Switch Theme:

Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Consider the difference between, say, the US Army ranger and the US Army in 40k.

Regular IBCT guys hit on a 4+, Army Ranger guys hit on a 3+... and what? The rangers ignore modifiers when making combat attrition tests? Lol.


Well part of the issue is that skill is actually not that significant on the tactical level.

If you put US Army ranger and the US Army in an open field and ask them to kill each other there is unlikely to be a significant difference. They both know how to shoot after all.

Now what actually differentiates them is their strategic flexibility. The Army Ranger knows how to make air drop assaults, knows about sabotage missions, recon, clandestine insertion, assassination, asset capture and denial, etc.

The Army Ranger can do a wide variety of special operations, and all of that is mostly worthless if you put them in an open field with a rifle and ask them to play at standard infantry.

EDIT: The irony of it is that the most elite faction in the game is Genestealer Cults, because they are the only faction that really fights how a SpecOps unit is supposed to fight.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/25 17:10:18


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







It depends on the nature of the mission too. If the mission is "stand on a hill to capture it" then yes.

If the mission is "scale cliffs to blow up guns at the top of the bluff"...
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:

It doesn't. Orks as a codex is arguably the worst 9th edition by far. Terrible internal balance, no synergy, actually lost playstyles, didn't even get custom cultures. The latter is a joke for what's the most diverse faction around.



No, you just reinforced the point you're trying to argue against.
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






Jarms48 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
That sounds like you're saying that's a bad example because it proves his point too well.


It doesn't. Orks as a codex is arguably the worst 9th edition by far. Terrible internal balance, no synergy, actually lost playstyles, didn't even get custom cultures. The latter is a joke for what's the most diverse faction around.

This below is a better comparison:

Kaied wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Kaied wrote:
Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote:
So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
+6" Range and +1 Shot OR +6" Range and -1 AP. Gaining options means very little when those options are things you pay points for.
Yeah, that is what I said. Both weapons got +6", one of the (free) options got twice as many shots, the other (free) option got -1 AP. Actually, they didn't get them for free, but at a discount since their points went down.

 JNAProductions wrote:
As compared to +1 Wound, +1 Attack round one of combat, extra AP on turn 2 and potentially 3, an extra shot at 24", and reduces all AP by one to a min of zero.
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.

Arguably, comparing 3rd edition charge to Shock Assault isn't much of an upgrade... everyone got +1A on charge in 3rd. So Marines basically gained +1A when charged, or Heroic Intervention with Shock Assault. I'd argue that Armor of Contempt is a Faction buff that for some reason is being shown as a Datasheet buff on various online resources. The dataslate does not add the keyword to any datasheet directly at all, it piggy-backs off the Adeptus Astartes Faction keyword. So... like definition of a Faction Buff. So if AoC is being taken into account, the Mont'ka/etc also should be.

What happens if we give the old Tactical Marine the same treatment as Fire Warriors? So we end up with 1W Marines without Shock Assault/Combat Doctrines/Bolter Disciple, but 12 ppm and either an 24" Astartes Shotgun or a 30" -1AP Bolt Rifle? Cheaper than Scouts(which are 14 ppm) but with better weapons and 3+ save, but not Elites and don't have SA/CD/BD. Is that fair? I think they would end up being auto-takes because they are cheap.

Not really. Comparing raw datasheet numbers without putting other things into context is a pretty bad comparison tool. Markerlights changed and the wounding table changed. Bolters wound T3 on 3s in both 3rd and 9th. Pulse wounded on 2s and now wounds on 3s. Markerlights also used to deny cover and Tau overwatch is effectively gone. Fire warriors got weaker while marines did not. Hence the discount.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:The point is that in a wargame that running a vastly smaller force, even if the few guys you have are vastly more powerful, should put you at a disadvantage that you have to overcome with tactical ability and general skill. To make marines more interesting and actually play more like marines they should be less beginner friendly. Beginner friendly imo would be guard, you have a lot of guys, the roles are clear cut, and there’s nothing crazy going on.


Unit1126PLL wrote:Consider the difference between, say, the US Army ranger and the US Army in 40k.

Regular IBCT guys hit on a 4+, Army Ranger guys hit on a 3+... and what? The rangers ignore modifiers when making combat attrition tests? Lol.


You could make Marines both more appropriately elite and more forgiving to newbies by giving them higher operational tempo, something that measurably differentiates special forces from regulars IRL. If you have more opportunities to act and react than your opponent, that makes it easier to capitalize on an opportunity or escape from a bad exchange.

But there has to be some lever for representing that difference- be it a reaction system, or alternating activation, or activation mechanics a la Epic, or something else.

   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





Having an elite force be able to do more actions sort of entirely nullifies the point of them being a small elite force. Being a small army is a really devastating downside in most things.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Jarms48 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Kaied wrote:
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.

I care little about points.

Take 10 Fire Warriors vs 10 Marines. How do they fare against each other in 3rd? How about now?


That’s your problem. Even in 3rd edition 10 marines were at least 50% more points than fire warriors. It’s not a fair comparison. From memory a fire warrior was 9 or 10 points, marines were 15 or 16. So weighed fairly it should be at least 15 fire warriors against 10 marines.

- Tau: That’s 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, 1.66 dead marines.
- Marines: If the marines go first then that’s 6.66 hits, 4.4 wounds, 2.2 dead fire warriors.

What’s not being considered here is that Tau had longer range and the boards were both bigger and had less terrain. So with good positioning or use of movement those Tau could get 2 rounds of shooting before the Marines even get a chance to retaliate.

Well congrats, you just missed the entire point, which is that Tau Fire Warriors have degraded over time in comparison to Marines, (like many other basic units).

10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.

10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)

Which is to say that at the longer ranges (the area where Tau troops are characteristically good at), not only has their offensive capability been cut in half against Marines, but they're taking more than twice the casualties in response in some cases.

Why is this bad? Well for starters, some people may actually like Tau, and like the idea that their basic troops were actually good at something. This was a major selling point for Tau back in the day. Another point is that it removes anti-Marine counter tactics for the Tau Troops. There's no "Fish of Fury" sort of maneuver viable any more if the troops you're transporting to concentrate force with are going to be so outmatched in the ensuing fight. It also removes challenge from the Marine player. Why bother with any tactics in a squad v. squad situation when you're just going to handily steamroll them.

. . .

Twenty Fire Warriors lie in wait, having carefully chosen their ambush point in the ruins. The squad of Marines, wary of danger but still moving with purpose, advance through the street at double-time in an effort to make their rendezvous. The Tau warriors hold steady, some members already marking their targets, while others ready themselves to reveal themselves through windows and gaps in the rubble, primed to pour fire into the enemy. The Marines advance into the designated kill zone. The signal is given. As one, twenty Fire Warriors reveal their position and open fire, pouring advanced, high powered rounds into the exposed Marines. Caught in the open, the Marines are forced to take round after round of focused fire from a well defended position. . .
(40 x .5 x .666 x .333 = 4.4)
A whopping two Marines go down.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

Well, that's why you bring a Riptide and wipe out the entire unit
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

 Tyran wrote:
Well, that's why you bring a Riptide and wipe out the entire unit


...and the goalposts shift again. congrats.

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Racerguy180 wrote:
rules come and go, models are forever...like herpes.
 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




Edit: Ignore me, its late and I need sleep.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/25 20:45:10


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Tyran wrote:
Well, that's why you bring a Riptide and wipe out the entire unit
Well then why have troops? This mentality is exactly where the "Troops are a tax" idea comes from. It's a poor design when units wind up being percieved as useless, especially when they're intended to be a common sight within an army.

It's also just not fun. You make this faction, you write cool backstory and punch up certain capabilities to form their identity in the lore. But they're just incapable of action on the tabletop. It's a fail.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules on the datasheet itself.
Kaied wrote:
Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
 DominayTrix wrote:
Not really. Comparing raw datasheet numbers without putting other things into context is a pretty bad comparison tool.
Guess I can't win.
 Insectum7 wrote:
I care little about points.
If you don't care about points, we're not even playing the same game.
 Insectum7 wrote:
10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.

10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
Ok, let's unpack this. From what range? If its over 30" Marines do zero damage, of if its between 24" and 30" the Marines aren't standing still. If its under 18", you forgot to double the Fire Warriors' shots. Or just use the Pulse Carbine and get double shots at 24" and 0 AP regardless.

Now lets add the points back in. Fire Warriors are all equipped with Pulse Rifles and Grenades in both editions.
3rd ed 110 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 15/W = 16.5 points of Marines, 15% return on investment.
9th ed 80 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 9/W = 9.9 points of Marines, 12.375% return on investment.
9th ed Fire Warriors w/in 18" is doing 2.2 x 9/W = 19.8 points of Marines, 24.75% return on investment.

3rd ed 150 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 11/W = 24.2 points of Fire Warriors, 14.6% return on investment.
9th ed 180 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 8/W = 17.6 points of Fire Warriors, 11.7% return on investment.
9th ed Marines standing still at 24" in Tactical Doctrine are doing 5.8 x 8/W = 46.4 points of Fire Warriors, 25.7% return on investment.

Give the Fire Warriors the "worse" weapon (against anything without AoC) and put them at 24" just like the Marines want and it looks exactly like the Pulse Rifle at 18" because of AoC negates the Pulse Rifle's AP anyway. And if you are already ignoring the longer range of Pulse Rifle...

We ignored everything that buffed Fire Warriors, except being in Half Range (or switching to Pulse Carbine). Markerlight token is effectively 1/3 more hits, Kauyon is effectively +1/3rd hits on 3rd round, +2/3rd on 4th, and double on 5th within 12". Just like Tactical Doctrine is 1/3 more wounds through, and standing still is double the shots for Marines.
 Insectum7 wrote:
Which is to say that at the longer ranges (the area where Tau troops are characteristically good at), not only has their offensive capability been cut in half against Marines, but they're taking more than twice the casualties in response in some cases.
At those longer ranges Marine offensive capability has been reduced to 0, not just half. And Fire Warriors cost less than half the price per model as Tactical Marines, so losing twice as many casualties is actually parity, not unbalanced.

TLDR: Generic(not in a Chapter) Marines in the best case (Tactical Doctrine standing still at 24") have about the same point effective shooting, 25.7%, as Generic(not in a Sept) Fire Warriors in the worst case (completely unbuffed with Pulse Carbines also standing still at 24") at 24.75%.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Kaied wrote:
Spoiler:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules on the datasheet itself.
Kaied wrote:
Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
 DominayTrix wrote:
Not really. Comparing raw datasheet numbers without putting other things into context is a pretty bad comparison tool.
Guess I can't win.
 Insectum7 wrote:
I care little about points.
If you don't care about points, we're not even playing the same game.
 Insectum7 wrote:
10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.

10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
Ok, let's unpack this. From what range? If its over 30" Marines do zero damage, of if its between 24" and 30" the Marines aren't standing still. If its under 18", you forgot to double the Fire Warriors' shots. Or just use the Pulse Carbine and get double shots at 24" and 0 AP regardless.

Now lets add the points back in. Fire Warriors are all equipped with Pulse Rifles and Grenades in both editions.
3rd ed 110 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 15/W = 16.5 points of Marines, 15% return on investment.
9th ed 80 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 9/W = 9.9 points of Marines, 12.375% return on investment.
9th ed Fire Warriors w/in 18" is doing 2.2 x 9/W = 19.8 points of Marines, 24.75% return on investment.

3rd ed 150 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 11/W = 24.2 points of Fire Warriors, 14.6% return on investment.
9th ed 180 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 8/W = 17.6 points of Fire Warriors, 11.7% return on investment.
9th ed Marines standing still at 24" in Tactical Doctrine are doing 5.8 x 8/W = 46.4 points of Fire Warriors, 25.7% return on investment.

Give the Fire Warriors the "worse" weapon (against anything without AoC) and put them at 24" just like the Marines want and it looks exactly like the Pulse Rifle at 18" because of AoC negates the Pulse Rifle's AP anyway. And if you are already ignoring the longer range of Pulse Rifle...

We ignored everything that buffed Fire Warriors, except being in Half Range (or switching to Pulse Carbine). Markerlight token is effectively 1/3 more hits, Kauyon is effectively +1/3rd hits on 3rd round, +2/3rd on 4th, and double on 5th within 12". Just like Tactical Doctrine is 1/3 more wounds through, and standing still is double the shots for Marines.
 Insectum7 wrote:
Which is to say that at the longer ranges (the area where Tau troops are characteristically good at), not only has their offensive capability been cut in half against Marines, but they're taking more than twice the casualties in response in some cases.
At those longer ranges Marine offensive capability has been reduced to 0, not just half. And Fire Warriors cost less than half the price per model as Tactical Marines, so losing twice as many casualties is actually parity, not unbalanced.

TLDR: Generic(not in a Chapter) Marines in the best case (Tactical Doctrine standing still at 24") have about the same point effective shooting, 25.7%, as Generic(not in a Sept) Fire Warriors in the worst case (completely unbuffed with Pulse Carbines also standing still at 24") at 24.75%.


Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.

Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about. People don't choose their army because of spreadsheets and estimated point returns. The 2000 point Space Marine army consisting of 300 6 point Marines producing a "point efficient return" is not the Space Marine narrative players are looking for. Likewise, when another race/faction is lauded for it's particular characteristics, "point returns" are not the thing that resonates with players when they're envisioning cool scenarios with their toy soldiers.

We're playing the same game, you're just over-focusing on points to express "balance" at the expense of narrative. Points-balance has it's place, but it is not the only relevant measure.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






Kaied wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules on the datasheet itself.
Kaied wrote:
Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
 DominayTrix wrote:
Not really. Comparing raw datasheet numbers without putting other things into context is a pretty bad comparison tool.
Guess I can't win.
 Insectum7 wrote:
I care little about points.
If you don't care about points, we're not even playing the same game.
 Insectum7 wrote:
10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.

10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)
Ok, let's unpack this. From what range? If its over 30" Marines do zero damage, of if its between 24" and 30" the Marines aren't standing still. If its under 18", you forgot to double the Fire Warriors' shots. Or just use the Pulse Carbine and get double shots at 24" and 0 AP regardless.

Now lets add the points back in. Fire Warriors are all equipped with Pulse Rifles and Grenades in both editions.
3rd ed 110 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 15/W = 16.5 points of Marines, 15% return on investment.
9th ed 80 points of Fire Warriors are doing 1.1 x 9/W = 9.9 points of Marines, 12.375% return on investment.
9th ed Fire Warriors w/in 18" is doing 2.2 x 9/W = 19.8 points of Marines, 24.75% return on investment.

3rd ed 150 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 11/W = 24.2 points of Fire Warriors, 14.6% return on investment.
9th ed 180 points of Marines are doing 2.2 x 8/W = 17.6 points of Fire Warriors, 11.7% return on investment.
9th ed Marines standing still at 24" in Tactical Doctrine are doing 5.8 x 8/W = 46.4 points of Fire Warriors, 25.7% return on investment.

Give the Fire Warriors the "worse" weapon (against anything without AoC) and put them at 24" just like the Marines want and it looks exactly like the Pulse Rifle at 18" because of AoC negates the Pulse Rifle's AP anyway. And if you are already ignoring the longer range of Pulse Rifle...

We ignored everything that buffed Fire Warriors, except being in Half Range (or switching to Pulse Carbine). Markerlight token is effectively 1/3 more hits, Kauyon is effectively +1/3rd hits on 3rd round, +2/3rd on 4th, and double on 5th within 12". Just like Tactical Doctrine is 1/3 more wounds through, and standing still is double the shots for Marines.
 Insectum7 wrote:
Which is to say that at the longer ranges (the area where Tau troops are characteristically good at), not only has their offensive capability been cut in half against Marines, but they're taking more than twice the casualties in response in some cases.
At those longer ranges Marine offensive capability has been reduced to 0, not just half. And Fire Warriors cost less than half the price per model as Tactical Marines, so losing twice as many casualties is actually parity, not unbalanced.

TLDR: Generic(not in a Chapter) Marines in the best case (Tactical Doctrine standing still at 24") have about the same point effective shooting, 25.7%, as Generic(not in a Sept) Fire Warriors in the worst case (completely unbuffed with Pulse Carbines also standing still at 24") at 24.75%.

Ty for the analysis based on point returns. Although I would factor in morale, marines standing still will do 4.4W on average which is enough to force a leadership check while the fire warriors will not force one in return. Marines standing still in tactical will do 5.8 which on average forces half-strength attrition increasing the return for marines.
Edit: Also, wasn't one of the main arguments that marines were just as efficient as the shooting specialist troops while staying as point efficient as a melee specialist troop? Even if tacs and fire warriors are the same at range, the fire warriors lose all points efficiency in melee while marines do not.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 23:48:41


 
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

 Insectum7 wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Well, that's why you bring a Riptide and wipe out the entire unit
Well then why have troops? This mentality is exactly where the "Troops are a tax" idea comes from. It's a poor design when units wind up being percieved as useless, especially when they're intended to be a common sight within an army.

It's also just not fun. You make this faction, you write cool backstory and punch up certain capabilities to form their identity in the lore. But they're just incapable of action on the tabletop. It's a fail.


There is a fundamental issue that because 40k is all about killing, troops do not do much.

I mean, in real military engagements, troops actually do not do much of killing. What are the real killers are artillery, aircraft, drones, etc. Infantry? its role is taking and holding ground, pin down other infantry and protect tanks.

But 40k? it lacks pinning, and even when it had pinning it was mostly reserved to artillery instead of something infantry was able to inflict. And you cannot really set up your infantry to suppress enemy anti-tank or spotters.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Tyran wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Well, that's why you bring a Riptide and wipe out the entire unit
Well then why have troops? This mentality is exactly where the "Troops are a tax" idea comes from. It's a poor design when units wind up being percieved as useless, especially when they're intended to be a common sight within an army.

It's also just not fun. You make this faction, you write cool backstory and punch up certain capabilities to form their identity in the lore. But they're just incapable of action on the tabletop. It's a fail.


There is a fundamental issue that because 40k is all about killing, troops do not do much.

I mean, in real military engagements, troops actually do not do much of killing. What are the real killers are artillery, aircraft, drones, etc. Infantry? its role is taking and holding ground, pin down other infantry and protect tanks.

But 40k? it lacks pinning, and even when it had pinning it was mostly reserved to artillery instead of something infantry was able to inflict. And you cannot really set up your infantry to suppress enemy anti-tank or spotters.
40k is not a particularly realistic modern battle space to begin with, since there aren't off-table elements like artillery that needs spotting for, and a lot of combat is also monsters swinging swords and axes . . . But you still have these elements that are supposed to engage in firefights and cqb with each other and achieve something. Casualty removal and Morale are still intended to represent some kind of effect brought on by engagement. And in the case of Marines now, you have a basic/core army element which has become so inflated that it's eroded away the counter-effectiveness of huge amounts of contending infantry in the same space. It's a problem.

You also have the basic issue that having your models kill opposing models is fun. When only one army shows up with troops that can do that, the game becomes less fun. And we're not even talking skew lists and outlier units, we're talking the basic interactions between core infantry.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/26 01:25:16


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 Insectum7 wrote:
Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about.
My bad, I thought we were talking about the mechanics of a roughly balanced tabletop game and not a novel. You know, if bolters need to be mechanically buffed and not narratively nerfed.
 Tyran wrote:
But 40k? it lacks pinning, and even when it had pinning it was mostly reserved to artillery instead of something infantry was able to inflict. And you cannot really set up your infantry to suppress enemy anti-tank or spotters.
For what it's worth, Pulse Carbines in 3rd ed had Pinning.
 DominayTrix wrote:
Also, wasn't one of the main arguments that marines were just as efficient as the shooting specialist troops while staying as point efficient as a melee specialist troop? Even if tacs and fire warriors are the same at range, the fire warriors lose all points efficiency in melee while marines do not.
Just as efficient... on the datasheet, not on the field. As I said, Fire Warriors in practice will likely have an additional 1/3 increase in damage from a Markerlight token, and that increases by another 1/3 if you tack on the equivalent of "Tactical Doctrine", ie Philosophies of War(Kauyon). Which would bring the Fire Warriors from 24.75% to 41.25% efficiency. For the sake of the argument, let's also ignore Mont'ka where the Fire Warriors would likely be able to remain out of Boltgun range completely, because they are likely wanting to do something with objectives.

10-man Tactical Squad with the Sergeant taking a Chainsword over the Pistol (free upgrade) is 180 points. They get 18 S4 AP0 D1 attacks and 4 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks all at 3+ with Shock Assault. Into Fire Warriors that is a 23% efficiency.
10-man Fire Warriors is 80 points. They get 11 S3 AP0 D1 attacks at 5+. Into Tacticals that is 4.6% efficiency.
Terrible, right? Except 25.7% + 23% = 48.7%, and 41.25% + 4.6% = 47.25%. Almost dead even when you take both shooting and melee into account in the field.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Kaied wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about.
My bad, I thought we were talking about the mechanics of a roughly balanced tabletop game and not a novel. You know, if bolters need to be mechanically buffed and not narratively nerfed.

Well I'll just take that as an admission of inability to come up with a cogent counterargument then.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 Insectum7 wrote:
Kaied wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about.
My bad, I thought we were talking about the mechanics of a roughly balanced tabletop game and not a novel. You know, if bolters need to be mechanically buffed and not narratively nerfed.

Well I'll just take that as an admission of inability to come up with a cogent counterargument then.
If you want to claim victory in your argument that Boltguns aren't narratively correct, then you win that one because I agree with you. That wasn't the conversation.

I'll return the favor and take your reliance on "but muh narrative" and "I care little about the points" to mean you have no cogent mechanical argument.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Kaied wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Kaied wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Well you've just done it again and missed the entire point.
Focusing on "point efficiency" is not what the narrative of the universe is about.
My bad, I thought we were talking about the mechanics of a roughly balanced tabletop game and not a novel. You know, if bolters need to be mechanically buffed and not narratively nerfed.

Well I'll just take that as an admission of inability to come up with a cogent counterargument then.
If you want to claim victory in your argument that Boltguns aren't narratively correct, then you win that one because I agree with you. That wasn't the conversation.

I'll return the favor and take your reliance on "but muh narrative" and "I care little about the points" to mean you have no cogent mechanical argument.
That claim only belies that you still don't understand what's being said. Points don't help the case in either direction, because a whole gamut of different statlines can achieve the same statistical averages. Fire Warriors could be statted like Space Marines, shoot like Space Marines etc, and you could claim "but the ppm averages between the units are equal and rherefore blanced!!". But it gets any claim for or against basically nowhere. In this context, points are basically irrelevant.

So if you want to try this discussion again, be my guest. But it can only be fruitful if you understand the very limited value of ppm.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 Insectum7 wrote:
That claim only belies that you still don't understand what's being said. Points don't help the case in either direction, because a whole gamut of different statlines can achieve the same statistical averages. Fire Warriors could be statted like Space Marines, shoot like Space Marines etc, and you could claim "but the ppm averages between the units are equal and rherefore blanced!!". But it gets any claim for or against basically nowhere. In this context, points are basically irrelevant.

So if you want to try this discussion again, be my guest. But it can only be fruitful if you understand the very limited value of ppm.
Do you have an alternate metric to ppm to objectively compare the two units with different stats?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Kaied wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
That claim only belies that you still don't understand what's being said. Points don't help the case in either direction, because a whole gamut of different statlines can achieve the same statistical averages. Fire Warriors could be statted like Space Marines, shoot like Space Marines etc, and you could claim "but the ppm averages between the units are equal and rherefore blanced!!". But it gets any claim for or against basically nowhere. In this context, points are basically irrelevant.

So if you want to try this discussion again, be my guest. But it can only be fruitful if you understand the very limited value of ppm.
Do you have an alternate metric to ppm to objectively compare the two units with different stats?


I think it is reasonable to posit that there are limits to the utility of PPM when discussing 'eliteness' even if those limits are subjective. In fact, the 'eliteness' of an army is itself subjective.

For example, making Marines "balanced PPM" but cheaper than Guardsman is probably 'insufficiently elite', while making Marines "balanced PPM" but able to oneshot Imperial Knights is probably 'too elite'

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/26 03:52:22


 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




So bounded ppm then? ie, ppm within a certain range, say 15-50 for Marines?
I could dig that, make it a sliding scale depending on how 'narrative' you want your Marines.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/26 03:54:12


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Kaied wrote:
So bounded ppm then? ie, ppm within a certain range, say 15-50 for Marines?


Or even just drop PPM altogether and talk about how elite a unit is.

Should Space Marines be more elite than Fire Warriors? Should they outshoot them?

Should Space Marines be more elite than Necron Warriors? Should they be more durable than them?

Should Space Marines be more elite than Aspect Warriors? Should they be more numerous than them?

Etc.

You can talk about PPM later, once the basic unit identity has been defined.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/26 03:55:20


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Kaied wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
That claim only belies that you still don't understand what's being said. Points don't help the case in either direction, because a whole gamut of different statlines can achieve the same statistical averages. Fire Warriors could be statted like Space Marines, shoot like Space Marines etc, and you could claim "but the ppm averages between the units are equal and rherefore blanced!!". But it gets any claim for or against basically nowhere. In this context, points are basically irrelevant.

So if you want to try this discussion again, be my guest. But it can only be fruitful if you understand the very limited value of ppm.
Do you have an alternate metric to ppm to objectively compare the two units with different stats?
I've already given one. Equal numbers. If a given number of Fire Warriors meet an equal number of Marines, how do we want that to turn out in different scenarios such as ranged combat, CC, whatever. Do we want 10 Fire Warriors to pose a credible threat to Marines if they manage to get themselves in an advantageous position? Do we want a player to feel like a unit from their faction of choice can have a satisfying impact if played well? If 10 of X meet 10 of Y in a dark alley, how do we want that to turn out?

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 Insectum7 wrote:
I've already given one. Equal numbers. If a given number of Fire Warriors meet an equal number of Marines, how do we want that to turn out in different scenarios such as ranged combat, CC, whatever. Do we want 10 Fire Warriors to pose a credible threat to Marines if they manage to get themselves in an advantageous position? Do we want a player to feel like a unit from their faction of choice can have a satisfying impact if played well? If 10 of X meet 10 of Y in a dark alley, how do we want that to turn out?
Sure. But you haven't put the Fire Warriors in an advantageous position yet. And meeting in a dark alley is not advantageous to Fire Warriors unless it is a really long alley. Let's give the Tau an actual ambush. Note, this is more narrative and not what you would see playing an actual game. And I'll note, in your ambush you equated 20 Fire Warriors to ambush 10 marines, so not 10 v 10.
Spoiler:
I'm giving 1 CP to simulate the Ambush and 1 CP for splitting off the pair of Marker Drones to perform the Fire Markerlight action separately.
10 Fire Warriors set up 36" away from the 10 Marines. They shoot, using 1 CP on Relentless Fusillade and doing 4.5W killing 2.25 Marines (7.75 remaining). Marker Drones Fire Markerlight action (88% chance of at least 1 Markerlight token).
Marines Advance taking engagement range to 26.5". Unable to fire back because they are out of range.
Fire Warriors move 6" away bringing engagement range to 32.5" continue shooting. 1.5W to Pulse Rifles, 7 Marines remaining. Marker Drones 88% chance Fire Markerlights and move 6" (does not cause action to fail).
Marines Advance taking engagement range to 22.5". Still unable to fire back because they would be out of range if they didn't advance.
Fire Warriors move another 6" away bringing engagement range to 28.5" and continue shooting. 1.5W to Pulse Rifles, 6.25 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines move and bring engagement range to 22.5", they can finally shoot! Unfortunately, they moved, so a single shot each. 7 Boltguns for 1.5 dead Fire Warriors (8.5 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost a model so 1.33W and 5.58 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but only 6 Boltguns so 1.333 more dead Fire Warriors (7.16 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost another model so 1.2W and 5 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but only 5 Boltguns so 1.1 more dead Fire Warriors (6 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost another 2 models (barely) so 0.88W and 4.56 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but still 5 Boltguns so 1.1 more dead Fire Warriors (4.9 remaining).
6 rounds in, and both squads have finally been reduced to half strength.
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should Space Marines be more elite than Fire Warriors? Should they outshoot them?
Seem like the Fire Warriors out shot the Space Marines until round 6. Space Marines do hit on 3+ default and Fire Warriors don't, so sure, they are both more elite and less elite at the same time. Or just differently elite.
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should Space Marines be more elite than Necron Warriors? Should they be more durable than them?
Well, Necron look to have have exposed wiring and unarmored joints and tubes and things. So it makes sense that Marines in Power Armor with fewer exposed weak points would have a 3+ save compared to 4+. 2W? Well, I suppose Marines have multiple hearts and whatnot and Necrons... don't. Have you ever popped strut on a car? Yeah, 1 weak point and the machine is down for the count.
Sure Living Metal is "incredibly durable, capable of absorbing truly horrendous amounts of fire with hardly a scratch to show for it." But Power Armor is "composed of shaped adamantium and plasteel plates, encased in a ceramite ablative layer." with "Adamantium is a metal that is perhaps the strongest substance known to the Imperium, and is invulnerable to attacks from most known weapons." So who really knows which is stronger? I like to think that Living Metal just has super regenerative qualities and when a Necron Warrior goes down for the count, it's just going to take a day or two to regenerate compared to instantly. Long enough that the Marines have time to vacuum up the liquid and drop it off in the nearest star.
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should Space Marines be more elite than Aspect Warriors? Should they be more numerous than them?
I thought we were talking about basic troops? Aren't all Aspect Warriors elites/fast attack/heavy support? So sure, the Elite Aspect Warriors are by definition more Elite than the Space Marine Troop. And Aspect Warriors are more numerous too, since there are a dozen different types and we're only counting Tactical Marines on the other side.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Insectum7 wrote:
Well congrats, you just missed the entire point, which is that Tau Fire Warriors have degraded over time in comparison to Marines, (like many other basic units).

10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.

10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)


You're still not factoring points here. Tacticals are 18 points. 180 for 10. 10 firewarriors is 80. You can take 20 firewarriors for 160. Those remaining 20 points could be used to get marker drones.

Points are a balancing mechanism. I don't see what you're not getting.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Tyran wrote:


There is a fundamental issue that because 40k is all about killing, troops do not do much.



Exactly this, and that's something a lot of posters here don't get.

Bolter platforms don't need to be more killy, they need to be more appealing and useful. Just like a plethora of other basic troops that aren't used often. Making everything more killy is a wrong solution, it's actually a problem, not a solution. You can buff bolters, and then something else would look lackluster in comparison and in need of a buff, etc... it'd be and endless escalation.

Make basic dudes useful instead, regardless of the damage they might cause and without forcing players to bring them. My favorite solution is to make them score more/better than specialists, characters, vehicles, monsters.

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Kaied wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I've already given one. Equal numbers. If a given number of Fire Warriors meet an equal number of Marines, how do we want that to turn out in different scenarios such as ranged combat, CC, whatever. Do we want 10 Fire Warriors to pose a credible threat to Marines if they manage to get themselves in an advantageous position? Do we want a player to feel like a unit from their faction of choice can have a satisfying impact if played well? If 10 of X meet 10 of Y in a dark alley, how do we want that to turn out?
Sure. But you haven't put the Fire Warriors in an advantageous position yet. And meeting in a dark alley is not advantageous to Fire Warriors unless it is a really long alley. Let's give the Tau an actual ambush. Note, this is more narrative and not what you would see playing an actual game. And I'll note, in your ambush you equated 20 Fire Warriors to ambush 10 marines, so not 10 v 10.
Spoiler:
I'm giving 1 CP to simulate the Ambush and 1 CP for splitting off the pair of Marker Drones to perform the Fire Markerlight action separately.
10 Fire Warriors set up 36" away from the 10 Marines. They shoot, using 1 CP on Relentless Fusillade and doing 4.5W killing 2.25 Marines (7.75 remaining). Marker Drones Fire Markerlight action (88% chance of at least 1 Markerlight token).
Marines Advance taking engagement range to 26.5". Unable to fire back because they are out of range.
Fire Warriors move 6" away bringing engagement range to 32.5" continue shooting. 1.5W to Pulse Rifles, 7 Marines remaining. Marker Drones 88% chance Fire Markerlights and move 6" (does not cause action to fail).
Marines Advance taking engagement range to 22.5". Still unable to fire back because they would be out of range if they didn't advance.
Fire Warriors move another 6" away bringing engagement range to 28.5" and continue shooting. 1.5W to Pulse Rifles, 6.25 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines move and bring engagement range to 22.5", they can finally shoot! Unfortunately, they moved, so a single shot each. 7 Boltguns for 1.5 dead Fire Warriors (8.5 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost a model so 1.33W and 5.58 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but only 6 Boltguns so 1.333 more dead Fire Warriors (7.16 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost another model so 1.2W and 5 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but only 5 Boltguns so 1.1 more dead Fire Warriors (6 remaining).
Fire Warriors repeat last step, engagement back to 28.5", but lost another 2 models (barely) so 0.88W and 4.56 Marines remaining. Marker Drones, same as before.
Marines repeat last step, so 22.5" but still 5 Boltguns so 1.1 more dead Fire Warriors (4.9 remaining).
6 rounds in, and both squads have finally been reduced to half strength.

The 20 Fire Warriors vs. 10 Space Marines illustrates the absurd resilience that Space Marines have now, where even outnumbered and out-positioned, they take almost negligible damage. This is not rewarding gameplay from the Tau players perspective. There is no reward for outmaneuvering your opponent, no decisive strike can be made.

Note that, on the Marine side of a 10 v. 10, Marines with the help of positioning can perform a decisive maneuver. Rapid-firing, plus a subsequent charge (.666 x .666 x .5 x 20)+(.666 x .666 x .5 x 21) kills 9 Fire Warriors in a single round, not including the subsequent Morale casualties. There is an organic tactical route to getting those troops a decisive victory. While in your scenario, giving the Fire Warriors their most ideal setup (a clear table with infinite space to back up into) they struggle to achieve their goal using the specialty they're supposed to be good at, shooting.

^The above is why I felt Marines were fine at 1w, back just prior to the Marine book 2.0 in 8th. They had the offensive capability to act decisively, but still could be acted against by other infantry when they were played well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jarms48 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Well congrats, you just missed the entire point, which is that Tau Fire Warriors have degraded over time in comparison to Marines, (like many other basic units).

10 Tau Fire Warriors shoot at 10 Marines:
3rd ed, (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 w for 1.1 kill
Current: (10 x .5 x .666 x .333) = 1.1 wound, 0 kills.

10 Marines shoot at 10 Fire Warriors:
3rd ed: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2
Current: (10 x .666 x .666 x .5) = 2.2 . . . x2 standing still, 4.4, Tactical Doctrine (10 x .666 x .666 x .666) = 2.9 (x2 standing still 5.8)


You're still not factoring points here. Tacticals are 18 points. 180 for 10. 10 firewarriors is 80. You can take 20 firewarriors for 160. Those remaining 20 points could be used to get marker drones.

Points are a balancing mechanism. I don't see what you're not getting.
You've got some reading to catch up on. Your argument only makes sense if you're also fine with armies of 300 T2 Marines at 5ppm.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/26 06:59:13


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.

If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: