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.

 Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody takes Tacticals because you HAVE to buy a model as a transport on top of their rules saying only one special and heavy weapon.

Bikers having Relentless is just icing on the cake with that. Fix the latter problem with Tactical Marines and they're less of a tax.

Other way around. Tacticals don't need to be buffed. Bikes need to be nerfed. Increase their points cost and take away their special rules until they become points-comparable to tactical marines.

Sounds a LOT like you just want everything to be like Tacs honestly.

pm713 wrote:Sounds a LOT like you just want everything to be like Tacs honestly.

I think that tacs should be a viable option. Tactical marines vs. bikes should be an actual strategic decision. It shouldn't be a no-brainer.

There shouldn't be "better" and "worse" units. There should only be different units that fill different strategic/tactical roles.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Sounds a LOT like you just want everything to be like Tacs honestly.

I think that tacs should be a viable option. Tactical marines vs. bikes should be an actual strategic decision. It shouldn't be a no-brainer.

There shouldn't be "better" and "worse" units. There should only be different units that fill different strategic/tactical roles.

That really isn't how things sound.

pm713 wrote:That really isn't how things sound.

Do you have an actual answer to the posting I wrote earlier in answer to you, vis-a-vis why bikes are unfair/OP, point for point, in comparison to their non-bike counterparts?

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:That really isn't how things sound.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/69.page
Do you have an actual answer to the posting I wrote earlier in answer to you, vis-a-vis why bikes are unfair/OP, point for point, in comparison to their non-bike counterparts?

Yes. Don't make text walls and stop asking if I'm taking tacticals because it sounds like you're an annoying child.

Actual answer: Your whole point seems built around the idea that Bikes are "OP bullgak". This in turn is based on your idea that undercosted = overpowered and overcosted = underpowered. Which I disagree with.

While the bikes should cost slightly more they are not what I'd call OP. The things that make them OP are outside factors like Grav and Scatter lasers. If you remove Grav and the scatter lasers they aren't OP.

False. If you remove the added weaponry (like orbital bombardments, grav, scatter lasers, etc.), they are still vastly undercosted compared to their non-bike counterparts.

Again, I reiterate:

+1 toughness, jump-pack like movement, the ability to jink and relentless.

And do note that, in addition to all of the bike bonus rules, the windriders gain an assault movement, the ability to ignore terrain AND additional armor (not to mention a better turbo-boost).

That is not a 7 point upgrade. Even without relentless, that's not a 7 point upgrade. Even without the additional +2 armor and jet-pack abilities (for eldar bikes), that is not a 7 point upgrade.

Which would you prefer:

X points worth of windrider units without upgrades?

Or X points worth of dire avengers without upgrades?

Assume no formations or other bonuses.

Would you prefer:

X points worth of bikes?

Or x points worth of tactical marines with bolters?

Again, assume no upgrades or formation bonuses.

 Traditio wrote:
False. If you remove the added weaponry (like orbital bombardments, grav, scatter lasers, etc.), they are still vastly undercosted compared to their non-bike counterparts.

Which would you prefer:

X points worth of windrider units without upgrades?

Or X points worth of dire avengers without upgrades?

Assume no formations or other bonuses.

Would you prefer:

X points worth of bikes?

Or x points worth of tactical marines with bolters?

Again, assume no upgrades or formation bonuses.

You did not read what I said did you.....

Depends what I'm doing with those things. It could be either.

Well point for point, it would be foolish, strictly from a game-advantage standpoint, to take either the tacticals or the dire avengers. The bikes are just way more points efficient and rules advantageous.

The bikes can do pretty much everything that the DAs can, except way better and with less risk.

Ditto for the SM bikes.

 Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody takes Tacticals because you HAVE to buy a model as a transport on top of their rules saying only one special and heavy weapon.

Bikers having Relentless is just icing on the cake with that. Fix the latter problem with Tactical Marines and they're less of a tax.

Other way around. Tacticals don't need to be buffed. Bikes need to be nerfed. Increase their points cost and take away their special rules until they become points-comparable to tactical marines.

And then I'm taking Scouts as my troops again. That's how I would do it even when they were BS3.

Also, by your logic, Tactical Marines should be much more expensive in the 6th edition codex. Was the +1 BS, WS, and 3+ worth only 3 more points? I didn't see you argue about that.

 Traditio wrote:
Well point for point, it would be foolish, strictly from a game-advantage standpoint, to take either the tacticals or the dire avengers. The bikes are just way more points efficient and rules advantageous.

The bikes can do pretty much everything that the DAs can, except way better and with less risk.

Ditto for the SM bikes.

Not really. For holding a point it's better to have the infantry. I like how we seem to have dismissed my opinion because it doesn't match your bad argument.

I would rather pay 65 points for 5 models that are just going to sit on an objective in cover, than 51 points for 3 models. Bikes are meant to be used to grab objectives, not sit in the backfield.

pm713 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Well point for point, it would be foolish, strictly from a game-advantage standpoint, to take either the tacticals or the dire avengers. The bikes are just way more points efficient and rules advantageous.

The bikes can do pretty much everything that the DAs can, except way better and with less risk.

Ditto for the SM bikes.

Not really. For holding a point it's better to have the infantry. I like how we seem to have dismissed my opinion because it doesn't match your bad argument.

So you would rather take a dire avengers squad and hope that the mission your playing involves a backfield objective? I would rather take the bikes because they give you a lot more tactical flexibility. Especially when you plop those ridiculous Scatter lasers on them. You could have a backfield objective holder that scoots out, shoots and then scoots back into the objective/cover. And if the situation arises where you need unit to rush forward to remove an enemy unit or to take a more mission critical objective you don't have to take 3-4 turns marching across the board to get there.

 Happyjew wrote:
I would rather pay 65 points for 5 models that are just going to sit on an objective in cover, than 51 points for 3 models. Bikes are meant to be used to grab objectives, not sit in the backfield.

The 3 guys can do more than just sit not archieving anything though.

SemperMortis wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Well point for point, it would be foolish, strictly from a game-advantage standpoint, to take either the tacticals or the dire avengers. The bikes are just way more points efficient and rules advantageous.

The bikes can do pretty much everything that the DAs can, except way better and with less risk.

Ditto for the SM bikes.

Not really. For holding a point it's better to have the infantry. I like how we seem to have dismissed my opinion because it doesn't match your bad argument.

So you would rather take a dire avengers squad and hope that the mission your playing involves a backfield objective? I would rather take the bikes because they give you a lot more tactical flexibility. Especially when you plop those ridiculous Scatter lasers on them. You could have a backfield objective holder that scoots out, shoots and then scoots back into the objective/cover. And if the situation arises where you need unit to rush forward to remove an enemy unit or to take a more mission critical objective you don't have to take 3-4 turns marching across the board to get there.

Yes. Literally every time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody takes Tacticals because you HAVE to buy a model as a transport on top of their rules saying only one special and heavy weapon.

Bikers having Relentless is just icing on the cake with that. Fix the latter problem with Tactical Marines and they're less of a tax.

Other way around. Tacticals don't need to be buffed. Bikes need to be nerfed. Increase their points cost and take away their special rules until they become points-comparable to tactical marines.

And then I'm taking Scouts as my troops again. That's how I would do it even when they were BS3.

Also, by your logic, Tactical Marines should be much more expensive in the 6th edition codex. Was the +1 BS, WS, and 3+ worth only 3 more points? I didn't see you argue about that.

I don't know how much those things are actually worth. You're also forgetting the fact that:

1. Scouts have a number of special rules that tacticals don't.
2. Scouts have the ability to bring wargear that tacticals can't (e.g., heavy bolters with hellfire ammunition).

Scouts should probably cost more than they do now (easily confirmed given the fact that many players consider them an auto-take). [I don't know, but 13 ppm scouts seem fair to me at current stats.]

Was the pricing fair prior to the new SM codex? I don't know.

What is scout and infiltrate worth?

What is a single point's difference in WS or BS worth? What's the difference between 4+ and 3+ armor worth?

For what it's worth:

There's a 1 point difference between veterans and normal infantry in the IG codex, and that corresponds to a 1 point increase in BS.

Then you're clearly delusional. You don't know how to price anything and fail to realize people aren't using Tactical Marines because they're not good, not because other things are broken.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then you're clearly delusional. You don't know how to price anything and fail to realize people aren't using Tactical Marines because they're not good, not because other things are broken.

What's your argument for this?

What's your argument against scouts being under-priced?

 Traditio wrote:
What's your argument against scouts being under-priced?

The fact that nobody takes scouts because they're awesome, they take them because they're the cheapest possible troops. If C:SM could take 5-man guardsman squads at an even cheaper price they'd do it instead of scouts every time. The only way increasing the price of scouts could change that is if you make them cost as much as a 5-man tactical squad, at which point everyone takes naked 5-man tactical squads for that "cheapest possible objective camper" unit.

Peregrine wrote:The fact that nobody takes scouts because they're awesome, they take them because they're the cheapest possible troops. If C:SM could take 5-man guardsman squads at an even cheaper price they'd do it instead of scouts every time. The only way increasing the price of scouts could change that is if you make them cost as much as a 5-man tactical squad, at which point everyone takes naked 5-man tactical squads for that "cheapest possible objective camper" unit.

That's not an argument against their being under-priced.

The proposition in question is: "11 points per model is not an accurate assessment of the actual value, relatively to other comparable models and units, of model x."

Your argument is: "People only take x because it's the cheapest option in the codex."

The negation of the proposition I am advancing is a non-sequitur from the claim that you are making.

It could well be the case that scouts are under-costed and tacticals are appropriately costed, but other stuff in the codex is OP and/or undercosted.

I imagine that a Chaos Space Marine player wouldn't accept your argument when comparing his 13 ppm chaos space marines to the 11 ppm space marine scout.

The point is that your only argument for scouts being too cheap is "everyone takes scouts". And the response to that is that people aren't taking scouts because they give you a lot for the point cost, they're taking scouts because they're the cheapest way to fill the mandatory troops slots or camp an objective. They could be 11-point models with the stat line and equipment of a grot and they'd still see pretty much the same amount of use.

 Peregrine wrote:
The point is that your only argument for scouts being too cheap is "everyone takes scouts".

I have two arguments for scouts being too cheap.

Argument 1: The sole differences between a naked scout and a naked tactical marine is a 1 point difference in the armor save (in favor of the tactical marine) and the presence of scout, infiltrate and move through cover in the special rules list of the scout (absent from the tactical marine special rules list) (and differences in the war gear and upgrades which can be selected, which is probably a wash).

The difference between the models, given these facts, is not well-represented by a 3 points difference (in favor of the scouts).

A forteriori, consider the difference between an SM scout and a chaos space marine (the difference is not well represented by a 2 ppm difference (in favor of the scout)).

Argument 2: Whatever is considered an auto-take is probably undercosted or OP. Scouts are considered an auto-take. Therefore, scouts are probably either undercosted or OP.

Your counter-argument may apply to argument 2, but it doesn't apply to argument 1.

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The point is that your only argument for scouts being too cheap is "everyone takes scouts".

I have two arguments for scouts being too cheap.

Argument 1: The sole differences between a naked scout and a naked tactical marine is a 1 point difference in the armor save (in favor of the tactical marine) and the presence of scout, infiltrate and move through cover in the special rules list of the scout (absent from the tactical marine special rules list).

The difference between the models, given these facts, is not well-represented by a 3 points difference (in favor of the scouts).

A forteriori, consider the difference between an SM scout and a chaos space marine (the difference is not well represented by a 2 ppm difference (in favor of the scout)).

Argument 2: Whatever is considered an auto-take is probably undercosted or OP. Scouts are considered an auto-take. Therefore, scouts are probably either undercosted or OP.

Your counter-argument may apply to argument 2, but it doesn't apply to argument 1.

OR perhaps Scouts are regarded as an auto-take is because in the meta of the game, Troops are practically worthless.

In an edition where you could easily spam the heaviest guns to wipe other units off the table, taking as few points on your compulsory slots is best as it gives you more points on your good stuff.

If, for example, Space Marines got access to Grots as a Troops choice, we'd see Grots being used. Not because they are good, but because they allow good things to be taken. Therefore, you are met with three possible conclusions:
1) Grots are OP (your stance, as it were)
2) Everything else in the codex is OP
3) The game is not written in such a way that promotes anything but only taking cheap troops to fill the quota.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:OR perhaps Scouts are regarded as an auto-take is because in the meta of the game, Troops are practically worthless.

In an edition where you could easily spam the heaviest guns to wipe other units off the table, taking as few points on your compulsory slots is best as it gives you more points on your good stuff.

If, for example, Space Marines got access to Grots as a Troops choice, we'd see Grots being used. Not because they are good, but because they allow good things to be taken. Therefore, you are met with three possible conclusions:
1) Grots are OP (your stance, as it were)
2) Everything else in the codex is OP
3) The game is not written in such a way that promotes anything but only taking cheap troops to fill the quota.

Note, the key word of my second argument is "probably." The strong argument is the first one.

That said, I will say this:

it's not the case that 1, 2 and 3 follow from the premises.

What could easily follow (and is in fact the case) is:

4. A select number of units in the codex are OP or undercosted, which is why people are taking the cheapest thing possible to fill the troops selections.

Your point #2 is thoroughly demolished by now, so you should probably stop making it.

Your point #1 ignores the question of unit roles. Scouts are intended to be taken without upgrades, often in small squads. Tactical marines are not. So comparing naked models to naked models is an irrelevant comparison. And when you stop focusing on an irrelevant subset of the balance question you see that the tactical marines have the ability to take heavy/special weapons, transport options (FREE transport options in the most common formation, bringing their effective per-model cost down below the cost of scouts), and combat squads. And, given how the AP system works, it's not exactly unreasonable to suggest that going from a 4+ save to a 3+ save is worth a few points.

Now, it's possible that scouts are a bit too cheap now that they have BS/WS 4, but it's far from the indisputable truth that you seem to think it is. You don't get to assume that you're correct and then demand that everyone who disagrees with you provide proof that you're wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
4. A select number of units in the codex are OP or undercosted, which is why people are taking the cheapest thing possible to fill the troops selections.

Ok, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not scouts are too cheap. Scouts are clearly not one of the overpowered things that people are taking after they fill their mandatory troops slots.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your point #2 is thoroughly demolished by now, so you should probably stop making it.

Except, it isn't. Somehow, you people keep missing the word "probably." Argument 1 isn't an iron-clad argument. It's a prima facie evidential case.

It's like me saying: "If there's smoke, there's probably fire," and you answering:

"HAHA! HERE'S A CASE OF SMOKE WITH NO FIRE! YOU ARE WROOOOOONG!"

Except, the word is "probably."

All that's required for my claim to hold true is for a list to be written up of all of the things which are considered auto-take, and a determination be made that half of them plus 1 are OP or undercosted.

In fact, my claim becomes even stronger if I replace the words "it is probably OP or undercosted" with "there is probably something awry with the codex in question."

Which in fact would hold true here.

Your point #1 ignores the question of unit roles. Scouts are intended to be taken without upgrades, often in small squads.

I'm looking at p. 136 of the SM codex. The picture displays 5 scouts armed with sniper rifles, camo cloaks and a missile launcher. A land speeder storm is present in the background of the image.

Tactical marines are not. So comparing naked models to naked models is an irrelevant comparison. And when you stop focusing on an irrelevant subset of the balance question you see that the tactical marines have the ability to take heavy/special weapons, transport options (FREE transport options in the most common formation, bringing their effective per-model cost down below the cost of scouts), and combat squads. And, given how the AP system works, it's not exactly unreasonable to suggest that going from a 4+ save to a 3+ save is worth a few points.

1. They fill similar roles. They're both basic troop selections.

2. What you're ultimately paying for is a statline and a set of special rules. They are very much comparable in that respect (all things considered, their statlines and special rules are basically a wash).

3. You cannot take free transports into account in the assessment, since if I run a CAD, my tacticals get precisely 0, and no more than 0, free transports. In fact, if I run a gladius strike force, but only run a single demi-company, I get, again, absolutely 0 free transports.

4. Scouts can bring heavy weapons (albeit not any and all of the options from the heavy weapons list).

5. Scouts have combat squads. See p. 136 of the codex.

6. I grant that the difference in armor saves is worth something, but isn't move through cover, scout and infiltrate?

Ok, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not scouts are too cheap. Scouts are clearly not one of the overpowered things that people are taking after they fill their mandatory troops slots.

Again, the word is "probably."

 Peregrine wrote:
Your point #2 is thoroughly demolished by now, so you should probably stop making it.

Agreed.

Your point #1 ignores the question of unit roles. Scouts are intended to be taken without upgrades, often in small squads. Tactical marines are not. So comparing naked models to naked models is an irrelevant comparison.

This. If we compare naked units and models, Centurion Devastators aren't nearly as bad, Devastators are useless compared to Tactical Marines, Vanguard Veterans would be never taken, and Captains would never be considered compared to Librarians and Chaplains.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Your point #2 is thoroughly demolished by now, so you should probably stop making it.

Except, it isn't. Somehow, you people keep missing the word "probably." Argument 1 isn't an iron-clad argument. It's a prima facie evidential case.

It's like me saying: "If there's smoke, there's probably fire," and you answering:

"HAHA! HERE'S A CASE OF SMOKE WITH NO FIRE! YOU ARE WROOOOOONG!"

Except, the word is "probably."

So, you admit the point cannot hold up?

All that's required for my claim to hold true is for a list to be written up of all of the things which are considered auto-take, and a determination be made that half of them plus 1 are OP or undercosted.

In fact, my claim becomes even stronger if I replace the words "it is probably OP or undercosted" with "there is probably something awry with the codex in question."

Which in fact would hold true here.

Incorrect. We know that each codex is imbalanced in some way, but that may not be a fault of the codex, but rather the meta of the game.

Your point #1 ignores the question of unit roles. Scouts are intended to be taken without upgrades, often in small squads.

I'm looking at p. 136 of the SM codex. The picture displays 5 scouts armed with sniper rifles, camo cloaks and a missile launcher. A land speeder storm is present in the background of the image.

And Tactical Squads are displayed at full size and usually with a flamer and missile launcher. Does that mean you should always take full Tactical squads? Because we know you're opposed to that idea.

Tactical marines are not. So comparing naked models to naked models is an irrelevant comparison. And when you stop focusing on an irrelevant subset of the balance question you see that the tactical marines have the ability to take heavy/special weapons, transport options (FREE transport options in the most common formation, bringing their effective per-model cost down below the cost of scouts), and combat squads. And, given how the AP system works, it's not exactly unreasonable to suggest that going from a 4+ save to a 3+ save is worth a few points.

1. They fill similar roles. They're both basic troop selections. One of which is cheaper, more maneuverable, and generally more effective.

2. What you're ultimately paying for is a statline and a set of special rules. They are very much comparable in that respect (all things considered, their statlines are basically a wash). No, we're paying for cheap bodies as a tax to get the good stuff.

3. You cannot take free transports into account in the assessment, since if I run a CAD, my tacticals get precisely 0, and no more than 0, free transports. In fact, if I run a gladius strike force, but only run a single demi-company, I get, again, absolutely 0 free transports. So why, when I make this point, do you refuse to accept it as proof the Gladius is broken?

4. Scouts can bring heavy weapons (albeit not any and all of the options from the heavy weapons list). They can bring all of two heavy weapons. Neither of which is particularly feared. They hold up bolter/shotgun/bp+ccw squads, and require snipers (bumping up the squad price) to use at full effectiveness. If gravcannons could be taken by scouts, they would be. The current heavy weapons are not taken because they are just plain un-synergetic.

5. Scouts have combat squads. See p. 136 of the codex. And no-one uses it because:
1) Scouts are used as cheap taxes. Why would you want a full squad?
2) There is no reason to take a large unit of Scouts, because you don't get access to any more heavy weaponry - unlike Tacs.

6. I grant that the difference in armor saves is worth something, but isn't move through cover, scout and infiltrate? Irrelevant - Scouts are taken because they are cheap.

Now, it's possible that scouts are a bit too cheap now that they have BS/WS 4, but it's far from the indisputable truth that you seem to think it is. You don't get to assume that you're correct and then demand that everyone who disagrees with you provide proof that you're wrong. Is that not what you do?

Remarks in red.

Ok, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not scouts are too cheap. Scouts are clearly not one of the overpowered things that people are taking after they fill their mandatory troops slots.

Again, the word is "probably."

Why continue to pretend that the point holds any power? You made a weak statement, and it was disproved. 'Probably' doesn't cover it.

Re: your point #2: we don't need to make ridiculous analogies involving smoke and fires or compare reasons why people typically consider units auto-takes because we know why people do it with scouts. Generalizing makes sense when you don't have details about a specific situation. It doesn't make sense when you're ignoring what you know about those details in favor of a generalization.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm looking at p. 136 of the SM codex. The picture displays 5 scouts armed with sniper rifles, camo cloaks and a missile launcher. A land speeder storm is present in the background of the image.

What does the painting section of the codex have to do with the rules?

1. They fill similar roles. They're both basic troop selections.

A tactical squad, a melta veteran squad in a (dedicated transport) Valkyrie, and a LRBT are all "basic troop selections". Good luck convincing anyone that they have similar roles.

2. What you're ultimately paying for is a statline and a set of special rules. They are very much comparable in that respect (all things considered, their statlines and special rules are basically a wash).

No, you're also paying for things like upgrade slots. You can't just neglect parts of a unit that don't fit neatly into your cost analysis.

3. You cannot take free transports into account in the assessment, since if I run a CAD, my tacticals get precisely 0, and no more than 0, free transports. In fact, if I run a gladius strike force, but only run a single demi-company, I get, again, absolutely 0 free transports.

So what? The most common way of taking tactical squads, especially tactical squads as the core of the army instead of 5-man troops tax units, is with free transports. And if you have one of those free transports your tactical marines effectively cost 9 points per model, compared to the 11 points per model of the scouts.

4. Scouts can bring heavy weapons (albeit not any and all of the options from the heavy weapons list).

Exactly. They get a missile launcher or heavy bolter, not the full range of them. They don't get the lascannons or grav cannons that people actually want to take as their heavy weapons.

5. Scouts have combat squads. See p. 136 of the codex.

They're also much, much less likely to ever use the rule because 10-man scout squads are incredibly rare.

6. I grant that the difference in armor saves is worth something, but isn't move through cover, scout and infiltrate?

Sure, of course those things are worth something, but you can't just say "one has a better save, the other has some USRs, therefore it must be equal". You have to do the work of establishing that the additional deployment options of the scouts are worth at least as much as the superior durability of the tactical squad. And you haven't done that at all.

Again, the word is "probably."

The word is "definitely". If scouts were overpowered you would see scout-spam armies exploiting this fact. You don't see scout-spam armies, even in competitive tournaments where people play the best possible lists.

Troops choices should provide the force with enough basic bodies/hulls and weapons to perform the core tactical function of the force.

Support units should perform supporting functions like recon , fire support, transport , etc.

Looking at war games made by game companies , you see a definite focus on tactical function in unit development , that 40k simply does not have.

''Does it look cool, yes.Then make up some cool special rules so the collectors will buy it then!''

If troops were universally relatively weak, and only they could score, it would work out. But you can't fix troops while both dark eldar warriors and wind riders are in the game.

Why would Kalabites need to be addressed?

If Kalabites became a problem, Tacs would become awesome.