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.
I am always bemused by FLG's claim that spam lists dominated their initial meta but TAC lists won out in the end.
Mainly because this wasn't true in 7th. 6th. Uh.. any edition of 40k and indeed any GW game I can remember. There are going to be good units and bad units and players will spam the good units. No one is going to take a "balanced list" and reliably do well in a tournament.
Mass flyers may get kicked out of the meta but it will surely be replaced by something else.
With that said I feel the discussion doesn't really look at the flaw in 40k which is that damage output is very high, there are only limited options for dealing with it under IGUG and as a result going first is often the most decisive dice roll in the game. Like in 7th you are seeing many games where by the end of the first players turn 2 its obvious that barring super hot dice the player going second isn't going to get back into the game.
The result has been to gamble more and more on getting that alpha strike. That was what happened in 7th and I feel it will happen in 8th as well, whatever the eventual make up of the units.
Sideboards, limitations and the rest are not going to change that unless you create a game where its very difficult to actually kill things, so tabling is almost impossible, and it therefore becomes entirely about chasing maelstrom objectives. This would however just produce a meta of fast units that can reliably get across the board each turn. Its not obvious this would be more fun.
The thing is that with the missions as listed, secondary battlefield roles can be largely ignored. Models need to be as fighty as possible, while being durable(or ablative) and being able to score objectives capably. This seems to be the trifecta in my mind: anything outside of that often just falls into the 'cute' category. The missions aren't really diverse enough or strategically demanding enough to warrant other battlefield roles other than killing dudes, helping to kill dudes, and moving fast.
Agreed.
The problem in 8th edition tournaments is they are using the same terrible Eternal War missions that have been terrible for 5 years. Every single one of those missions has only one objective "kill more than you lose". There is utterly no reason to even try for the objectives in those games. Every mission is kill points.
I agree wholeheartedly. From my experience, the change has to be to make firepower more expensive. While things are better than ever, I still think firepower is a little too cheap, especially for Eternal War. Eternal War is just "destroy the opponent, because if he has no squads, he can't take objectives in the last turn." It's why I almost exclusively play Maelstrom. As anecdotal evidence, last night, I lost 16-13, but I had the field in the last turn (3 Predators and Huron vs. 5 Havocs and a Chaos Lord with 1 wound), but I couldn't recover from being 7-1 down after 3 rounds. My opponent had more mobility in the form of Rhinos, but I had Predators, so he seized objectives while I blasted away at his forces.This has been my experience for the roughly 10 games I've played so far. While there are slightly more things on the table, there's not enough to reasonably take that many objectives.
A quick fix, IMHO, is to move entirely to Maelstrom, or possibly a hybrid. A longer term fix is to bring costs up slightly for firepower when the codices are released. The few tournies I play did that in 8th, so I wouldn't expect there to be a difference in 8th in that regard. Gotta admit though, if your local tournament only is Eternal War, I'd probably have a quick word with the player base.
I have seen other things, like 8 Wave Serpents at 2000pts, loaded up with a single Warlock each, and discharging their Serpent Shields for a 2+ to get D3 Mortal Wounds on a unit within 24". They just remove units and move on. Massive footprint, 13 W, point for point objectively better than a Predator. Rebalancing the cost of certain units is also required, and I hope this is done with the codices.
I think removing the non-Patrol/Battalion/Brigade detachments for Matched Play would be another fix. While certain, very restricted codex/sub-faction specific detachments would work, you can pretty much take whatever you want. While this isn't an issue for Narrative Play, for Matched Play it can throw things out of kilter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/11 08:53:53
Melissia wrote: Their troops are far better than marine players give them credit for.
Tac marines have been complete liabilities since 2nd ed.
Regardless of history, they're total liabilities now. Their biggest defense is that they're so useless, people can safely ignore them.
To be fair i still haven't voted in this thread because the whole premise of a knee jerk "rebalance" is beyond silly.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/11 18:55:24
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Spellfax wrote: Spam tax
2nd appearance of a unit = 10% more points
3rd appearance of a unit = 20% more points
4th appearance of a uunit = 30% more points
Etc....
Except that just hurts high costing spam and doesn't do much against low costing spam, and has that weird effect of making hodgepodge armies where instead of mainly CSM you'll see a weird mix of everything.
Spellfax wrote: Spam tax 2nd appearance of a unit = 10% more points 3rd appearance of a unit = 20% more points 4th appearance of a uunit = 30% more points Etc....
So basically "feth you Orks, feth you Guard, feth you Tyranids, feth you Daemons, feth you Sisters, feth all of you, you're not space marines so you can feth off".
Marmatag wrote: Regardless of history, they're total liabilities now.
They're really not.
They've got a decent ratio of defense to points for a troops unit (beaten out really only by Intercessors and possibly Necrons), are able to be equipped with a wide variety of special and/or heavy weapons, and are fairly versatile.
Don't be one of those people who will only be happy until tacticals are as cheap as battle sisters and can each and every single one of them equip a plasmagun.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/11 21:28:51
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Spellfax wrote: Spam tax
2nd appearance of a unit = 10% more points
3rd appearance of a unit = 20% more points
4th appearance of a uunit = 30% more points
Etc....
So basically "feth you Orks, feth you Guard, feth you Tyranids, feth you Daemons, feth you Sisters, feth all of you, you're not space marines so you can feth off".
Marmatag wrote: Regardless of history, they're total liabilities now.
They're really not.
They've got a decent ratio of defense to points for a troops unit (beaten out really only by Intercessors and possibly Necrons), are able to be equipped with a wide variety of special and/or heavy weapons, and are fairly versatile.
Don't be one of those people who will only be happy until tacticals are as cheap as battle sisters and can each and every single one of them equip a plasmagun.
Youre not understanding the issues behind Tactical Marines again.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
No, tacticals have a mixture of stats they have to pay for that don't add up to much. They're a bit better with split fire now and only paying 13 pts. They are so useless in CC, and that hurts them badly.
Spellfax wrote: Spam tax
2nd appearance of a unit = 10% more points
3rd appearance of a unit = 20% more points
4th appearance of a uunit = 30% more points
Etc....
Spam isn't inherently a bad thing. Many people, including myself, much prefer to build and face armies that look cohesive with redundancy. I enjoy having multiple infantry squads in chimeras, supported by multiple Russes and backed up by multiple hellhound tanks. By your definition, its spam, but by my own, its redundancy and flavour. Taking 1 of every unit does not inherently make the game or list any better or fluffier.
Don't focus on trying to unnecessarily restrict perfectly fluffy and reasonable armies. Focus on making bad units worth taking and overpowered units a little less powerful. When you do that, everything will fall into place nice and easy.
A tax is just a Band-Aid on the actual issue. Address the issue, not the symptom.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
The sad thing is, that idea punishes people for bringing multiple tactical marine squads, even though people complain incessantly that tacticals are OMGWTFBBQ THE WORTSETS UNIT EVAR! all the time.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
They've got a decent ratio of defense to points for a troops unit (beaten out really only by Intercessors and possibly Necrons)
It's actually difficult to find a troop choice, where point for point, TAC marines are better, be it for survivability, or damage.
TAC squad with missile launcher, plasma gun, and combi-plasma, 10 men; 183 points.
50 conscripts + commissar; 180 points.
Wounds per point
Marines: 18.3
Conscripts: ~3.5
Wounds at 24 inch range against T4, 4+:
Marines: ~4
Conscripts: ~3
Losses to morale:
Marines: leadership - (2.75+casualties)
Conscripts: at most 1
Ability to shield more important units:
Advantage conscripts
Ability to swarm an objective:
Advantage conscripts
And that's one example.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: Wounds per point
Marines: 18.3
Conscripts: ~3.5
Conscripts are lower toughness and armor by far; they have more wounds but defensively very little else going for them. It's actually not very hard to find a unit of equal points that's able to wipe out conscripts in a couple turns.
Comparing pure wounds without looking at anything else is silly, to say nothing of the absurd assumptions your attempt at mathhammer requires.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Marmatag wrote: Wounds per point Marines: 18.3 Conscripts: ~3.5
Conscripts are lower toughness and armor by far; they have more wounds but defensively very little else going for them. It's actually not very hard to find a unit of equal points that's able to wipe out conscripts in a couple turns.
Comparing pure wounds without looking at anything else is silly, to say nothing of the absurd assumptions your attempt at mathhammer requires.
Yawn. You picked out one part of the post, and of course, you're not considering that volume of wounds actually DOES matter quite a bit in this edition. Hello, mortal wounds. Hello, high powered shooting. Hello assault.
In any case, since you made a case for their durability, why don't you prove it? If it's so obvious, you shouldn't have any difficulty proving it. Thanks
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/11 22:38:00
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Also his own math shows the Marines doing more damage against T4 infantry even though they're using a bunch of anti-tank weapons, so clearly they're not losing on both durability and firepower at the same time. A more specialized unit can beat Tacticals in one area but not another? Say it ain't so!
LD8 in a 10-man squad also means it's fairly difficult for them to fail a morale test in the first place. They have to take at least 3 casualties to have a chance of failing at all, and the ATSKNF re-roll means they'll pass more often than not. You'd have to kill at least 5 models, half the squad, for them to even start worrying. And they'll still pass that 75% of the time.
Combat squad them into two 5-man squads, and you can reduce their risk of failing a morale test even further. The one with the sergeant can only lose 1 model to morale at most (if it takes 3 casualties it can only lose one model on a 6, if it takes 4 it only has 1 model left to lose). The other one can theoretically lose 2, but you'd have to roll that 6 twice.
So morale just isn't really a big problem for Marines.
The best way to rebalance 40k is to price things properly. The term efficient should be applicable to every model if it is use in it's proper roll. There are still garbage and good units in this game and that's why it remains unbalanced.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
ross-128 wrote: Also his own math shows the Marines doing more damage against T4 infantry even though they're using a bunch of anti-tank weapons, so clearly they're not losing on both durability and firepower at the same time. A more specialized unit can beat Tacticals in one area but not another? Say it ain't so!
LD8 in a 10-man squad also means it's fairly difficult for them to fail a morale test in the first place. They have to take at least 3 casualties to have a chance of failing at all, and the ATSKNF re-roll means they'll pass more often than not. You'd have to kill at least 5 models, half the squad, for them to even start worrying. And they'll still pass that 75% of the time.
Combat squad them into two 5-man squads, and you can reduce their risk of failing a morale test even further. The one with the sergeant can only lose 1 model to morale at most (if it takes 3 casualties it can only lose one model on a 6, if it takes 4 it only has 1 model left to lose). The other one can theoretically lose 2, but you'd have to roll that 6 twice.
So morale just isn't really a big problem for Marines.
How would you equip tactical marines in this edition? Drop the specials and they lose the contest dramatically. You are speaking about options, but what other better options are there? I guess in this scenario a grav cannon and grav amp would have been a decent choice.
I included the expected value of a D6 /w reroll (ATSKNF) as a part of their morale. But it serves to point out that marines can lose a large number and then more to morale, whereas Conscripts lose basically nothing. Morale IS a problem for marines in squads of 10, do you play marines? ATSKNF can result in more losses to morale, btw, it isn't pick the lower of the two. if you lose 6 of 10, and roll a 4, your reroll could come up 6, eliminating your squad.
The conscripts are *vastly* more survivable, and provide more utility in the context of their codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/11 22:53:53
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
I think they are on the right track with using cp's as incentives to counter spam. What they need to do imo is take this a step further even, giving more benefits to balanced lists and penalties for spamming a ton of one unit in matched play.
ross-128 wrote: Also his own math shows the Marines doing more damage against T4 infantry even though they're using a bunch of anti-tank weapons, so clearly they're not losing on both durability and firepower at the same time. A more specialized unit can beat Tacticals in one area but not another? Say it ain't so!
LD8 in a 10-man squad also means it's fairly difficult for them to fail a morale test in the first place. They have to take at least 3 casualties to have a chance of failing at all, and the ATSKNF re-roll means they'll pass more often than not. You'd have to kill at least 5 models, half the squad, for them to even start worrying. And they'll still pass that 75% of the time.
Combat squad them into two 5-man squads, and you can reduce their risk of failing a morale test even further. The one with the sergeant can only lose 1 model to morale at most (if it takes 3 casualties it can only lose one model on a 6, if it takes 4 it only has 1 model left to lose). The other one can theoretically lose 2, but you'd have to roll that 6 twice.
So morale just isn't really a big problem for Marines.
How would you equip tactical marines in this edition? Drop the specials and they lose the contest dramatically. You are speaking about options, but what other better options are there? I guess in this scenario a grav cannon and grav amp would have been a decent choice.
I included the expected value of a D6 /w reroll (ATSKNF) as a part of their morale. But it serves to point out that marines can lose a large number and then more to morale, whereas Conscripts lose basically nothing. Morale IS a problem for marines in squads of 10, do you play marines? ATSKNF can result in more losses to morale, btw, it isn't pick the lower of the two. if you lose 6 of 10, and roll a 4, your reroll could come up 6, eliminating your squad.
The conscripts are *vastly* more survivable, and provide more utility in the context of their codex.
Oh no, they might lose 2 models instead of 1, the horror. And if they absolutely refuse to combat squad they miiiiight lose 4 once in a blue moon. How devastating.
Honestly though, do you actually think that tactical marines should be cheaper ablative wounds than conscripts? Whose entire job is to be ablative wounds? Seriously, this is still just "hey look a specialized unit does its specialist job better than a generalist unit". Why are you harping on that as if there's something wrong with it?
After all, I'm sure that marine squad will do a better job of taking out a T6 or T7 target than the conscripts will. Mostly because their loadout is more oriented toward doing that. Will a dedicated melta squad, an AT kitted devastator squad, or dedicated OC plasma squad do better than tacs at T6/7? Sure, but again, those are units that are more specialized toward doing exactly that. They're good at their one job, that's what makes them specialists. Tacs are kind of meh at a little bit of everything, that's what makes them generalists.
Is being a generalist a bad strategy in 40k? Probably, but space marines do have specialist options that aren't tacticals.
Or would you like to propose that tacticals should be more durable per point than Conscripts, more efficient at mopping up T3 than massed lasguns, and more efficient at tankbusting than devastators? Or even equivalent to all those at the same time, when those others can at most land 2 out of 3?
ross-128 wrote: Oh no, they might lose 2 models instead of 1, the horror. And if they absolutely refuse to combat squad they miiiiight lose 4 once in a blue moon. How devastating.
Honestly though, do you actually think that tactical marines should be cheaper ablative wounds than conscripts? Whose entire job is to be ablative wounds? Seriously, this is still just "hey look a specialized unit does its specialist job better than a generalist unit". Why are you harping on that as if there's something wrong with it?
Conscripts are more dangerous than tactical marines. That's not a joke. You really think 1 boltgun at 3+ beats 4 lasguns at 5+? Remember, the latter can also be double for 20-30 points, the price at which a tactical squad might get 1-2 weapon upgrades. The conscripts can also take objectives easier.
If conscripts couldn't use orders you might have a point, but as it stands they are just better than most other infantry. They even put out more damage than other infantry, because they are so absurdly cheap. The idea conscripts are just ablative wounds is just flat out wrong right now, they are simply the best generalist infantry in the game.
Actually I snipped it to make it shorter, because your posts are long-winded and I don't like quote pyramids.
You're acting like volume of wounds is the only thing that matters. Armor saves matter a ton-- high powered shooting is a lot more expensive this edition than previous editions, mortal wounds aren't actually that common, and assault makes armor saves and toughness even more important.
As for my case for their durability amongst troops choices--
Spoiler:
Tactical Marines pay 13 ppm for each of their 3+ save, T4 Wounds. They also have ATSKNF, which is immensely useful. They still get an armor save against most power weapons, it usually takes an anti-tank weapon to remove their armor save in shooting, and their T4 serves them well as it does all Marines.
Battle Sisters pay 9ppm for each of their 3+ save, T3 wounds with 6++. They can occasionally get a model back with Acts of Faith, but it's unlikely AoFs would be used this way so that can be safely dismissed. The 6++ is only useful against things that have AP-4, which if you're tossing AP-4 firepower at a battle sister either something's gone horrible wrong, or horribly right. In order to get ATSKNF, Sisters need to buy a 30 point character which otherwise is nothing more than a battle sister with two wounds. I'm torn on this, so I should probably say they're roughly equivalent?
Scout Marines pay 11ppm for each of their 4+ save, T4 wounds. They can gain a better cover save than normal with camo cloaks, but that raises them to 14ppm, which is higher than you'd pay for tacticals, otherwise cover only gets them to be equal to tacticals out of cover. You only need AP-3 (a power sword) to remove their armor save in the fight mode.
Grey Knights Strike squads pay 21ppm for their 3+ save, T4 wounds, iwth the justicar having two wounds. I... honestly... these guys seem to be considered a joke amongst Grey Knights players, but they're worth comparing against tacticals. I imagine GK players would actually prefer tacticals over Strike squads.
Blood Claws: Same price as tacticals, except they're an assault unit without jump packs.
Grey Hunter: One point more for the same defensive statline. Main difference is they get +1 attack.
Deathwatch Killteam: Six points more for the same defensive statline. Better offense via special ammo, better customization.
Crusader Squad: Is a tactical squad that can include scouts.
Intercessors: 10 points per T4 3+ save wound. Were it not for the presence of multiple-damage attacks, I'd say this is the 'ardest troops choice in the game, but even with that, they're still a top contender.
Kataphron Breachers: 57ppm for T5 3+/6++, 3w, or roughly 19 points per wound, meaning that focusing on defense, they pay 6 points per wound to go to T5. Destroyers are objectively worse defensively even before their increased points.
Skitarii Rangers and Vanguards: 10ppm for T3 4+/6++ save wounds.
Necron Warriors: 12ppm for T4 4+ save. What makes these potentially the toughest troops choice in the game is Reanimation Protocols. Otherwise, 1ppm to go from 4+ to 3+ would be a bargain. Superbly durable, though the unit contains no ATSKNF equivalent. Speaking of price for save increase...
Necron Immortals: 17ppm for a necron warrior with a 3+ save. Mostly the price pays for offense.
Ork Boyz: 6ppm for T4 with a laughable 6+ save. Its leadership ability needs a large unit, but large unit is slow and an easy target for long-range firepower.
Gretchin: Hahahahah... hahahah... hahah... haaaa.... anyway 3ppm for T2 6+ save, moving on.
Tau Fire Warriors: 8ppm for T3 4+ save. Their bonding knife ritual is okay, but rerolls like ATSKNF are better. T4 3+ save and ATSKNF still beats it out IMO.
Kroot: 6ppm for T3 6+ save. Worse than guardsman defensively.
Stealers: 12ppm for T4 5+/5++. The 5++ is useful, but still just a 1/3rd chance to matter. Tacticals are more durable. Gaunts: 5ppm for T3 6+. Worse than Guardsmen defensively, ignoring leadership. Gants: 4ppm for the same. Rippers: About 3 2/3rd ppm for the same. Leadership issues for these four are a bit tricky to measure, but the penalty isn't as harsh as it used to be.
Custodian Guard: 17 points per wound for T5 2+, a respectable increase for 4 points and a contender for toughest troops choice. Their main weakness is multiple damage attacks.
Guardsmen: 4ppm for T3 5+, requires characters to buff leadership ability. For its points, it's decent, but quantity-of-fire weapons and high-attack assaulters can utterly erase guardsman squads even without taking morale in to account. It's actually quite easy to assign excess firepower when shooting at guardsmen, wasting precious shooting power, which admittedly is one of the benefits of using them, especially compared to...
Conscripts: 3ppm for the same, but a pitiful Ld4. Without spending more points on a commissar, they'll be annihilated by morale. Even with doing so, it raises their cost per model up to being roughly equivalent to guardsmen without making them much harder to annihilate than guardsmen.
So basically IMO, defensively, tacticals are one of the better troops choices point per point. They're not in the top three--intercessors, custodians, and Necron Warriors fit that slot -- but they've solid defensive stats for a relatively cheap price.
You can dislike my reasoning if you want, but at least try to understand it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/07/11 23:46:40
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Spellfax wrote: Spam tax
2nd appearance of a unit = 10% more points
3rd appearance of a unit = 20% more points
4th appearance of a uunit = 30% more points
Etc....
Spam isn't inherently a bad thing. Many people, including myself, much prefer to build and face armies that look cohesive with redundancy. I enjoy having multiple infantry squads in chimeras, supported by multiple Russes and backed up by multiple hellhound tanks. By your definition, its spam, but by my own, its redundancy and flavour. Taking 1 of every unit does not inherently make the game or list any better or fluffier.
Don't focus on trying to unnecessarily restrict perfectly fluffy and reasonable armies. Focus on making bad units worth taking and overpowered units a little less powerful. When you do that, everything will fall into place nice and easy.
A tax is just a Band-Aid on the actual issue. Address the issue, not the symptom.
i myself spam lists and it makes for easy army creation, easy play ability. I m suggesting this as a quick fix for a local level. No way for us to redo points on every unit. But i think its a good band aid for a local level.
Talamare wrote: Conscripts are widely considered to be fairly broken Use normal Infantry Squads for your comparison.
I agree with you - but even still, there are people arguing the opposite, that TAC marines are stronger than Conscripts. I'm not sure what to say to those people. 50 wounds is beyond good.
These are the same people saying Necron warriors are less durable than Marines. I don't even know how to respond to stuff like this, it's just becoming laughable.
I have yet to see a TAC squad in a game of 8th edition.
Ironically the post trying to argue that TAC squads are good totally missed the mark on PAGK, which actually serve a purpose now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 01:05:16
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
i myself spam lists and it makes for easy army creation, easy play ability. I m suggesting this as a quick fix for a local level. No way for us to redo points on every unit. But i think its a good band aid for a local level.
It isn't a good fix for the simple reason that it isn't fixing anything. You aren't addressing any actual problems, and are just restricting perfectly fluffy and reasonable army lists.
Don't half ass gak. Full ass gak.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
The scale 40k is fought at is where spam wins the day in real life. Only when you get bigger maps in video games for example or larger battlefields where the units are so vastly different in form and function that spam is less of an issue. Even then spam is used. It's the natural order for all time right back to tribes mass producing spears and clubs over a mixed load out. Mixed load outs tend to only do well in really small scales that 40k does not play well at as well since every bit of asset matters in terms of points. 40k's scale is really awkward.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/12 01:19:42
Conscripts are better than tactical marines at being Conscripts, because tactical marines are not conscripts. Conscripts give you cheap ablative wounds and massed S3 shooting. That's what they're good at, so of course they put more wounds on the table and more S3 shooting on the table than a unit that is not specialized in either of those things.
Like I said: specialist unit beats generalist unit within its specialty, news at 11.
Of course, if you're looking at S3 shooting, the durability gap isn't nearly as large as you try to imply. A tactical marine is 12 points for 1 wound, but only 1/3 of hits will wound and 2/3 of wounds will be saved, so it's actually more like 1.25 points per effective wound (ignoring the firer's BS). A conscript is 3 points, but 1/2 of hits will wound and only 1/3 of wounds will save, so they're 0.5 points per effective wound. So it's a difference of 0.75 points or a ratio of 2.5:1, not the 6:1 ratio you tried to suggest.
If the space marine gets in cover he can cut his failed save rate in half, bringing them down to 0.625 points per effective wound, nearly on par.
Of course, as you go higher S and start piling on AP the ratio goes more in the conscripts' favor because now you're overkilling them, but again: specialists excel at their specialty, and using the right weapon for the right job is important. News at 11.
Now, I'm sure any space marine player would probably gladly sacrifice mediocre melee and mediocre AT in order to gain great staying power and good anti-infantry. Or give up mediocre melee and mediocre anti-infantry to gain great staying power and good AT. That's the benefit of specializing, you sacrifice something you're not using anyway to gain something you will use.
But tactical marines as they currently are have mediocre melee, decent anti-infantry, decent-ish AT potential, and good-ish staying power for a small unit. They're pretty OK at anything, but great at nothing.
I'm not disagreeing that conscripts are a more efficient source of wounds (not 6:1 more efficient, but more efficient overall and good at absorbing overkill). What I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with that. You seem to think there is something wrong with that, though I have no idea what you would prefer as an alternative.
I suppose there's a rough way to find out, if you're willing to answer a few questions.
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is the worst in the whole game (for example, a Warlord Titan for raw points/wounds, at 57 points per wound) and 10 is the best in the whole game (for example, Brimstones for raw points/wound, with Conscripts being a 9 in that category), how do you think Tactical Marines SHOULD rate in the following categories:
1: Durability against S3-5, AP0-1 hits
2: Durability against S6+, AP2-4 hits
3: Durability against mortal wounds
4: shooting damage output vs GEQ
5: shooting damage output vs MEQ
6: shooting damage output vs Vehicles/MCs
7: melee damage output vs GEQ
8: melee damage output vs MEQ
9: melee damage output vs Vehicles/MCs
Something to keep in mind: if you answer 5, then there WILL be units in the game better than tacticals in that role by definition. Like I said, Conscripts are a 9 for durability against mortal wounds (ie raw total wound count), so if you want tacticals to be equal to or better than conscripts in that category, that's a 9 or 10.
Knowing what you want something to not be is not particularly useful. There are an infinite array of things that it can not be. Clarifying what you think it should be is much more useful, and leads to better discussion.
Conscripts are more dangerous than tactical marines. That's not a joke. You really think 1 boltgun at 3+ beats 4 lasguns at 5+? Remember, the latter can also be double for 20-30 points, the price at which a tactical squad might get 1-2 weapon upgrades. The conscripts can also take objectives easier.
If conscripts couldn't use orders you might have a point, but as it stands they are just better than most other infantry. They even put out more damage than other infantry, because they are so absurdly cheap. The idea conscripts are just ablative wounds is just flat out wrong right now, they are simply the best generalist infantry in the game.
That itself is a joke, it takes something like 15 conscripts to kill a single Tac marine.
Also, them tac marines arent just weilding boltguns. Combat squad and throw some frags. Tanks at long range? Bring the lascannon. Or a Missile Launcher. I'll happpily play againt a horde of conscripts with a horde of tac marines. Those giant unweildly units are going to get fragged up close, and fragged from afar.
Edit: do conscripts have pistols? If not tacticals have a convenient extra boost in close quarters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 02:06:35
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
