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.

 Melissia wrote:
So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".

Pretty much. That's the lore, that's the game balance. They roflstomp everything easily by design. The cost of doing so is fewer models on the table. Other elite armies like Grey Knights roflstomp even easier and have even fewer models on the table. It's the difference between unarmored Rebels and laser-resistant Imperial Stormtroopers.

Beating them isn't usually about going for the face or obliterating all in your path. It's playing the objectives or outgunning them with tanks. Fewer models means more focused weaknesses while giant armies of cheap stuff can afford to diversify their strengths to exploit just about any weakness. I played against Brimstones recently and while I was mowing them down like nothing I was only killing 8-10 pts of models while a single Smite from them could murder a 40 pt Terminator. Losses are felt more with elite armies.

 daedalus wrote:
Sorry, it was meant more as a poke at the number of space marine players out there, myself included. I feel like when I used to go to the game store, it was at least 50% (if not more) marine armies.

That might actually be part of the problem. It's easier to kill marines because it's what you're expecting with a random player/army.

I also think that, because the tradition is "prep for marines", there are a number of players not really equipped for hordes of little guys.

 daedalus wrote:
Sorry, it was meant more as a poke at the number of space marine players out there, myself included. I feel like when I used to go to the game store, it was at least 50% (if not more) marine armies.

That might actually be part of the problem. It's easier to kill marines because it's what you're expecting with a random player/army.

Yeah blame GW for that. Marines have been getting super friend codex books for ages, all unique and super snowflake to favor GW's poster boys. They're more interested in the lore than the balance and the lore says that Mankind Will Triumph Over Darkness.

When Tyranids have six codex books just for them then we'll see as many players I'm sure. XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I also think that, because the tradition is "prep for marines", there are a number of players not really equipped for hordes of little guys.

Yeah though that was the first thing to change this edition. People are spamming flamers and multi-shot weapons more than ever now.

 Melissia wrote:
So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".

And before anyone responds by spazzing out over me saying this, think about what Arkaine is actually saying here.

Given two units of equal points-- not equal numbers, but equal points-- he's saying "Marines should always be mowing down hordes". That, point for point, Marines should simply be better than all horde armies, and the weak-ass Termagants should actually be the norm when it comes to hordes. "Why is it surprising you that marines beat hordes without even using all their strengths? That's how it should be."

So, Arkhaine, what use should Termagants have other than being chew toys for your marines? Your marines were outnumbred three to one, and beat them easily with minimal casualties, and you say "this is how it should be". So why should any Tyranid player take them?

Melissia wrote:So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".

Pretty much. The Marine players are crying because they want an easy time, and any suggestions, points or anything that proves contrary to their claims is quickly being brushed aside as "false,", "List tailoring", "Wouldnt work", You dont know anything" or "You just want to pwn everyone with your OP models"
In short, Marine players no longer have an easy time and now have to think and they do not like this.

Arkaine wrote:
13 pts model vs 4 pts a model. There should 3 times as many cultists/gaunts/guard on the field.

Funny thing that, we see an average of three times as many Imperial Guardsmen on the board and we get the screaming whine threads from the Marine players about how OP this is.

tl;dr: Non-Marine players are not there to serve as scratching posts for the amusement of Marine players who want to get their jollies off with a cheap win. It's sad and funny how people whined about Master of Ordinance saying "about time we get to win and be powerful...", yet ultimately, all of you are no fething different.

 Melissia wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".

And before anyone responds by spazzing out over me saying this, think about what Arkaine is actually saying here.

Given two units of equal points-- not equal numbers, but equal points-- he's saying "Marines should always be mowing down hordes". That, point for point, Marines should simply be better than all horde armies, and the weak-ass Termagants should actually be the norm when it comes to hordes. "Why is it surprising you that marines beat hordes without even using all their strengths? That's how it should be."

So, Arkhaine, what use should Termagants have other than being chew toys for your marines?

I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?

Gaunts are wounds and objective takers. They also fire so many shots that they force absurd numbers of saves, so heavy infantry like Terminators can get shot to death by them. They're terrible at masses of "basic" (lol) Space Marines with similar firepower to their own but they're pretty great at dealing with things that rely on their invulnerable saves to be invincible, since you'll still fail those 1/3 of the time, and units that sport very few shots/attacks per model since kiling 2 gaunts per turn isn't going to help when you're receiving 60 attacks in return.

I playedOrks in 5th, GK 6th-8th, got IG auxillaries to complement my army in 7th, painted up Deathwatch because I want all three Ordo.

I want to take a force of Deathwatch and not get destroyed because my boys are more expensive than YOUR boys w/ toys.

 Arkaine wrote:

I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?

I think you're thinking of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".

And as far as I can tell, 40k isn't really a tactics or strategy game anymore. It appears to be a list building exercise with a Candyland component to it. Particularly nowadays, but I'd say anything post 6th for sure, and I'm not even sure about prior.

 Arkaine wrote:
I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh?

So basicaly your argument is, "Guard should always be beaten every time by Marines, and if you want to beat Marines, you need to play a different faction who is their hard counter".

Yeah, I'm gonna ignore your advice on game design now unless you rephrase that.

Also, as a side note, I've played strategy games since before Windows even existed. Pure Rock-Paper-Scissors games are the most simplistic and often least well designed games, and entirely forgettable. Even bastions of mediocrity like Starcraft don't follow hard-RPS style mechanics.

I'd rather have my guardsmen make my opponent really have to work hard and leverage every advantage he can get to wring out a victory. Getting roflstomped by bone-stock tacticals like those poor Termagaunts doesn't sound like a good game to me.

And statements like "Spess Mehreens are supermen so they should roflstomp at equal points values" miss the entire point of the points system. The entire point of the points system is to tell me how many guardsmen I need to win. If my points can't buy enough guardsmen, then the points aren't working.

There WERE three Termagaunts for every space marine, it was precisely 30 vs 10. 30 Termagaunts died, 4 Space Marines died (5 if you're generous). That's somewhere between a 6:1 and 7:1 k/d ratio. Of course you don't actually need 60 Termagaunts to beat 10 Space Marines, it's probably closer to 40, because the end results start to snowball very quickly once you go past the "just barely enough to win" tipping point.

So no. Termagaunts are a terrible benchmark. Saying that a unit is balanced with a termagaunt, in the termagaunt's current state, would be an insult. Their only redeeming feature is that they can be replenished by a Tervigon, and I'm not sure that's even enough to save them.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?

I think you're thinking of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".

And as far as I can tell, 40k isn't really a tactics or strategy game anymore. It appears to be a list building exercise with a Candyland component to it. Particularly nowadays, but I'd say anything post 6th for sure, and I'm not even sure about prior.

No, not rock paper scissors. Advantage vs Non-Advantage. Archers can still kill Peasants if you can keep the blob away from them long enough to do so. Cavalry can still kill Spearmen at grave cost to them or virtually effortlessly if they manage to flank charge them. Rock Paper Scissors is the defining rule that Scissors will always defeat Paper. Tactics games give you stats and special rules that say this isn't true but it's very likely and you should plan accordingly.

Everything from Warhammer Fantasy to 40k has been balanced this way, with certain units and weapons doing well against X-type of unit and terribly against Y-type. Lascannons are arguably amazing at dealing with tanks and but aren't going to kill many of your 50 conscripts.

This 8th edition seems to be bringing back the tactics and strategy element to the game through Stratagems. List building remains important but we keep getting ways to "cheat" mid-game to attempt to turn the tables in our favor. All while expending limited resources that must be carefully rationed throughout the game. It's definitely become more in favor of the conniving general who knows his enemy's capabilities and how to exploit his enemy's weak points.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Melissia wrote:So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".

Pretty much. The Marine players are crying because they want an easy time, and any suggestions, points or anything that proves contrary to their claims is quickly being brushed aside as "false,", "List tailoring", "Wouldnt work", You dont know anything" or "You just want to pwn everyone with your OP models"
In short, Marine players no longer have an easy time and now have to think and they do not like this.

Btw. Marine player here, and I'm on your side. Not sure what you're looking to accomplish with this.

 Arkaine wrote:
No, not rock paper scissors.

That's not what you described before.

 Arkaine wrote:
Advantage vs Non-Advantage.

The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Melissia wrote:So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".

Pretty much. The Marine players are crying because they want an easy time, and any suggestions, points or anything that proves contrary to their claims is quickly being brushed aside as "false,", "List tailoring", "Wouldnt work", You dont know anything" or "You just want to pwn everyone with your OP models"
In short, Marine players no longer have an easy time and now have to think and they do not like this.

Btw. Marine player here, and I'm on your side. Not sure what you're looking to accomplish with this.

*points to the BA terminators I'm assembling as I post*
Same here, but I took it as MoO intending to say "the ones whining about conscripts here"

 Melissia wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh?

So basicaly your argument is, "Guard should always be beaten every time by Marines, and if you want to beat Marines, you need to play a different faction who is their hard counter".

Literally never said that, I said Space Marines will always slaughter Gaunts/Guard/Cultists/Conscripts. But keep pulling figments of your own imagination from your mind to declare what Imperial Guard the FACTION can do. Guardsmen are the Guard faction are completely different things yet you tried to combine the two into a horrific logical fallacy.

I'm going to start ignoring you until you choose to be rational.

 Melissia wrote:
Also, as a side note, I've played strategy games since before Windows even existed. Pure Rock-Paper-Scissors games are the most simplistic and often least well designed games, and entirely forgettable. Even bastions of mediocrity like Starcraft don't follow hard-RPS style mechanics.

And no one is discussing Rock Paper Scissors here, once again you're injecting words into a post that aren't there.

40k has always been built around the idea that Devastators are better against tanks than Space Marines are while Assault Marines are better in close combat.

The people claiming that marine players just want to stomp are absurd. Marines are turning out to be average at best in 8th. Even if conscripts were fixed tomorrow, that wouldn't change.

 Melissia wrote:
The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?

Oooh, ooh! It gives you a lot of minis to paint up real nice before putting them back in the bag 20 at a time!

 Arkaine wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?

I think you're thinking of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".

And as far as I can tell, 40k isn't really a tactics or strategy game anymore. It appears to be a list building exercise with a Candyland component to it. Particularly nowadays, but I'd say anything post 6th for sure, and I'm not even sure about prior.

No, not rock paper scissors. Advantage vs Non-Advantage. Archers can still kill Peasants if you can keep the blob away from them long enough to do so. Cavalry can still kill Spearmen at grave cost to them or virtually effortlessly if they manage to flank charge them. Rock Paper Scissors is the defining rule that Scissors will always defeat Paper. Tactics games give you stats and special rules that say this isn't true but it's very likely and you should plan accordingly.

Everything from Warhammer Fantasy to 40k has been balanced this way, with certain units and weapons doing well against X-type of unit and terribly against Y-type. Lascannons are arguably amazing at dealing with tanks and but aren't going to kill many of your 50 conscripts.

This 8th edition seems to be bringing back the tactics and strategy element to the game through Stratagems. List building remains important but we keep getting ways to "cheat" mid-game to attempt to turn the tables in our favor. All while expending limited resources that must be carefully rationed throughout the game. It's definitely become more in favor of the conniving general who knows his enemy's capabilities and how to exploit his enemy's weak points.

Ah, I see you're missing a lot of context. Don't worry, that's easy to do when a thread gets this long.

The context of the Termagaunt discussion is not something like "anti-tank kills tanks, anti-infantry kills infantry". That's pretty much a given, of course good anti-infantry weapons should be a thing. The context of the Termagaunt discussion is that someone was trying to argue that Guardsmen and Conscripts should be balanced using the Termagaunt as a benchmark. ie, they should only be even at best with Termagaunts point for point.

This of course raised a question: is the Termagaunt even a good benchmark? Is the Termagaunt even balanced itself? The answer of course turned out to be no. The Termagaunt is woefully underpowered, it sucks against everything in every role.

Martel732 wrote:
The people claiming that marine players just want to stomp are absurd. Marines are turning out to be average at best in 8th. Even if conscripts were fixed tomorrow, that wouldn't change.

You're the one that said killing conscripts in two turns isn't fast enough, so you have no room to complain.

 Melissia wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
No, not rock paper scissors.

That's not what you described before.

Yes, it is. You're merely choosing to read it the way you wish to. I described it exactly as 40k is. A match of a unit type countering another unit type because of inherent advantages. These examples that YOUR side has posted described no other units on the field, only a two blob assault which ends with expected mathhammer results. You may as well complain that your Space Marines couldn't kill a Wraithknight.

 Melissia wrote:
The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?

Those people can say whatever they want because those people aren't me. I'm not the one arguing against their durability and I'd welcome you to stick to MY arguments rather than holding me accountable for others say.

I'm welcome to stick to the thread's topic-- IE, "should conscripts get nerfed, and if so, how?", if I goddamn want to.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm welcome to stick to the thread's topic-- IE, "should conscripts get nerfed, and if so, how?", if I goddamn want to.

By all means, just don't ask me questions concerning a viewpoint I don't share. Ask them.

I did. However, the question I asked did not assume your viewpoint:

 Melissia wrote:
The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?

Quickjager wrote:
I want to take a force of Deathwatch and not get destroyed because my boys are more expensive than YOUR boys w/ toys.

Well take anti-horde weapons then, dont be one of these idiots whom takes anti heavy infantry weapons and then complains when he gets mobbed. Or just ally in Guardsmen.

Arkaine wrote:

I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?

Well actually Cavalry died to archers a lot. And English Axemen during the 100 years war. And a lot of other things too. But please do tell me why marines should not have a hard counter.

 Melissia wrote:
I did. However, the question I asked did not assume your viewpoint:

 Melissia wrote:
The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?

Then you'll note that I've already answered many posts ago and your insistence on asking the question merely denotes a poor understanding of my clearly stated viewpoint. I figured if you were asking then you did not like my given answer and expected a different one.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well actually Cavalry died to archers a lot. And English Axemen during the 100 years war. And a lot of other things too. But please do tell me why marines should not have a hard counter.

You're confused. I never said that Marines should not have a hard counter, in fact I listed one of theirs. I stated that Gaunts weren't it. That's all.

Also, you're enhancing my point since I stated already that these counters are not absolute, though I also did not list Axemen or Archers at all in the Spearmen example because like the Gaunts vs Marines example it's 1v1. Cavalry were an often used counter to archers as well thanks to horse barding and shields. This is not an example of Rock Paper Scissors, that's the claim my opponent made, it's an example of advantages and disadvantages and properly applied tactics can make a disadvantaged unit the victor. Just as 40k is already balanced the same way.

Let me just play another army; great answer. Or the better one "just ally in Guardsmen".

You got NO answer, Conscripts are just part of the problem and you won't even acknowledge it.

I apologize-- the thread has gone by so fast that I missed yoru first post in it.

 Melissia wrote:
I apologize-- the thread has gone by so fast that I missed yoru first post in it.

That's alright, and expected, and why I calmly restate my perspective so often for those who may have missed a point somewhere.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/720/733977.page#9527529

The same questions being asked right now by those who think conscripts are balanced have already been answered pages ago. If you have any questions, read the threads first.

 Quickjager wrote:
Let me just play another army; great answer. Or the better one "just ally in Guardsmen".

You got NO answer, Conscripts are just part of the problem and you won't even acknowledge it.

You are Deathwatch. You have frag cannons. You have flamers. You have a lot of horde killing stuff. All I am saying is make use of it. Or do the solution that so many Marine players gave to Guard players and ally in units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I apologize-- the thread has gone by so fast that I missed yoru first post in it.

That's alright, and expected, and why I calmly restate my perspective so often for those who may have missed a point somewhere.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/720/733977.page#9527529

That is a fair perspective to a point, however you fail to acount for numbers. 1v1 Light Infantry will die to Mediums and likewise Mediums to Heavies. What we have with conscripts, though, is a horde of Light Infantry taking on a very small unit of Heavy Infantry. Conscripts vs Marines will still lose in a 1v1 game, but when it comes to 5v1 the tables start to turn ever so slightly.