines needed).

Guardsmen are an unfair bar because they are insanely good at 4ppm. I'm looking at the 7-9 ppm bracket.

 Galef wrote:

I already mentioned it: +1 Wound for all Marines/ CSMs.

Would they not need to go up in points at all to justify an extra wound? Maybe to 15pts per model?

Maybe, but then that just makes their firepower/pt even worse. Just like for intercessors. This is a very annoying problem.

Never mind. Was trying to be cute, and it didn't work. Please continue on with your lives in service to The Emperor, who watches and protects.

 Mr Morden wrote:
How does T not matter - just played 3 games of 40k in 40 mins last night and T was important for us all.

Consequently I think Str does matter as well and WS.

re which edition was Rhino Rush - just saying he was saying pre 7th - likely he will come back on specifics.

Same cost/stats for Sisters as marines - well it would be a shame - I think it would be better to get rid of all the snowflake marines variants and give them to basic Marines as an option.

So Combine the Tac Marines, Grey Hunters etc as one "marine" option which would allow more variety for Chapters. Same with Terminators, combine the two squads so you can have squads of shooty and fighty Marines.

Str and WS are meaningless on 1 attack models with 0 CC weapons - it could matter for the sargent but even then you are wasting points giving him anything but a gun. You could give them str 1 and it wouldn't make a difference. T does increase durability - but it's not enough Vs str 5 (a very common anti infantry str) it doesn't even make a difference. The difference between wounding on 2's and 3's is also minimal both result in catastrophic damage for the sqaud or if you get to take your 2+ saves in cover vs trash weapons - again - it doesn't make much a difference. Not to justfiy a 4 point increase. It barely justifies a 1 point increase.

This doesn't even take into account weapons like plasma which treat a sister and a marine exactly the same. Increased point lost per wound risk without any return. (ofc this is the biggest problem) Paying for stats you don't get any benefit from.

The difference between space marines and sisters needs to be worked out with sisters having some special rule to make up for their similar cost to a 10 point marine...like holy bolts or something or some useful act of faith they can use because they are moderately less durable. Sisters existing though should not prevent marines being properly priced against other infantry like kabalites(doesn't care about t3/4)/firewarriors(doesn't care about t3/4)/IS(doesn't care about anything - cost 4 points - gets around str 3 problems by shooting at t5 targets).

We have even gotten to marines' terrible offense.

It takes 23-24 boltgun shots to cause 7 casualties to guardsmen, which is about where you can expect them to break due to battle shock.

That's 300 pts of marines outside double tap range to remove 40 pts. But tell me again how the boltgun is good against light infantry.

Even if we made them 11ppm, that's still 250 pts of marines to remove 40 pts of guardsmen.

Miscostedness hits on both ends.

If you think S and WS aren't relevant and T doesn't mean much for your purposes, have you considered taking a unit that doesn't pay for those? Like Sisters or Necrons, depending on what you're looking for?

I'd agree that S4 WS4 vs 3 is probably not worth a full point on it's own, but if you want to take Marines, it should be because you want what Marines do. Which is, in part, being passable at both CC and shooting.

Now it's quite possible that they overpay for that capability, and/or are otherwise overcosted (they do/are), but when trying to balance the Marine, we should consider their whole toolchest.

Marines with +1 W do exist. They're called Primaris. They also have all the other things Marines wanted - all guys take a weapon, better boltguns, etc. The game put a much higher price point on them. It could be argued, but isn't this argument. I'd rather Primaris still had the 1 special/1heavy/1 sarge the way Tacs did, but that's just me wishlisting.

Sure, against S5 being T4 isn't any better than T3. But against S3 and S4, it's a big deal. And there's a lot more volume of S3/S4 than S5.

Sure, T4 isn't worth 4 pts on its own compared to sisters. I'm not sure many, if any, posters here are saying so.

Martel732 wrote:
We have even gotten to marines' terrible offense.

It takes 23-24 boltgun shots to cause 7 casualties to guardsmen, which is about where you can expect them to break due to battle shock.

That's 300 pts of marines outside double tap range to remove 40 pts. But tell me again how the boltgun is good against light infantry.

Even if we made them 11ppm, that's still 250 pts of marines to remove 40 pts of guardsmen.

How good are you expecting Marines to be when not even within the optimal range of their weapons?

Regardless, what would you suggest to improve the Boltgun?

The S and WS would be more relevant if I could get more than 10/35 marines into CC without being cut to bloody ribbons. And having more than one swing would be nice, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We have even gotten to marines' terrible offense.

It takes 23-24 boltgun shots to cause 7 casualties to guardsmen, which is about where you can expect them to break due to battle shock.

That's 300 pts of marines outside double tap range to remove 40 pts. But tell me again how the boltgun is good against light infantry.

Even if we made them 11ppm, that's still 250 pts of marines to remove 40 pts of guardsmen.

How good are you expecting Marines to be when not even within the optimal range of their weapons?

Regardless, what would you suggest to improve the Boltgun?

Make marines cheaper. It's an indirect buff for the boltgun. My point is that for 13 ppm, they should be able to gun down 4 ppm models better than that. I shouldn't have to fire 8X point value at 4ppm models. Ever.

Drukhari ignore cover in exactly the same way Chaos Marines and Space Marines ignore cover. i.e, it's available on the kabal trait that nobody's going to be taking because they're all going to be going black heart for agents of vect.

This is my problem with your arguments, Martel. You argue in a fundamentally dishonest way, slipping in gak like that little "oh, armies like drukhari just ignore cover" and shifting things from 'number of models removed' to 'number of points removed'. Even when I agree with you, it's hard to have a discussion when any data you bring up is either twisted or hyperbolic.

the_scotsman wrote:
Drukhari ignore cover in exactly the same way Chaos Marines and Space Marines ignore cover. i.e, it's available on the kabal trait that nobody's going to be taking because they're all going to be going black heart for agents of vect.

Everyone in my group is using it, because they can put other obsessions in the boat and get double tactics. Ignoring cover makes splinter mow throw 3+ armor save models, and everyone in my play group knows it.

Martel732 wrote:
We have even gotten to marines' terrible offense.

It takes 23-24 boltgun shots to cause 7 casualties to guardsmen, which is about where you can expect them to break due to battle shock.

That's 300 pts of marines outside double tap range to remove 40 pts. But tell me again how the boltgun is good against light infantry.

Even if we made them 11ppm, that's still 250 pts of marines to remove 40 pts of guardsmen.

Miscostedness hits on both ends.

*All* rapid-fire weapons are horribly point inefficient outside of rapid fire range.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We have even gotten to marines' terrible offense.

It takes 23-24 boltgun shots to cause 7 casualties to guardsmen, which is about where you can expect them to break due to battle shock.

That's 300 pts of marines outside double tap range to remove 40 pts. But tell me again how the boltgun is good against light infantry.

Even if we made them 11ppm, that's still 250 pts of marines to remove 40 pts of guardsmen.

Miscostedness hits on both ends.

*All* rapid-fire weapons are horribly point inefficient outside of rapid fire range.

You sure about that? It looks more passable to me with 11 ppm marines than 13 ppm. Those marines still aren't that efficient even *in* rapid fire range. Of course, guardsmen are the worst targets ever, I know.

Why should Marines be particularly good at removing Guard outside RF?

Inside RF, based on your numbers, that's 150pts of Marines to remove 40pts of Guardsmen.

Guardsmen RF shooting marines kill:
2x(1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 1/9 Marines

So it'd take 9*5 Guard * 4 pts to kill a 65pt naked Marine squad - or 180 pts to kill 65

Marines kill the Guard at about a 40% rate of return.
Guards kill the Marines at about a 36% rate of return.

Does that really mean Marines suck and Guard are OP? While that is true, I don't agree with your supporting evidence.

To go one step further, a 10-man Reaper squad has a lower return on wiping Marines off the board than Marines have wiping Guard.

the_scotsman wrote:
Drukhari ignore cover in exactly the same way Chaos Marines and Space Marines ignore cover. i.e, it's available on the kabal trait that nobody's going to be taking because they're all going to be going black heart for agents of vect.

This is my problem with your arguments, Martel. You argue in a fundamentally dishonest way, slipping in gak like that little "oh, armies like drukhari just ignore cover" and shifting things from 'number of models removed' to 'number of points removed'. Even when I agree with you, it's hard to have a discussion when any data you bring up is either twisted or hyperbolic.

Flayed skull is superior to black heart. Smart DE players just run their warriors as flayed skull and their ravagers as blackheart though.

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Drukhari ignore cover in exactly the same way Chaos Marines and Space Marines ignore cover. i.e, it's available on the kabal trait that nobody's going to be taking because they're all going to be going black heart for agents of vect.

Everyone in my group is using it, because they can put other obsessions in the boat and get double tactics. Ignoring cover makes splinter mow throw 3+ armor save models, and everyone in my play group knows it.

no, they can't get two tactics on a single unit, if they're doing that, they're cheating. The Flayed Skull tactic clearly says "MODELS WITH THIS OBSESSION get these benefits when on board a transport that can fly".

The transport does not magically grant ignores cover and reroll hit rolls of one to the units embarked inside it.

I somewhat agree that space marines are overcosted, but not by more than a point. they are on the low end of what is worth 13 points and high end of 12. 11 would be pushing it, 10 would make them probably the best deal in the game.

now I could get behind giving them an extra wound to show just how tough they are supposed to be, but that extra wound would need a cost to be balanced. obviously that should not double their cost and as I think the attacks, and rest of the stat block should stay the same a 2w tactical marine would IMHO be worth around 1 more point than now at 14-15 ppm would need to play it out to see how they are doing. I'd like to see them get +1 attack too which would probably bring them into solid 15 ppm territory but make them more the dangerous terrible warriors they are supposed to be. primaris then also get another wound and attack at the same points changes.

note I am comparing to a lot of other troops here and some of the considered great troops are a bit too good for the points. the necron warrior as an example should be a 14 point model that costs 12 points for some reason. a guardsman should cost 5 points per model but is only 4 because... reasons.

on the other side of the coin you have dire avengers that cost 12 points and return probably 10-11 points worth of performance. orks that are barely worth 6 points, but are there (would be worth it if the ignored wounds on a 6 instead of 6+ armor). strike teams are probably the most appropriately costed imo at 7 ppm.

It was just the first thing that came to mind.

Paying 13 ppm for a two S4 AP 0 shots at 12" is not good offensive output. I shouldn't have mentioned guardsmen.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Flayed skull is superior to black heart. Smart DE players just run their warriors as flayed skull and their ravagers as blackheart though.

Because no one is allowed to play a theme for fun. It's mathhammer or GTFO.