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.

"So the Turn cuts both ways, but not as deep into Marines. "

We can agree to disagree on this.

Would we also buff everything that already loses to Tacs and ASMs, or are they just supposed to get shafted?

Bharring wrote:
Would we also buff everything that already loses to Tacs and ASMs, or are they just supposed to get shafted?

But it's very rare that anything ACTUALLY loses to tacs or asms in practice. According to you, the other units are shafted now, but it's not DA or Firewarriors being shot off the table trivially. You number crunch and number crunch and make all these hypotheticals, but in practice, tacs have been doing nothing for anyone where I play since as far back as 5th. They just get killed by real units.

I think all this discussion is doing is highlighting the difference between theoryhammer and the actual game. In a real game, no one cares about tactical squads. It is a challenge for marines to minimize the amount of points they waste on units that can accomplish nothing in practice. This is why many players have gone to scouts, because it is a smaller tax on their list, and they can spend more points on units that actually have efficacy.

Xenos are bringing units like DA for their transport. The marines don't have that luxury. Even if someone tried to make use of tacticals' assault stats, they have no good delivery mechanisms. DA don't care that they have no assault mechanisms because they are going to sit in the tank for most of the game.

CODEX CREEP!
Give every weapon type a special rule on top of a fire mode!

Thanks for the list Whiskey144

Lasguns get Blind, Pinning
Flamers get some kind of AOE or DOT burn effect
Grenade Launchers get some kind of AOE, pinning
Sniper Rifles - Precision shots, pinning, Fleshbane
Meltaguns - melta at full range!
Plasma Guns - gets hot, blind, DOT burn effect
Mortars get some kind of AOE, pinning
Bolters - SHRED
Autocannons - SHRED
MLs, get some kind of AOE, pinning
ML+Flakk, skyfire, ordinance or some added bonus for being an esploding missile
Lascannons - lance
Grav Guns - graviton

Only Xenos weapons that don't have a special rule
Pulse Rifles, blind
Rail Rifle, lance, beam
Ion Rifle get some kind of AOE or DOT burn effect

No where are my meds

Again, selection bias and current meta.

DAs are never on the table until table until the game is almost over, according to most, in the current meta.

Fire Warriors would be shot off the table twice as easily as Marines, if Marines vs FW were the meta. But its other things in the Tau list shooting the Marines off the table. Marines would do a better job shooting Fire Warriors off the table than Fire Warriors shooting Marines off, if that was what it came down to.

Bharring wrote:
Again, selection bias and current meta.

DAs are never on the table until table until the game is almost over, according to most, in the current meta.

Fire Warriors would be shot off the table twice as easily as Marines, if Marines vs FW were the meta. But its other things in the Tau list shooting the Marines off the table. Marines would do a better job shooting Fire Warriors off the table than Fire Warriors shooting Marines off, if that was what it came down to.

The Riptide makes sure that is never the case, though.

And its not hypothetical. I see -and do - these things all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So we're back to:
A beats B
B beats C
A beats C

Buff B, in a way best suited to destroy C better.

Bharring wrote:
And its not hypothetical. I see -and do - these things all the time.

I don't understand how people are letting this happen. It's really, really hard for me to envision these things you are reporting.

In your logic sample, it's hard for me to ignore the fact the "C" units never have to engage the "B" units anyway, because the "A" units have shot them off the table. Consequently, only "A" units matter and if "C" units are cheaper to bring, then you can bring more "A" and not even worry about the "B". That's what really happens. And also, there are cases where "C" unit are cheaper and able to do more damage to "A" before they are killed. This makes "B" the titanic loser in the meta. There is no place for "B".

So, if you like Xenos troops, screw you.
If you like Tactical Marines, here, screw Xenos more?

I mean, why buff 'B' troops and not 'C' troops? Taste? Because its just as logical to say 'B' never needs to face 'A'.

I obviously can't show you my meta. But I can point to the Tac-heavy and Scout-heavy recent well-ranked tourney lists, to show that its not only my meta. Not that I want my meta to be anything like a big tourny. At all.

('C' units are cheaper? When have we not been talking per-point? That argument factors in cost twice.)

Bharring wrote:
So, if you like Xenos troops, screw you.
If you like Tactical Marines, here, screw Xenos more?

I mean, why buff 'B' troops and not 'C' troops? Taste? Because its just as logical to say 'B' never needs to face 'A'.

I obviously can't show you my meta. But I can point to the Tac-heavy and Scout-heavy recent well-ranked tourney lists, to show that its not only my meta. Not that I want my meta to be anything like a big tourny. At all.

I understand that buffing "B" is not cool with Xenos. So I'd settle for getting rid of "B" troops. Make marines cheaper, and take away their capabilities. That way, I'd being paying less to fail equally hard. Sorry, I meant "capabilities".

I meant "C" was cheaper in absolute points. Because they do less. Allegedly.

But Xenos still need to pay their full points for their fail? That also seems like a terrible solution. Not all Xenos troops are noticably cheaper per model. And those that are are often still more expensive per unit.

Its the cost that make Marines a 'B' unit. Reduce their price by much at all, and they become an 'A'.

(And tactical Termies are a great example of an Imperial 'C' unit. They are by no means cheap. Cost is what makes them a 'C' unit.)

Bharring wrote:
But Xenos still need to pay their full points for their fail? That also seems like a terrible solution. Not all Xenos troops are noticably cheaper per model. And those that are are often still more expensive per unit.

Its the cost that make Marines a 'B' unit. Reduce their price by much at all, and they become an 'A'.

(And tactical Termies are a great example of an Imperial 'C' unit. They are by no means cheap. Cost is what makes them a 'C' unit.)

I said reduce their price, but take away capabilities, since they are only there to fill troops slots in FOCs anyway. Make greandes, ATSKNF, bolt pistols and bolters optional add-ons so we don't have to pay for them and leave them off if we just want warm bodies to satisfy FOC. Then they can run out there and get ignored and die like the always do after all the marine useful units have been neutralized, or contribute nothing as the marine useful units do their thing.

So, Guardsmen?

And don't you already have scouts?

Cheapest SM tax? 55 points.
Cheapest CW Eldar tax? 51 points.
Cheapest Tau tax? 54 points.

If you want Tactical Marines for their points, take them.
If you don't want Tactical Marines for their points, don't take them.

I'm not seeing a huge difference in minimum 'tax' between those factions. And I'm fairly sure Necrons are higher.

Unless you think SM should pay even less?

And this all presupposes we want troops to be nothing but tax.

you basically want a S4, T4, I4 WS4 BS4 LD8 model with a 3+ save and you want it to be 1-4pts cheaper because your taking away its abilities? You basically want guardsmen with a better statline then.

Just take scouts dude save your points there

Consider the Following:

5 of the 8 LVO top 8 players were Marines or their equivalents. No Tacmarines or Chaos Marines. One player ran podded Grey Hunters as secondary to a Guard primary, so every unit either had 3 Specials or 2 & a Combi. The runner-up ran mass Scouts with a Gravstar and Mephiston, and the pure Marine player ran bikes.

Bharring wrote:
So the Turn cuts both ways, but not as deep into Marines.

The potential to roll better saves than average does not outweigh the potential to lose half the unit due to two failed dice; the game is about minimizing bad outcomes, not about maximizing good ones. Assuming an optimal usage of units, losing less than average and average might as well be the same outcome, since you're going to have taken average casualties into account when committing the unit in question. As such, any performance in excess of average is a "win more" scenario, whereas flubbing a roll could lose you the game. Consistency is king because it allows you to plan what to do and be fairly certain that you're going to make it.

Are you really complaining about the effects of probability in a game that relies on rolling dice?

Bharring wrote:
So, Guardsmen?

And don't you already have scouts?

Cheapest SM tax? 55 points.
Cheapest CW Eldar tax? 51 points.
Cheapest Tau tax? 54 points.

If you want Tactical Marines for their points, take them.
If you don't want Tactical Marines for their points, don't take them.

I'm not seeing a huge difference in minimum 'tax' between those factions. And I'm fairly sure Necrons are higher.

Unless you think SM should pay even less?

And this all presupposes we want troops to be nothing but tax.

That's what empirical outcomes seem to indicate. As you have pointed out, even troops like DA with nice special rules really aren't that great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
you basically want a S4, T4, I4 WS4 BS4 LD8 model with a 3+ save and you want it to be 1-4pts cheaper because your taking away its abilities? You basically want guardsmen with a better statline then.

Just take scouts dude save your points there

I'd sell back the WS and S if I could, too.

Claim:
Better saves are less reliable
Stats:
2x 3+ save has the same Expected Value as 1x 5+ (2/3 of a fail)
Premise:
Odds of failing 4 3+ should, therefore, be more likely than 2 5+
Numbers:
1/(3^4) compared to (2^2)/(3^2)
1/81 to 4/9.

Result: Reject the claim.

In other words, odds of a specific amount of exceptional failure goes down much, much faster with better saves.

But that assumes equal wounds are equal. They are not. Let's look at this in a more weighted environment.

Let's claim that 5+ is worth half a Marine.
So:
EV of 3 3+ is 1 Marine.
EV of 3 5+ is 2 half-Marines.
Therefore, 1 3+ = 1 5+.
Odds of failing 2 of 2?
(1/9) vs (4/9)

Once again, the better save has a lower chance of deviating to this specific degree.

(The one thing not covered is distribution. Every roll is independent. Therefore, normal distribution.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that's what *your* imperial evidence supports. Mine does not. 3+ Troop units and/or not being bare bones isn't rare in my experience. Isn't that what the tourney lists were brought up to show?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sell back WS and S? You can. They're called Necron Warriors. At 13ppm.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Are you really complaining about the effects of probability in a game that relies on rolling dice?

Yes, I am. Why should I not?

Bharring wrote:
Claim:
Better saves are less reliable
Stats:
2x 3+ save has the same Expected Value as 1x 5+ (2/3 of a fail)
Premise:
Odds of failing 4 3+ should, therefore, be more likely than 2 5+
Numbers:
1/(3^4) compared to (2^2)/(3^2)
1/81 to 4/9.

Result: Reject the claim.

In other words, odds of a specific amount of exceptional failure goes down much, much faster with better saves.

But that assumes equal wounds are equal. They are not. Let's look at this in a more weighted environment.

Let's claim that 5+ is worth half a Marine.
So:
EV of 3 3+ is 1 Marine.
EV of 3 5+ is 2 half-Marines.
Therefore, 1 3+ = 1 5+.
Odds of failing 2 of 2?
(1/9) vs (4/9)

Once again, the better save has a lower chance of deviating to this specific degree.

(The one thing not covered is distribution. Every roll is independent. Therefore, normal distribution.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that's what *your* imperial evidence supports. Mine does not. 3+ Troop units and/or not being bare bones isn't rare in my experience. Isn't that what the tourney lists were brought up to show?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sell back WS and S? You can. They're called Necron Warriors. At 13ppm.

Yes, better saves are less reliable because the only feasible way to play them is to assume that they will survive (3+ save models are generally too expensive to hold back), which means 33% of the time you're fethed, whereas with a 5+ you'll assume that they'll die and as such plan around it. In the case of the 3+ unit, deviation generally means you're fethed, in the case of the 5+ unit it's generally in your advantage. Hence, the Orks are much more reliable than the Marines.

So Marines are worse than models that cost half as much for half the save, because the player can bring four times as much? I think some numbers are off.

Odds a marine fails 2/2 saves is 1/9.
Odds a 5+ fails 4/4 is 16/81.

Once again, your statements of deviation are way off. Even assuming Marines lose twice as much, they still win 16:9 at this rare an instance.

Then there is the whole half a DA squad is worth a lot less than half a Marine squad. Because, usually, they will still have their special weapon. Among other things.

Bharring wrote:
So Marines are worse than models that cost half as much for half the save, because the player can bring four times as much? I think some numbers are off.

No, the point is that the Ork player in this example can play more conservatively as he doesn't, to the same extent, have to fear the very real possibility of one turn's bad rolling wiping out most of a unit. If you get 10 wounds when shooting at a unit of 10 Marines there is a remote possibility that all 10 Marines will die. If you get 10 wounds when shooting at a unit of 20 Boyz the odds of losing the entire unit is 0%, excepting the fringe cases like Black Mace hits.

The Orks also do not have anything that's nearly as dangerous to them as AP3- is to Marines. You can mitigate the effect of blast weapons, the supposed horde counter, with positioning, whereas you're reduced to hoping for cover saves against AP3-.

Actually, 10 wounds can take an Ork unit off the table. Even with armor saves, they'll probably lose more than 25%. Odds of them breaking and never reforming aren't great, but not that unreasonable. Odds of Marines breaking and never reforming are 0, unless you're hugging the board edge.

And against a 5+ save (numbers are much easier) the odds of losing all 10 are exactly one *thousand* twenty four times as much as losing all 10 marines to 10 wounds.

As for fearing AP2, its just boltguns and the like that scare them. Granted, they're cheaper (6ppm for an Ork, 9ppm for a Guardian, 11 ppm for a Pathfinder, etc), but Boltguns are a lot more common than plasma guns.

Not in my lists. Well, I guess if you count the bolters on the bikes they are. But not by much. If you count the bikers that will never fire their boltguns because they have grav guns, it's almost the same. I'd have zero bolters if I could without going unbound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Actually, 10 wounds can take an Ork unit off the table. Even with armor saves, they'll probably lose more than 25%. Odds of them breaking and never reforming aren't great, but not that unreasonable. Odds of Marines breaking and never reforming are 0, unless you're hugging the board edge.

And against a 5+ save (numbers are much easier) the odds of losing all 10 are exactly one *thousand* twenty four times as much as losing all 10 marines to 10 wounds.

As for fearing AP2, its just boltguns and the like that scare them. Granted, they're cheaper (6ppm for an Ork, 9ppm for a Guardian, 11 ppm for a Fire Warrior, etc), but Boltguns are a lot more common than plasma guns.

I don't think I've ever played against an Ork player who cared about my boltguns. Of course, in 5th, my lists actually had ZERO boltguns in them.

I think you and I play markedly different games. But I like the one where my Pulse Carbines and Rangers have a purpose.

Last I checked, dying wasn't a purpose.

Scouts versus Lasgun vets.

10x Scouts (110pts) - 10x(1/2)(2/3)(1) = 20/5 = 4 Vets removed (24pts)
18x Vets (108pts) - 18x(1/2)(1/3)(1/2) = 18/12 = 1.5 Scouts removed (16.5pts)

Not really seeing why Bolters need Shred. Stat line and armour have a big effect on effective damage.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Scouts versus Lasgun vets.

10x Scouts (110pts) - 10x(1/2)(2/3)(1) = 20/5 = 4 Vets removed (24pts)
18x Vets (108pts) - 18x(1/2)(1/3)(1/2) = 18/12 = 1.5 Scouts removed (16.5pts)

Not really seeing why Bolters need Shred. Stat line and armour have a big effect on effective damage.

You'd better leave this your reasonable logics and mathematical averages out of "buff mehreens" threads!

I already stated I don't think shred is the right answer. There is no way to force players to bring units to care about bolters, so the best course of action is just to bring as few bolters as possible and go on with gaming.