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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Orgyns have 3 wounds and strong guns. I'd take them over a tac squad all day. Put Orgyns up against a tac squad and see what happens. Marines lose - thats what happens.

Actually, they don't.

Ogryns are markedly less survivable than tactical marines, and will also be out-ranged.

It takes 27 bolter shots to kill 3 marines (42pts)
It takes half that amount to kill an Ogryn (40pts)

How did Ogryns get into this thread? Ogryns aren't even a troop.

Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.

Well, I'm sticking with worst commonly used unit.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.

While you are technically correct (Futurama has taught me this is the best kind) I think we all know that troop choices was the context of the point

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Oh, so what you're saying is that running a unit up to a heavily armed squad in cover will get the assaulting unit killed? Do tell.

And to elaborate on my point as to why Marines aren't the worst unit for cost Ogryns only cost 2 pts less than a Hammernator. Hammernators have a 3+ invuln, a 2+ save, pretty much the same WS, higher leadership, better strength and a better AP. The only thing Ogryns have over Hammernators is 2 more wounds, one more attack and a +1 WS/S/T. Which do not amount to much since they have crappy saves and a one point difference in weapon skill isn't much most of the time.

Orgyns have 3 wounds and strong guns. I'd take them over a tac squad all day. Put Orgyns up against a tac squad and see what happens. Marines lose - thats what happens.

mm yeah soo a 3man ogryns squad will shoot 9 hit 4.5 do 3 wounds and 1 marine will die for a wopping 130 points for that 1 wound
5 man marine at that range will shoot 10 hot 6.66 do 2.22 wounds and they will all go through for a discount price of 31.5 wounds per point

and in assault it would of been ogryns 10 attacks 5 hits 3.33 wounds 1.11 unsaved for 117 points per kill (so they are a little better in assault) as apossed to marines who will attack 5 hit 3.33 wound 1.11 and .74 unsaved for a 94.5 point per kill.

il still put my money on the marines

(im doing direct comparison rather than a how many bolters does it take calculation)

To be fair, it's kind of odd to call a unit the worst unit in 40k for points but only allow troops choices for comparison. But, alright, I'll go with troops choices.

I put it to you that Conscripts are crappy units for their cost. While they may seem cheap at 3ppm they are overpriced in comparison to their infantry squad counterparts. For two more points over a conscript you get: +1 WS/BS, +2 LD and a Sergeant that bumps it up to a +3 LD. You don't even pay extra points for the Sarge. You also get the ability to buy special weapons, heavy weapons, krak grenades, a Bolter (For only 1 point!), melta bombs and you can take a Chimera/Taurox. I dunno, I don't see why anyone would take Conscripts over more infantry squads unless their obscenely spacious troops slots were all filled up and they wanted moar Guardsman. If Chenkov were still kicking it I'd see their use but as it stands? Meh.

Akiasura wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.

While you are technically correct (Futurama has taught me this is the best kind) I think we all know that troop choices was the context of the point

Wyches.

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.

While you are technically correct (Futurama has taught me this is the best kind) I think we all know that troop choices was the context of the point

Wyches.

They are not great for sure.

its nice that they can hold up a daemon prince in CC for a few turns.

 Desubot wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.

While you are technically correct (Futurama has taught me this is the best kind) I think we all know that troop choices was the context of the point

Wyches.

They are not great for sure.

its nice that they can hold up a daemon prince in CC for a few turns.

Not really, I want the daemon prince to hit a squad and break it. Neither choice are great for that though.

Wyches are worse, but they are never taken anymore (sadly). Marines are still a common part of army lists.

Why is it weird to compare troop choices? You have to take 2 of them unless unbound, HQ is the only slot with this requirement as well unless formations. They are also the iconic unit for the army, at least often (some armies...no, but many yes). This makes them in a weird position.
Its not different than how, in Warmachine, warcasters get compared so much more than jacks, beasts, or anything else.

There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.

 Xenomancers wrote:
There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.

So you are saying that marines will not lose to ogryns, contradicting your other statement?

 Desubot wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.

So you are saying that marines will not lose to ogryns, contradicting your other statement?

No in an actual game setting. Where Ogyrns start the battle in cover and marines are forced to come within 12 inches to do real damage. Ogryns will ether draw fire whilst losing very little or charge the marine squad untouched and win the fight. Rippers gun are rending too are they not?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.

So you are saying that marines will not lose to ogryns, contradicting your other statement?

No in an actual game setting. Where Ogyrns start the battle in cover and marines are forced to come within 12 inches to do real damage. Ogryns will ether draw fire whilst losing very little or charge the marine squad untouched and win the fight. Rippers gun are rending too are they not?

Why in the world would marines need to go up within 12" of an ogryn squad if we are going to be practical about this.

secondly no rippers are not rending. just ST5 assault 3 12"

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.

So you are saying that marines will not lose to ogryns, contradicting your other statement?

No in an actual game setting. Where Ogyrns start the battle in cover and marines are forced to come within 12 inches to do real damage. Ogryns will ether draw fire whilst losing very little or charge the marine squad untouched and win the fight. Rippers gun are rending too are they not?

If they're sitting in cover in the backfield, they're not doing their primary job. If they're crossing the field to charge your marines, you can probably cut them to ribbons with ease before they get into anything.

Each one costs as much as 8 guardsmen, but is only effectively six times resilient against bolters, meaning your bolters are more cost effective shooting at Ogryns than at guardsmen. In regards to shooting, 40pts of guardsmen at 12" will average 0.88 wounds with lasguns against Marines, while 40pts of Ogryn will average 0.33 wounds against marines with a Ripper gun.

Likewise, lets look at close combat, 40pts of Guardsmen charging into Marines (ignoring marines getting overwatch and striking first) inflict 0.88 wounds, while an Ogryn getting off a charge (where they are at their most effective, and again ignoring overwatch and the marines striking first) will only inflict 0.66 wounds between 4 attack and a Hammer of Wrath hit. The Guardsmen are better in both shooting and CC and resiliency point for point, the only advantage the Ogryn has is being able to both shoot and assault.

However, Ogryns are slow, they take a lot of time to get anywhere, their save might as well not exist, and they require an HQ to babysit them of the first time they lose someone it's a fallback test on LD7 (or 6 if it was the Bone'ead).

Ripper Guns are not Rending.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even 10 million really would be too small. We're talking a galaxy of between 200-400 billion star systems. GW finally wizened up in 2009 and at least gave relatively realistic (if vague) numbers for the Imperial Guard at "billions" of regiments, each containing thousands of troops. That's a force that can conceivable operate on such a scale. Even if we assume the low end estimate of systems a 200 billion, and assume the Imperium of Man only holds about 1% of those, that's two billion star systems. Even with ten million marines, you're talking a single marine per two hundred star star systems, a single Chapter per two million star systems. That's still spread so thin as to simply be nonexistent, not even simply mythical or legendary.

Digging up a discussion from several pages back just to respond:

The Imperium is very consistently portrayed as containing 1 million planets, with 1 Marine per planet (1000 chapters of 1000 Marines).

That is not nearly as little as I see people commonly spout without thinking first. Let's take a look.

The majority of the planets in the Imperium will be behind the 'front lines' or otherwise untheatened. They will sometimes get rebellions and the like, but nothing the PDF and/or Guard can't handle. No need to even bother with Marines for that in most cases.

Let's make an assumption that 10% of the Imperium's planets are in warzones, or as close to warzones as to make them relevant from a short-term military standpoint. Now you have one hundred thousand planets. This might actually be generous - it's possible that this number is considerably lower.

Of these, lets say 5% - one in twenty - are warzones where the Marines decide to show up. That's 5000 planets where the Astartes show up.

Now, that means that 1000000/5000=200, or that on average two full companies of Marines are deployed in each warzone (and two companies can and do make a significant difference), even if they show up in as many as one in twenty warzones!

That does not sound that mythically rare, now does it? Rare for sure, and legendary to the common imperial citizen (who is unlikely to be on one of the war-torn worlds to begin with), but not that uncommon on a strategic level.

200 super-elite post-human soldiers that can smash strongpoints in the enemy line, target and dismantle commanders and important structures, cut off retreat paths and so on.

After a long, drawn out thread, the answer is still "no", bolters were never any good compared to other weapons in the game.

Martel732 wrote:
After a long, drawn out thread, the answer is still "no", bolters were never any good compared to other weapons in the game.

After a long, draw out discussion, I STILL disagree with that assertion. Loved bolters in 1st and 2nd edition. Only a handful of basic weapons were better and they were far more rare.

 docdoom77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
After a long, drawn out thread, the answer is still "no", bolters were never any good compared to other weapons in the game.

After a long, draw out discussion, I STILL disagree with that assertion. Loved bolters in 1st and 2nd edition. Only a handful of basic weapons were better and they were far more rare.

Seriously? In a game with warp spiders, chaos terminators, lists with 200+hormaguants, sonic blasters, blast masters, bivores, pulsa rokkits, and shuriken catapults, you really think the bolter was good in 2nd edition? That's straight up insane. More rare? I faced lists with 30 sonic blasters! They had two sustained fire dice! My marines were all dead in 2 turns! What are you talking about?

Martel732 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
After a long, drawn out thread, the answer is still "no", bolters were never any good compared to other weapons in the game.

After a long, draw out discussion, I STILL disagree with that assertion. Loved bolters in 1st and 2nd edition. Only a handful of basic weapons were better and they were far more rare.

Seriously? In a game with warp spiders, chaos terminators, lists with 200+hormaguants, sonic blasters, blast masters, bivores, pulsa rokkits, and shuriken catapults, you really think the bolter was good in 2nd edition? That's straight up insane. More rare? I faced lists with 30 sonic blasters! They had two sustained fire dice! My marines were all dead in 2 turns! What are you talking about?

The only basic weapon on your list is the shuriken catapult.

Do I think bolters are better than specialized weaponry used by elite army troops like warp spiders, aritllery like pulsa rockets, or the ability to get enormous numbers of guys in a skirmish game ala gaunts, no? But that's not really the question. Were bolters good when judged against other weapons of it's class (basic weapons used by core troops)? Absolutely. Only the Shuriken catapult was better. In 1st and 2nd Bolters were an excellent weapon when judged against other weapons of the same type. Any other comparison would make little to no sense.

The bolter wasn't good because it couldn't affect the outcome of a game in 2nd in any meaningful way because of those other weapons. Comparing it to basic weapons is meaningless in a game where no one who was any good used basic weapons. Except the marines, of course, who were forced to. So, no, bolters were not good in practice. They were actually completely awful. It makes perfect sense to compare the bolter to what the other armies actually fielded. Which weren't basic weapons unless your opponent was brain dead.

Martel732 wrote:
The bolter wasn't good because it couldn't affect the outcome of a game in 2nd in any meaningful way because of those other weapons. Comparing it to basic weapons is meaningless in a game where no one who was any good used basic weapons. Except the marines, of course, who were forced to.

You are, again, taking your personal experiences and stating them as facts. The extreme play you keep citing never happened in any meta I played in and I played from the end of Rogue Trader all through 2nd edition. Not everyone used extreme builds. When balanced builds are the rule of the day, bolters did just fine. It didn't stop Space Marines from being an overpriced choice, but the weapon was solid. Marines weren't the only ones to use them. Orks used bolters and I used them to deadly effect in many games. If your conclusion is that Space Marines sucked in 2nd edition, I would give it to you. They were seriously over-priced for what they did. But bolters? Pure awesomeness.

 docdoom77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The bolter wasn't good because it couldn't affect the outcome of a game in 2nd in any meaningful way because of those other weapons. Comparing it to basic weapons is meaningless in a game where no one who was any good used basic weapons. Except the marines, of course, who were forced to.

You are, again, taking your personal experiences and stating them as facts. The extreme play you keep citing never happened in any meta I played in and I played from the end of Rogue Trader all through 2nd edition. Not everyone used extreme builds. When balanced builds are the rule of the day, bolters did just fine. It didn't stop Space Marines from being an overpriced choice, but the weapon was solid. Marines weren't the only ones to use them. Orks used bolters and I used them to deadly effect in many games. If your conclusion is that Space Marines sucked in 2nd edition, I would give it to you. They were seriously over-priced for what they did. But bolters? Pure awesomeness.

It's not extreme play. It's what anyone with half a brain cell would have done with the 2nd ed Chaos Marine codex. 6 pt hormagaunts? Yes, please. I never saw bolters save Orks from Eldar, sonic blaster chaos marines or 200+ hormagaunts. If it can't run with the big boys, it's a bad weapon.

"stating them as facts"

Those lists existed and were legal. How is that not factual? Sure, if you played with a Care Bear group, I guess the bolter might have been useful, but against people that could analyze what worked well in 2nd, it was useless. Don't forget the negatives to hit against fast moving Tyranids. Such garbage.

" never happened in any meta I played in "

Doesn't make boltguns good in the final analysis of 2nd edition. Because what you call "extreme lists" were legal and common.

I might have enjoyed a continued discussion. But since you're being incredibly rude, by implying that I am stupid and a "care bear" for not playing the game the same way you do. I'm done with conversing with you.

Congratulations. You win.

I lived it. I know I was right.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's generally agreed that sisters are better than tacs.

Generally agreed by you, or what?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Cost less have same gun with better special rules and better transports.

Better special rules? No. Better transport? Do you mean paying 5 points more for the very same rhino except with a 6++ is better? No drop pod is better? The Razorback-like Immolator, that has just less weapon options (and, incidentally, pays for the same 6++) is better?

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'll be honest I don't know a lot about sisters in this edition.

Yeah, I can see that. If you do not know, why do you pretend they are superior? I am sure this is why you are the only one on this thread saying tacs are the worst unit, while everyone points at you and laugh. You have no idea what other armies' units are.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In previous editions the whole army could have a laz cannon for 1 turn or some other shenanigans.

There is just no way to get a lascannon in the army, and there never was. So, no.

 Xenomancers wrote:
6++ is another thing while costing less? lol.

When is the 6++ going to be useful? Not against any weapon that has AP4 or more. Not when in ANY kind of cover. If Sisters are in close combat, they are SO MUCH WORSE than marines there it makes no difference. So, basically, you hardly ever roll the 6++. And when you does, it is still a microscopic help. T4, though, is going to make the difference for every weapon with a strength of less than 6.

I think you would need to actually learn the rules and point costs of other armies, and maybe even play them, to get a less biased point of view. Maybe you are loosing because you just do not play that well?

SoB have their advantages, though. They die like chumps to Wave Serpents just as fast as Marines do, but they at least are marginally cheaper and have marginally more firepower per point...

...Yeah, they are not that good either, really.

 Ashiraya wrote:
SoB have their advantages, though. They die like chumps to Wave Serpents just as fast as Marines do, but they at least are marginally cheaper and have marginally more firepower per point...

...Yeah, they are not that good either, really.

To be fair, their codex is very old, relatively speaking, isn't it? Point costs have dropped quite a bit by and large for most units.
I'll be the first to admit I'm very bad at keeping track of these things.

 Ashiraya wrote:
but they at least are marginally cheaper and have marginally more firepower per point...

Seeing just how much they loose, for so few points… not worth it.

Akiasura wrote:
To be fair, their codex is very old, relatively speaking, isn't it?

No. It was released October 2013. That is not really old by GW standards. For reference, Dark Eldar had to wait for 12 years.

Death Korps Engineers are probably the worst unit.

Shotguns and carapace armor, 10 guys in a slot at best, can only take the Hades Drill that's been nerfed horribly, and they become elite if you take a Drill, yeah, excuse me if I don't shed tears for the powered armored gorillas.