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.

What about a situation where list tailoring is not an option?

Martel732 wrote:
Just to illustrate the point,

Marines lose 0.15 marines to a bolter hit outside cover and .083 marines inside cover.

Guardsmen lose 0.44 guardsmen outside cover and 0.33 guardsmen inside cover.

The drop for the marines is much more dramatic.

.15-.084=.066
.44-.33=.11

In your example guardsmen have saved .11 guardsmen by being in cover and marines only .06 of a marine by being in cover that says cover saves guardsmen more than marines.

To be blunt power armour marines may aswell not exsist in 8th edition its just handing your opponent an advantage when you place them on the table. Dev squads sort of work but cheap body saturation serves you better given people love high AP multi damage weapons in 8th.
Why GW made plasma over powered I don't know, S6 safe and S7 gets hot would have been fine but S7 and S8 gets hot was always going to be broken to anyone with half a brain.
Making plasma not the auto take weapon would allow primaris and to a certain extent marines a window to be squeezed into right not their just isn't a spot for high point troops as they can't be durable enough without turning into charictors without the keyword. I.E custodes

Your math is correct, but it's not the math I'm concerned about.

I'm looking at

.084/.15= 0.5
.33/.44= 0.75

The marine in cover reduces damage by half, whereas the guardsmen is only reducing it down to 3/4.

Martel732 wrote:
What about a situation where list tailoring is not an option?

I think i posted my upcoming list earlier in the thread. Both Tacs and Devs in all my lists though.

Which is another advantage of the new edition. No preassigned transports. I can choose what drops for each battle.

I'm not doing well today. I'm somehow got "drop tacs for devs" from that post.

Ahh, roger. "Drop" for pods not "drop" for list changes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ahh, roger. "Drop" for pods not "drop" for list changes.

I do the same thing with my trygon - some games he tunnles with 20 genes and some games he brings along 9 warriors. It all depends. It's not an advantage exclusive to space marines is what people are saying.

Here's the way I look at it. Tac squads are some of the more complex-armed troops out there. Lots of troops in the game are cc-only (hormagaunts), or just armed with one type of gun (Eldar Aspects) or specialized more (Fire Warriors). Tacs have a mix of weapons by design, and pay for generalist stats. We all know this.

BUT this edition actually makes all of that useful in a single turn. In pre-8th, they could only ever engage a single unit. A squad had to fire everything at one target (often wasting bolter shots if the heavy is targeting a vehicle, etc.) AND they had to charge the same target, and couldn't do so if they used their basic weapon. (Unlike Orks, Eldar, Tyranids etc. who tend to carry Assault weapons). In this edition Tacs are free to shoot at whatever target suits individual weapon profiles, and are free to engage whoever they want afterwards. Huuuge improvement for opening up the a single squad to more viable actions on a turn by turn basis. As generalists they can operate at a much greater efficiency because they don't have to waste shots or choose between firing at full capacity and assaulting. They just get to do all of it every turn. Fantastic improvement, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ahh, roger. "Drop" for pods not "drop" for list changes.

I do the same thing with my trygon - some games he tunnles with 20 genes and some games he brings along 9 warriors. It all depends. It's not an advantage exclusive to space marines is what people are saying.

That's great. But ignoring the improvement is doing a disservice, imo. Esp. when it can play such a crucial role.

It is an improvement, but removing sweeping advance, templates, and putting in fall back more than negates it, imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:


4. True. But there are (probably) more -1 and -2 AP guns out there than -3 and -4 AP guns. Which means Power Armor is getting hurt more by this than helped. Even moreso when you consider how cover bonuses changed.

Also, AP -1 and -2 guns are more apt to be high rate of fire weapons, whereas AP -3 or better are more apt to be single-shot weapons.

Like the ever-popular rapid fire plasma gun?

Imo the best Tac loadout is plasma, combi-plasma, Grav Cannon, which is 8 shots total at -3.

Why grav?

Just a guess, but I imagine for volume of fire.

I think non Marine players would cry with those changes and keep up the whole 8th sucks and is still incredibly unbalanced (which is in my opinion one of the better editions), and the whole Space Marine priveledge SJWs would flood the woodwork.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Here's the way I look at it. Tac squads are some of the more complex-armed troops out there. Lots of troops in the game are cc-only (hormagaunts), or just armed with one type of gun (Eldar Aspects) or specialized more (Fire Warriors). Tacs have a mix of weapons by design, and pay for generalist stats. We all know this.

BUT this edition actually makes all of that useful in a single turn. In pre-8th, they could only ever engage a single unit. A squad had to fire everything at one target (often wasting bolter shots if the heavy is targeting a vehicle, etc.) AND they had to charge the same target, and couldn't do so if they used their basic weapon. (Unlike Orks, Eldar, Tyranids etc. who tend to carry Assault weapons). In this edition Tacs are free to shoot at whatever target suits individual weapon profiles, and are free to engage whoever they want afterwards. Huuuge improvement for opening up the a single squad to more viable actions on a turn by turn basis. As generalists they can operate at a much greater efficiency because they don't have to waste shots or choose between firing at full capacity and assaulting. They just get to do all of it every turn. Fantastic improvement, imo.

While that's all certainly true, it's also true of all units in the game, not exclusively to Tac Squads. Furthermore, the full size Tac Squad is not a very good investment in points. Equipped the way you mentioned, it's costing 186pts. For 187pts, one can buy 3 Infantry Squads with autocannons and plasma guns, and two of the sergeants have plasma pistols. Without figuring in any other supporting elements, the Infantry Squads are putting more wounds on MEQs with their basic weapons (7 to the lasguns as opposed to 5 from the bolters), more wounds from plasma (3 from the IG plasma as opposed to 2 from the SM plasma), and roughly the same from heavy weapons (1.8 wounds at AP -3 as opposed to 2 at AP -1). In assault, the IG are inflicting 6 wounds vs the Tac Marines' 4. So, all told, the investment in IG is on average killing 8 MEQs a turn, whereas the Tac Squad is only killing 4 a turn.

Head to head: the Tac Squad kills 4 IG Infantry from bolters, 2 from plasma, 2 from grav, and 4 from assault, for a total of 12. At 4 points a pop, that's a return of 48pts. As already mentioned, the IG kill 8 Marines, for a total return of 102pts. Even if you degrade the IG by the amount of damage the Tac Squad has done, you're still getting a result of 7 dead Marines for a 91pt return on the investment.

In addition to all this, the IG Infantry Squads have more board control, can control more objectives, and generate more CP - they are the Troops requirement of a battalion all by themselves, whereas the SM player would have to pay a minimum of an additional 55pts, and that's assuming he's willing to break up the Tac Squad into two 5-man Squads at list-generation.

In order to be credible generalists, Tac Squads would have to have their damage output doubled vs MEQs and GEQs. Giving bolters an additional shot each, and equipping the basic squad members with chainswords (chainswords were assumed on sergeants all around) generates 2 more MEQ kills per turn and 4 more GEQ a turn - so that's not even close, but it's a start. Do that plus reduce their price by 2-3 pts per model, and you're probably getting close to about where they ought to be.

 Primark G wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:


4. True. But there are (probably) more -1 and -2 AP guns out there than -3 and -4 AP guns. Which means Power Armor is getting hurt more by this than helped. Even moreso when you consider how cover bonuses changed.

Also, AP -1 and -2 guns are more apt to be high rate of fire weapons, whereas AP -3 or better are more apt to be single-shot weapons.

Like the ever-popular rapid fire plasma gun?

Imo the best Tac loadout is plasma, combi-plasma, Grav Cannon, which is 8 shots total at -3.

Why grav?

Grav Cannon because it does excellent damage to the widest range of targets. It out performes a Lascannon against vehicles, does great at killing elite-types, and kills GEQ better than a Heavy Bolter if you really need to. The range can be an issue, but I'm a believer in Tacticals being up close, so they work well for a unit I expect to be basically always in Rapid-Fire range of something.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Here's the way I look at it. Tac squads are some of the more complex-armed troops out there. Lots of troops in the game are cc-only (hormagaunts), or just armed with one type of gun (Eldar Aspects) or specialized more (Fire Warriors). Tacs have a mix of weapons by design, and pay for generalist stats. We all know this.

BUT this edition actually makes all of that useful in a single turn. In pre-8th, they could only ever engage a single unit. A squad had to fire everything at one target (often wasting bolter shots if the heavy is targeting a vehicle, etc.) AND they had to charge the same target, and couldn't do so if they used their basic weapon. (Unlike Orks, Eldar, Tyranids etc. who tend to carry Assault weapons). In this edition Tacs are free to shoot at whatever target suits individual weapon profiles, and are free to engage whoever they want afterwards. Huuuge improvement for opening up the a single squad to more viable actions on a turn by turn basis. As generalists they can operate at a much greater efficiency because they don't have to waste shots or choose between firing at full capacity and assaulting. They just get to do all of it every turn. Fantastic improvement, imo.

While that's all certainly true, it's also true of all units in the game, not exclusively to Tac Squads.

Name some other mixed-weapon units. IMO it's an interesting excercise. Guard mix weapons of course. Most Eldar units all carry the same guns. Orks tend to be all Assault weapons. Most Tyranid units are "mono-role", and while Tyranid Warriors have a huge array of options, all their guns are Assault. Necrons (I believe) all get the same gun. Yes, technically all units benefit from the new rules, but some units benefit more than others because of their makeup.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Furthermore, the full size Tac Squad is not a very good investment in points. Equipped the way you mentioned, it's costing 186pts. For 187pts, one can buy 3 Infantry Squads with autocannons and plasma guns, and two of the sergeants have plasma pistols. Without figuring in any other supporting elements, the Infantry Squads are putting more wounds on MEQs with their basic weapons (7 to the lasguns as opposed to 5 from the bolters), more wounds from plasma (3 from the IG plasma as opposed to 2 from the SM plasma), and roughly the same from heavy weapons (1.8 wounds at AP -3 as opposed to 2 at AP -1). In assault, the IG are inflicting 6 wounds vs the Tac Marines' 4. So, all told, the investment in IG is on average killing 8 MEQs a turn, whereas the Tac Squad is only killing 4 a turn.

Head to head: the Tac Squad kills 4 IG Infantry from bolters, 2 from plasma, 2 from grav, and 4 from assault, for a total of 12. At 4 points a pop, that's a return of 48pts. As already mentioned, the IG kill 8 Marines, for a total return of 102pts. Even if you degrade the IG by the amount of damage the Tac Squad has done, you're still getting a result of 7 dead Marines for a 91pt return on the investment.

In addition to all this, the IG Infantry Squads have more board control, can control more objectives, and generate more CP - they are the Troops requirement of a battalion all by themselves, whereas the SM player would have to pay a minimum of an additional 55pts, and that's assuming he's willing to break up the Tac Squad into two 5-man Squads at list-generation.

In order to be credible generalists, Tac Squads would have to have their damage output doubled vs MEQs and GEQs. Giving bolters an additional shot each, and equipping the basic squad members with chainswords (chainswords were assumed on sergeants all around) generates 2 more MEQ kills per turn and 4 more GEQ a turn - so that's not even close, but it's a start. Do that plus reduce their price by 2-3 pts per model, and you're probably getting close to about where they ought to be.

Rather than do the MEQ vs. GEQ thing in the traditional way again, how about I take it another direction and say:

A: That force of 30 would require three transports to move quickly, while the Tac Squad requires only one, and has access to a Deep Striking one at that. Clouds of Guardsmen are inherently less mobile.

B: Straight comparisons between units can be done, but perhaps in GWs magnanimous wisdom they provided marines with a set of tools to mitigate the effect of GEQ to MEQ ratios, giving us the rule that Twin-Linked guns now have twice the number of shots, and the Assault Cannon now has 6 base. It's difficult for me to think of Guard examples of Twin-Linked other than the superheavies, while TL Weapons are pretty standard fare for Marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sure you can, because it's a boost that alrrady existed for many other units. Other units went from "effectice cover" to "effective cover" while marines went from "cover makes no difference" to "effective cover". There is an important relative boost.

It's even better than that, because A) a unit needs to be entirely touching cover to get the save, so units like ork boyz or 'gaunts have a harder time getting the save than marines, and B) since AP now effects cover, those units don't get a save at all against weapons with -2 or better even if they do find something big enough to hide in.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sure you can, because it's a boost that alrrady existed for many other units. Other units went from "effectice cover" to "effective cover" while marines went from "cover makes no difference" to "effective cover". There is an important relative boost.

It's even better than that, because A) a unit needs to be entirely touching cover to get the save, so units like ork boyz or 'gaunts have a harder time getting the save than marines, and B) since AP now effects cover, those units don't get a save at all against weapons with -2 or better even if they do find something big enough to hide in.

This is accurate, I find it near impossible to get Gaunts into cover. Once i've lost almost the entire squad I can, but at that point, they're probably already dead.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Here's the way I look at it. Tac squads are some of the more complex-armed troops out there. Lots of troops in the game are cc-only (hormagaunts), or just armed with one type of gun (Eldar Aspects) or specialized more (Fire Warriors). Tacs have a mix of weapons by design, and pay for generalist stats. We all know this.

BUT this edition actually makes all of that useful in a single turn. In pre-8th, they could only ever engage a single unit. A squad had to fire everything at one target (often wasting bolter shots if the heavy is targeting a vehicle, etc.) AND they had to charge the same target, and couldn't do so if they used their basic weapon. (Unlike Orks, Eldar, Tyranids etc. who tend to carry Assault weapons). In this edition Tacs are free to shoot at whatever target suits individual weapon profiles, and are free to engage whoever they want afterwards. Huuuge improvement for opening up the a single squad to more viable actions on a turn by turn basis. As generalists they can operate at a much greater efficiency because they don't have to waste shots or choose between firing at full capacity and assaulting. They just get to do all of it every turn. Fantastic improvement, imo.

While that's all certainly true, it's also true of all units in the game, not exclusively to Tac Squads.

Name some other mixed-weapon units. IMO it's an interesting excercise. Guard mix weapons of course. Most Eldar units all carry the same guns. Orks tend to be all Assault weapons. Most Tyranid units are "mono-role", and while Tyranid Warriors have a huge array of options, all their guns are Assault. Necrons (I believe) all get the same gun. Yes, technically all units benefit from the new rules, but some units benefit more than others because of their makeup.

Why would the type of weapon make a difference in this discussion? There are long-range fire supports that have assault weapons and mobile assault units with heavy.

Tactical Marines are only generalists in the way that every single model in the game is a combat model because they can theoretically activate in the assault phase.
The contrived examples of 'x unit activates in the movement, shooting and assault phases' is... contrived. Sure, it happens occasionally - but for the reasons you would ever consider assaulting an enemy with tac marines, fairly well any other model in the game can fulfil the same role (if not better for cheaper).

One of the reasons most people won't attempt to get the most out of a tac marine in the assault phase, is that they are better in the shooting phase, and once you attempt to use them in assault they're highly likely to cease existing shortly after. Most people weigh up the cost of actions in future turns and decide that shooting once per turn for 5 turns is better than shooting once and assaulting once ever. So while there are legitimate cases where assaulting with tactical marines is the right choice (to tie up a shooting unit or prevent an enemy unit from assaulting next turn), in those cases fire warriors or grots or whatever can perform the same role.

Trasvi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Here's the way I look at it. Tac squads are some of the more complex-armed troops out there. Lots of troops in the game are cc-only (hormagaunts), or just armed with one type of gun (Eldar Aspects) or specialized more (Fire Warriors). Tacs have a mix of weapons by design, and pay for generalist stats. We all know this.

BUT this edition actually makes all of that useful in a single turn. In pre-8th, they could only ever engage a single unit. A squad had to fire everything at one target (often wasting bolter shots if the heavy is targeting a vehicle, etc.) AND they had to charge the same target, and couldn't do so if they used their basic weapon. (Unlike Orks, Eldar, Tyranids etc. who tend to carry Assault weapons). In this edition Tacs are free to shoot at whatever target suits individual weapon profiles, and are free to engage whoever they want afterwards. Huuuge improvement for opening up the a single squad to more viable actions on a turn by turn basis. As generalists they can operate at a much greater efficiency because they don't have to waste shots or choose between firing at full capacity and assaulting. They just get to do all of it every turn. Fantastic improvement, imo.

While that's all certainly true, it's also true of all units in the game, not exclusively to Tac Squads.

Name some other mixed-weapon units. IMO it's an interesting excercise. Guard mix weapons of course. Most Eldar units all carry the same guns. Orks tend to be all Assault weapons. Most Tyranid units are "mono-role", and while Tyranid Warriors have a huge array of options, all their guns are Assault. Necrons (I believe) all get the same gun. Yes, technically all units benefit from the new rules, but some units benefit more than others because of their makeup.

Why would the type of weapon make a difference in this discussion? There are long-range fire supports that have assault weapons and mobile assault units with heavy.

This thread of the discussion was borne out of comparing utility between 8th Ed. and pre-8th. The type of weapon, or role of weapon was important because in previous editions becase:

A: A unit could only engage one other unit. (So the bolters would have to shoot at a tank if the Heavy shot at a tank). Incurring wasted fire potential.

B: You couldn't charge after firing a Rapid Fire, or a Heavy weapon. (So Orks and Nids could fire at full effect and charge, while Tacticals could either fire at full effect, or charge, but not both.)

Trasvi wrote:

Tactical Marines are only generalists in the way that every single model in the game is a combat model because they can theoretically activate in the assault phase.
The contrived examples of 'x unit activates in the movement, shooting and assault phases' is... contrived. Sure, it happens occasionally - but for the reasons you would ever consider assaulting an enemy with tac marines, fairly well any other model in the game can fulfil the same role (if not better for cheaper).

One of the reasons most people won't attempt to get the most out of a tac marine in the assault phase, is that they are better in the shooting phase, and once you attempt to use them in assault they're highly likely to cease existing shortly after. Most people weigh up the cost of actions in future turns and decide that shooting once per turn for 5 turns is better than shooting once and assaulting once ever. So while there are legitimate cases where assaulting with tactical marines is the right choice (to tie up a shooting unit or prevent an enemy unit from assaulting next turn), in those cases fire warriors or grots or whatever can perform the same role.

A: I don't have grots available to me in my army list.

B: Stopping a unit from firing next turn, essentially robbing them of their turn is a huge benefit to assault.

C: A few extra casualties in assault can count for double once morale takes effect. (useful vs. GEQ)

D: Gain ground. Sometimes necessary,

E: Marines 3+ helps them weather overwatch better than many other troops.

Nobody's saying that Marines are amazing in assault or anything, but it remains a valuable tool, and individually, marines fare better than many other troops at it. They also can get the UM chapter Tactics, which I personally rely on heavily. The big difference now is that marines can shoot at full effect AND assault, which is different to prior editions.

"Tactical Marines are only generalists in the way that every single model in the game is a combat model because they can theoretically activate in the assault phase."

This can be said of any infantry unit... tactical Marines as a combat unit (i.e., melee) is a joke.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Rather than do the MEQ vs. GEQ thing in the traditional way again, how about I take it another direction and say:

A: That force of 30 would require three transports to move quickly, while the Tac Squad requires only one, and has access to a Deep Striking one at that. Clouds of Guardsmen are inherently less mobile.

B: Straight comparisons between units can be done, but perhaps in GWs magnanimous wisdom they provided marines with a set of tools to mitigate the effect of GEQ to MEQ ratios, giving us the rule that Twin-Linked guns now have twice the number of shots, and the Assault Cannon now has 6 base. It's difficult for me to think of Guard examples of Twin-Linked other than the superheavies, while TL Weapons are pretty standard fare for Marines.

A: All that's required to move the 30 IG quickly is 50pts worth of officers - a Senior Officer and a Junior Officer - less if the IG player is willing to spend CP on the Consolidate Squads strat. The Move Move Move order allows an IG unit to move 12+2d6" a turn. Your Tac Squad's cheapest transport option is 22pts more than the pair of officers, and the officers help generate CP, whereas the any transport you give the Tac Squad does not help fill slots in a battalion or brigade at all. So, again, the Tac Squad loses out there.

B: The one platform Space Marine has that's a reasonably-priced twin assault cannon platform is a Razorback, clocking in at 114pts, getting you 12 S6 AP -1 shots. For another 36pts, IG can get a Leman Russ Punisher getting 23 S5 shots - mostly AP - to be sure, but it can reliably shoot its main gun twice, throwing out 43 shots. It has more hull points and higher toughness and, again, helps generate CP, being a Heavy Support choice instead of a Transport. GW has actually done more to hurt Space Marines' ability to deal with hordes than help, what with removing templates and blast markers and removing the AP from bolters.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Rather than do the MEQ vs. GEQ thing in the traditional way again, how about I take it another direction and say:

A: That force of 30 would require three transports to move quickly, while the Tac Squad requires only one, and has access to a Deep Striking one at that. Clouds of Guardsmen are inherently less mobile.

B: Straight comparisons between units can be done, but perhaps in GWs magnanimous wisdom they provided marines with a set of tools to mitigate the effect of GEQ to MEQ ratios, giving us the rule that Twin-Linked guns now have twice the number of shots, and the Assault Cannon now has 6 base. It's difficult for me to think of Guard examples of Twin-Linked other than the superheavies, while TL Weapons are pretty standard fare for Marines.

A: All that's required to move the 30 IG quickly is 50pts worth of officers - a Senior Officer and a Junior Officer - less if the IG player is willing to spend CP on the Consolidate Squads strat. The Move Move Move order allows an IG unit to move 12+2d6" a turn. Your Tac Squad's cheapest transport option is 22pts more than the pair of officers, and the officers help generate CP, whereas the any transport you give the Tac Squad does not help fill slots in a battalion or brigade at all. So, again, the Tac Squad loses out there.

B: The one platform Space Marine has that's a reasonably-priced twin assault cannon platform is a Razorback, clocking in at 114pts, getting you 12 S6 AP -1 shots. For another 36pts, IG can get a Leman Russ Punisher getting 23 S5 shots - mostly AP - to be sure, but it can reliably shoot its main gun twice, throwing out 43 shots. It has more hull points and higher toughness and, again, helps generate CP, being a Heavy Support choice instead of a Transport. GW has actually done more to hurt Space Marines' ability to deal with hordes than help, what with removing templates and blast markers and removing the AP from bolters.

A. Offers no protection to the squad, nor synergistic abilities like Deep Strike (Pod) or assault (Rhino), nor shoot or block LOS. Requires orders that could be used for something else.

B. Sure, punisher shoots a lot, but SM have better access to rerolls. The S6 of the Assault Cannon is nice for the 2+ to wound vs. GEQ too, a Lt. gives a 96% wound chance. You say "helps generate CP" and I say "takes a heavy support slot". For sheer bullet count, Sternguard with Storm Bolters can get 40 shots and do pretty well by them.

It is a shame about template weapons, the poor flamer could use some help.

Are you suggesting that the rerolls on a 12 shot weapon make it comparable to something throwing out 40 shots?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you suggesting that the rerolls on a 12 shot weapon make it comparable to something throwing out 40 shots?

0.888×0.96×0.83×12=8.49 GEQ casualties

0.5×0.666×0.666×40=8.87 GEQ casualties

Yeah, it's optimum rerolls, but that's pretty effin comparable.

As you already know, the SB Sternguard with rerolls get something like 18. So yeah, we got the tools.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you suggesting that the rerolls on a 12 shot weapon make it comparable to something throwing out 40 shots?

0.888×0.96×0.83×12=8.49 GEQ casualties

0.5×0.666×0.666×40=8.87 GEQ casualties

Yeah, it's optimum rerolls, but that's pretty effin comparable.

I'll expand on this for those who can't read percentages.

In this example...

Buffs marines have:
1. Reroll 1s and 2s to hit
2. Have not moved, so the base hit chance is 3+
3. Reroll 1s to wound

Buffs guard have:
1. Nothing. Mysteriously the Leman Russ cannot fire its heavy bolter.

So we have ~250 points of marines +3CP to match 150 points of guard, ASSUMING the Leman Russ doesn't fire its heavy bolter.

^actually full rerolls to hit for SM, Chapter Master upgrade.

250 points not really right. Doing a straight comparison in isolation doesn't consider army context, but whatevs.

I was going to say...

The point was Leman Russ Punisher is marginally more expensive but performs much better than Razorback.
Not,
Leman Russ Punisher is marginally more expensive but performs better than stationary Razorback, supported by not one, but two characters clocking in at least another 150 points.

I mean, it's not that many more points to upgrade the Punisher to Pask, and make it hit on 2's re-rollable...

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you suggesting that the rerolls on a 12 shot weapon make it comparable to something throwing out 40 shots?

0.888×0.96×0.83×12=8.49 GEQ casualties

0.5×0.666×0.666×40=8.87 GEQ casualties

Yeah, it's optimum rerolls, but that's pretty effin comparable.

As you already know, the SB Sternguard with rerolls get something like 18. So yeah, we got the tools.

That indicates a TLAC razorback need to take at least Marneus Calgar and a Lt. (around 270pts total) to be even close in firepower ONLY, So, its better for marine player to take 6 RB so to balance against 6 LR Punisher, and be screamed "oh your list is spamming Razorbacks, that is toooooo OP"...

Also note, that is against T3 5+Sv, Try the same against T4 5++ (Genestealers / Tzaangors, etc.), which are the truly threathening hordes, you will see how the LR punisher got the favour.

This is even not taken into account the survivability of the two for their points.... T7 10W Razorback gonna melt like snow under bright sun when facing opponents with lots of Brightlances, dark lance, Nidz Hive Guards, Exocrines, etc.. The LR tank, will certainly also take a big hit when facing these things, its T8 12W might allow it more chances to sustain longer to pour its firepower.

Why not compare a rhino to a serpent and wonder why the latter is far superior in every way. But seriously if you are wanting to play SM you will never progress if you look at these types of comparisons.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you suggesting that the rerolls on a 12 shot weapon make it comparable to something throwing out 40 shots?

0.888×0.96×0.83×12=8.49 GEQ casualties

0.5×0.666×0.666×40=8.87 GEQ casualties

Yeah, it's optimum rerolls, but that's pretty effin comparable.

As you already know, the SB Sternguard with rerolls get something like 18. So yeah, we got the tools.

That indicates a TLAC razorback need to take at least Marneus Calgar and a Lt. (around 270pts total) to be even close in firepower ONLY . . .

If you're unaware that you could upgrade your 80ish point Captain to a Chapter Master, sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I was going to say...

The point was Leman Russ Punisher is marginally more expensive but performs much better than Razorback.
Not,
Leman Russ Punisher is marginally more expensive but performs better than stationary Razorback, supported by not one, but two characters clocking in at least another 150 points.

I mean, it's not that many more points to upgrade the Punisher to Pask, and make it hit on 2's re-rollable...

No. The original point is that if a marine army has to kill GEQ, they can kill GEQ. It doesn't matter if another army has a super-tool or whatever. The marines can still bring effective tools.

. . .

I bring a Chapter Master and Lt. To every game, and my whole army benefits. Because they can simultaneously buff everybody do we say it's a 150(cost of characters)÷20(cost of Razorback is roughly 1/20th of the entire army) for the buffed Razorback? My thought process is that the characters are in my army anyways, so what can my unit choices do around them.

If the faq doesn't change much, i'm giving up and souping in punishers and a wyvern. The screens must die and marines can't get it done.