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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
But your math relies on the assumption that the cost of the characters is limited only to buffing the Razors, when the 4 Razors cost only 1/4th ish of the army. If you assume the cost of the character buffs is spread out among the whole force, the cost for their buff to the Razors becomes 40 points, adjusting your ppw considerably.

Not really. First off, you're not buffing your ENTIRE army with just one Chapter Master and Lt.

And second of all, let me run the math assuming the CM and Lt. are FREE.

Same numbers, of course, for hitting and wounding, but PPW goes differently...

12.13 PPW against GEQ.
26.10 PPW against MEQ.

As compared to 13.22 against GEQ and 26.01 against MEQ.

Notice how, even assuming the buffers are TOTALLY FREE, they barely outperform the Punishers against GEQ and do NOT outperform them against MEQ. (It's really close against MEQ, though.)

I mean, great. You're basically telling me that with the right combination of units we get comparable damage output. Thanks.

No hes telling you for almost half the price the IG get similar performance.

Buy a Jump Pack. Mind blown.

Some of the razorbacks' points are dedicated to transport, so why not have the characters actually in the razorbacks, only getting out once the razors are in range?

You can also use the razors to disembark infantry... and you need infantry to take them anyway, so if you don't utilize their transport capacity, you're not using their full points potential. I recommend flamer/combiflamer tacticals if your worry is hordes, but perhaps some form of veterans would also work for you if you aren't interested in troops choices.

But you're not buffing anyone while you're inside the transport.

This is absurd; under ideal circumstances where nothing has to move and Space Marines get 160 points and 3 CPs worth of buffs for free Razorbacks can almost match an out-of-the-box standard Leman Russ Punisher. I'd say it's pretty telling that you have to stack the deck immensely in favour of the Razorback to reach a level of power that's *almost* as good as a Punisher.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But you're not buffing anyone while you're inside the transport.

This is absurd; under ideal circumstances where nothing has to move and Space Marines get 160 points and 3 CPs worth of buffs for free Razorbacks can almost match an out-of-the-box standard Leman Russ Punisher. I'd say it's pretty telling that you have to stack the deck immensely in favour of the Razorback to reach a level of power that's *almost* as good as a Punisher.

I find the suggestion that an IFV should rival an MBT in firepower without buffs to be equally absurd.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But you're not buffing anyone while you're inside the transport.

This is absurd; under ideal circumstances where nothing has to move and Space Marines get 160 points and 3 CPs worth of buffs for free Razorbacks can almost match an out-of-the-box standard Leman Russ Punisher. I'd say it's pretty telling that you have to stack the deck immensely in favour of the Razorback to reach a level of power that's *almost* as good as a Punisher.

I find the suggestion that an IFV should rival an MBT in firepower without buffs to be equally absurd.

Absolutely, I agree. Are you finally going to react to the multiple times people have pointed out that Razorbacks are being discussed because they were suggested as a counter to hordes and not because they logically should be the greatest source of firepower (because as you say they shouldn't)?

Can we buff Predators now?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But you're not buffing anyone while you're inside the transport.

This is absurd; under ideal circumstances where nothing has to move and Space Marines get 160 points and 3 CPs worth of buffs for free Razorbacks can almost match an out-of-the-box standard Leman Russ Punisher. I'd say it's pretty telling that you have to stack the deck immensely in favour of the Razorback to reach a level of power that's *almost* as good as a Punisher.

I find the suggestion that an IFV should rival an MBT in firepower without buffs to be equally absurd.

Absolutely, I agree. Are you finally going to react to the multiple times people have pointed out that Razorbacks are being discussed because they were suggested as a counter to hordes and not because they logically should be the greatest source of firepower (because as you say they shouldn't)?

Can we buff Predators now?

Why buff Predators? Presumably, the army focused around MBTs both in the fluff and the rules throughout multiple games and editions should have better MBTs than the army focused around literally anything else, and in which the MBTs are an afterthought.

The Predator has more kinship with the Razorback than the Leman Russ, both in the fluff and in the rules, and rightfully so, considering the faction strengths.

So we can't have Razorbacks being better than MBTs when we're comparing them to guard tanks, but when I point out that the Razorback is better than the Space Marine MBT you suddenly lose all interest in that argument.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So we can't have Razorbacks being better than MBTs when we're comparing them to guard tanks, but when I point out that the Razorback is better than the Space Marine MBT you suddenly lose all interest in that argument.

I'd be fine buffing Predators, or giving them a better anti-horde option (TLAC and AC sponsons, maybe?)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So we can't have Razorbacks being better than MBTs when we're comparing them to guard tanks, but when I point out that the Razorback is better than the Space Marine MBT you suddenly lose all interest in that argument.

Oh, no, if the predator is worse than the razorback then nerf razorbacks. Predators seem fine compared to Russes, though they could use their army special rule and double-firing gun, possibly. I'd be okay giving them POTMS (for all their guns) instead of double-firing as well, but that's a whole other discussion for another time.

The only way to make predators better anti-horde would be to give them better equipment (maybe try the Baal? some people are reporting success with its flame turret variant plus heavy flamer sponsons). The non-quadlas predators are definitely overpriced though IMO.

Lol flamers/combi-flamers good for anti-horde.

There is a disconnect between people like inscect/primark and the rest of the thread.

They don't seem to care that their choices are less than ideal as long as they work for them.

You can put as much math in front of them as you want to but as long as it doesn't vibe with their personal experience there's no getting through to them. I don't know what kind of meta they play in but their personal experience doesn't seem to be the default for most competitive players (ie tournament results) or the rest of the people in the thread. They write-off the cost of a captain + lt as the "price of playing marines" which seems to mean they are fine playing at a 160 point disadvantage or the fact they can fit their entire army in a 6" bubble without obstructing LOS for their own units, while being in optimal range, without having to move, but with movement as an advantage, being in cover, able to grab mid-field objectives and cover back-field objectives...

It could be as simple as ITC vs non-ITC divide. But the fact that people don't understand that you are souping in guard so that you can keep your deepstrikers off the table (duh, you can just shoot past screens...) shows the different levels of competitive acumen that seem to be trying to talk about the problem.

On page 33 of this thread it has turned into marines are statistically inferior to most other troop choices. Some people don't think this matters, others do.

There is no consensus for how to fix the statistical short-coming of MEQ. Some people are in favor of just making them cheaper, others want to buff them.

How much cheaper seems like 10-11 points. The buff side doesn't seem to have a consensus. I feel that better chapter specific traits applying to TACs is a more elegant solution but maybe that ship has already sailed?

bananathug wrote:
Lol flamers/combi-flamers good for anti-horde.

There is a disconnect between people like inscect/primark and the rest of the thread.

They don't seem to care that their choices are less than ideal as long as they work for them.

You can put as much math in front of them as you want to but as long as it doesn't vibe with their personal experience there's no getting through to them. I don't know what kind of meta they play in but their personal experience doesn't seem to be the default for most competitive players (ie tournament results) or the rest of the people in the thread. They write-off the cost of a captain + lt as the "price of playing marines" which seems to mean they are fine playing at a 160 point disadvantage or the fact they can fit their entire army in a 6" bubble without obstructing LOS for their own units, while being in optimal range, without having to move, but with movement as an advantage, being in cover, able to grab mid-field objectives and cover back-field objectives...

It could be as simple as ITC vs non-ITC divide. But the fact that people don't understand that you are souping in guard so that you can keep your deepstrikers off the table (duh, you can just shoot past screens...) shows the different levels of competitive acumen that seem to be trying to talk about the problem.

On page 33 of this thread it has turned into marines are statistically inferior to most other troop choices. Some people don't think this matters, others do.

There is no consensus for how to fix the statistical short-coming of MEQ. Some people are in favor of just making them cheaper, others want to buff them.

How much cheaper seems like 10-11 points. The buff side doesn't seem to have a consensus. I feel that better chapter specific traits applying to TACs is a more elegant solution but maybe that ship has already sailed?

I mean if we're just using tournament results technically Guard haven't been doing very well either lately, yet people have been shrieking like stuck pigs for nerfing them.

And before anyone cries "SOUP!" just remember that that soup includes marines, so if you include it as a tournament win for Guard, you have to include it as a tournament win for Marines as well...

It's okay. I've been told on here enough that I don't know what I'm doing, I'm sure competitive acumen has nothing to do with it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
This was given as the Space Marine answer to hordes. It fails compared to the Russ.

And note that being Heavy Support is actually BETTER than Dedicated Transport in most cases, since it helps you gain CP, whereas DT does not.

Wrong -

The SM answer to hordes is the bolter and it comes with each model too.

It's a woefully inadequate solution.

Mine do just fine.

"On page 33 of this thread it has turned into marines are statistically inferior to most other troop choices."

Wyches
Necron Warriors
Tau Breachers
Kroot
PAGK
Storm Guardians
Guardian Defenders
Wyches

When people say "most other troop choices", especially in reference to Marines, they typically mean "not top 3".

bananathug wrote:
Lol flamers/combi-flamers good for anti-horde.

Unsupported and without any chapter or strategem-based shenanigans or further upgrades (like power weapon on the sarge), they can kill roughly a guardsman squad per turn (on average), or around half a boyz squad of equal points value (again, on average).

Thus, they fill an anti-horde purpose, especially when combined with asscan razorback or additional squads in rhinos.

 Melissia wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Lol flamers/combi-flamers good for anti-horde.

Unsupported and without any chapter or strategem-based shenanigans or further upgrades (like power weapon on the sarge), they can kill roughly a guardsman squad per turn, or around half a boyz squad of equal points value.

Thus, they fill an anti-horde purpose, especially when combined with asscan razorback or additional squads in rhinos.

Assuming you're within 8 inches and have a Flamer, Combi-Flamer, and three bolters...

2 shots at 4+, 1 hit.
6 shots at 3+, 4 hits.
2d6 shots at yes+, 7 hits.
12 hits total.

Against GEQ...
8 wounds.
16/3 failed saves, or 5.33. Half a guard squad on average.

Against Boyz...
6 wounds.
5 failed saves, or 30 points.

Edit: Against GEQ, you have the following odds, assuming 7 flamer hits:

1 Wound...............99.88%
2 Wounds.............98.84%
3 Wounds.............94.64%
4 Wounds.............84.30%
5 Wounds.............66.82%
6 Wounds.............45.38%
7 Wounds.............25.67%
8 Wounds.............11.84%
9 Wounds.............4.37%
10 Wounds............1.26%

So just over a one percent chance of wiping a guard squad.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Lol flamers/combi-flamers good for anti-horde.

Unsupported and without any chapter or strategem-based shenanigans or further upgrades (like power weapon on the sarge), they can kill roughly a guardsman squad per turn, or around half a boyz squad of equal points value.

Thus, they fill an anti-horde purpose, especially when combined with asscan razorback or additional squads in rhinos.

Assuming you're within 8 inches and have a Flamer, Combi-Flamer, and three bolters...

2 shots at 4+, 1 hit.
6 shots at 3+, 4 hits.
2d6 shots at yes+, 7 hits.
12 hits total.

Against GEQ...
8 wounds.
16/3 failed saves, or 5.33. Half a guard squad on average.

Against Boyz...
6 wounds.
5 failed saves, or 30 points.

And then you charge, doing 6 attacks and killing ~2 guardsmen, meaning you've killed ~7, which means that they lose d6 models automatically (on average wiping the squad). You know. Since Tactical Marines are generalists and not just shooting 'n all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Lol flamers/combi-flamers good for anti-horde.

Unsupported and without any chapter or strategem-based shenanigans or further upgrades (like power weapon on the sarge), they can kill roughly a guardsman squad per turn, or around half a boyz squad of equal points value.

Thus, they fill an anti-horde purpose, especially when combined with asscan razorback or additional squads in rhinos.

Assuming you're within 8 inches and have a Flamer, Combi-Flamer, and three bolters...

2 shots at 4+, 1 hit.
6 shots at 3+, 4 hits.
2d6 shots at yes+, 7 hits.
12 hits total.

Against GEQ...
8 wounds.
16/3 failed saves, or 5.33. Half a guard squad on average.

Against Boyz...
6 wounds.
5 failed saves, or 30 points.

And then you charge, doing 6 attacks and killing ~2 guardsmen, meaning you've killed ~7, which means that they lose d6 models automatically (on average wiping the squad).

6 attacks, 4 hits, 8/3 wounds, 16/9 dead... Yeah, close to that.

Assuming you got a squad unmolested to within 8", of course. And congrats! Your 80 point squad wiped out a 40 point squad!

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Lol flamers/combi-flamers good for anti-horde.

Unsupported and without any chapter or strategem-based shenanigans or further upgrades (like power weapon on the sarge), they can kill roughly a guardsman squad per turn, or around half a boyz squad of equal points value.

Thus, they fill an anti-horde purpose, especially when combined with asscan razorback or additional squads in rhinos.

Assuming you're within 8 inches and have a Flamer, Combi-Flamer, and three bolters...

2 shots at 4+, 1 hit.
6 shots at 3+, 4 hits.
2d6 shots at yes+, 7 hits.
12 hits total.

Against GEQ...
8 wounds.
16/3 failed saves, or 5.33. Half a guard squad on average.

Against Boyz...
6 wounds.
5 failed saves, or 30 points.

And then you charge, doing 6 attacks and killing ~2 guardsmen, meaning you've killed ~7, which means that they lose d6 models automatically (on average wiping the squad).

6 attacks, 4 hits, 8/3 wounds, 16/9 dead... Yeah, close to that.

Assuming you got a squad unmolested to within 8", of course. And congrats! Your 80 point squad wiped out a 40 point squad!

Nothing that you have said directly contradicts what Melissa said. Thanks for playing!

So trading points at a 2:1 ration is considered good now? After you slog across the entire table to get within 8"?

Yes, you can add a Rhino or Razorback, but that inflates the points costs. A lot.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So trading points at a 2:1 ration is considered good now? After you slog across the entire table to get within 8"?

Yes, you can add a Rhino or Razorback, but that inflates the points costs. A lot.

[

How is it a trade? You consumed the unit for one turn, and then can use them next turn. At worse, they eat their share of lasgun fire next round.

Trades are when you lose the unit too. Most units don't delete more than their points in one round while still being capable afterwards.

Even Reapers don't kill their points of Marines in a single round of (unbuffed) fighting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So trading points at a 2:1 ration is considered good now? After you slog across the entire table to get within 8"?

Yes, you can add a Rhino or Razorback, but that inflates the points costs. A lot.

-Snipped for image-

Yes, how dare I take into consideration what it actually means to use Flamers. And how dare I point out that, on average, it takes twice as many points to clear out Guardsmen.

Plus, you talked about using it on Boyz too. Gonna charge them? Or rely on morale to wipe them out?

Vs GEQ:
Shooting phase:
1 Frag Grenade: Ave.3.5 shots. 2.333 hits. 1.167 wounds. 0.778 kills.
1 Boltgun, 4+: 2 shots. 1 hit. 0.667 wounds. 0.444 kills.
2 boltguns, 3+: 4 shots. 2.667 hits. 1.778 wounds. 1.185 kills.
2 flamers: Ave.7 shots. 7 hits. 4.667 wounds. 3.111 kills.
5.518 kills.
Assault phase: 6 attacks. 4 hits. 2.667 wounds. 1.778 kills.
Total: 7.296 kills. At -7, guardsmen are practically guaranteed to fail their morale check and have the remaining two or three guardsmen be removed because, let's face it, the Guard player probably will let them fail anyway. Thus, roughly a guard squad per turn.

Vs Orks:
Shooting phase:
1 Frag Grenade: Ave.3.5 shots. 2.333 hits. 0.778 wounds. 0.648 kills.
1 Boltgun, 4+: 2 shots. 1 hit. 0.5 wounds. 0.417 kills.
2 Boltguns, 3+: 4 shots. 2.667 hits. 1.333 wounds. 1.111 kills.
2 Flamers: Ave.7 shots. 7 hits. 3.5 wounds. 2.917 kills.
5.093 kills.
Assault phase: 6 attacks. 4 hits. 2 wounds. 1.667 kills.
6.76 kills. 85 points of Orks is around 14 Orks, thus roughly equivalent to half their cost in Orks, though not necessarily per turn. This comes with the caveat, of course, that if you want to assault Orks, you better cause a lot more casualties than that before you do, so this is not an ideal situation. But they certainly can thin out the horde, especially when combined with other units, stratagems, and chapter tactics.

I did forgot the grenade. That's my bad.

How are you getting the Marines that close to Guardsmen at full strength?

If you can solve that, you can win against Guard reliably.

I don't think the meta has.