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.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know about rievers, but aggressors are thoroughly unimpressive.

Typically, the damage from conscripts is just icing on the cake. Most guard players i know will happily just march the survivors out of combat just a bit so the rest of the list can light up your assault elements. 100 bodies plus support is consuming around 400 pts. That's another 1600 pts to wail on your assault elements. Even with no scions, that's a lot of dakka.

Now consider that all that IS NOT shooting at the rest of your army so you can dig in on objectives or find a position to exploit guards' many weakness (assaulting tanks makes them utterly worthless, killing officers/commissars, and outrunning your opponent since his speed is permanently set at molasses)

Martel732 wrote:
Most marine goodies actually aren't good. Especially since their stats are based off the terrible tac marine.

Why is the tactical marine terrible?

Str 4, tough 4, ws 3+, bs 3+, 3+ save. Reroll LD tests intrinsically. Extreme versatility of special and heavy weapon choices. 24" S4 rapid fire weapon, AND a s4 pistol, AND grenades of both types.

That's your idea of terrible? What is your idea of good? If you don't want an all around unit, then play some other army, don't try and tell me marines suck when they have some of the best troop stats in the game.

And do we have to derail ANOTHER thread into conscript mathhammer arguments that no one uses with any consistency just to try and argue their nonsensical points?

Give it a rest people. Either GW is going to nerf them or they won't. You arguing about it won't do didly. And its pretty clear no one is going to change their minds at this point.

And there's the crux of hte problem. People want to play marines, but they don't want to play like marines need to play to win.

You need to use every advantage your statline gives you. Not just half of it.

Marines are pretty good imo. It's just most people don't play to their strengths. That's why they lose in my experience. A lot changed in this edition, and Space Marines don't have the play styles of last edition. IMO people just need to adapt a bit to the change.

 argonak wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Most marine goodies actually aren't good. Especially since their stats are based off the terrible tac marine.

Why is the tactical marine terrible?

Str 4, tough 4, ws 3+, bs 3+, 3+ save. Reroll LD tests intrinsically. Extreme versatility of special and heavy weapon choices. 24" S4 rapid fire weapon, AND a s4 pistol, AND grenades of both types.

That's your idea of terrible? What is your idea of good? If you don't want an all around unit, then play some other army, don't try and tell me marines suck when they have some of the best troop stats in the game.

And do we have to derail ANOTHER thread into conscript mathhammer arguments that no one uses with any consistency just to try and argue their nonsensical points?

Give it a rest people. Either GW is going to nerf them or they won't. You arguing about it won't do didly. And its pretty clear no one is going to change their minds at this point.

I agree the hammer is coming or it isn't. Made a new thread to address this. Bottom line: ig are top tier without scions and still easily defeat marines consistently because of lack of overall efficacy on the part of the marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deltaKshatriya wrote:
Marines are pretty good imo. It's just most people don't play to their strengths. That's why they lose in my experience. A lot changed in this edition, and Space Marines don't have the play styles of last edition. IMO people just need to adapt a bit to the change.

My counter view is that marines have no strengths which is their big problem. See the new thread for more.

SM (ultramarines at least) are still in the top 5 armies, if not top 3 or better. They win tournaments even without the 5+ stormravens lists.

 Blackie wrote:
SM (ultramarines at least) are still in the top 5 armies, if not top 3 or better. They win tournaments even without the 5+ stormravens lists.

Do you have any links to lists that won after the FAQ? Would like to see what they run.

Martel when you say marines have no strengths it's because you view it all as black and white with everything being broken or useless.

Endurance? Accuracy? Pts per £ invested in your army. A host of relics stratagem and special rules to tailor your army and obsec troops. Yes this may change as more codexs/chapter approved arrives but for now that's a lot.

Marines don't have a lot of in your face awesomeness that super spam unit but they also don't have the vulnerabiliy of other factions and can be built with more diversity and still function

U02dah4 wrote:
Martel when you say marines have no strengths it's because you view it all as black and white with everything being broken or useless.

Endurance? Accuracy? Pts per £ invested in your army. A host of relics stratagem and special rules to tailor your army and obsec troops. Yes this may change as more codexs/chapter approved arrives but for now that's a lot.

Marines don't have a lot of in your face awesomeness that super spam unit but they also don't have the vulnerabiliy of other factions and can be built with more diversity and still function

No, I don't view things that way, thank you very much. Marines are actually more vulnerable than guardsmen on a per point basis to most weapons. I'm saying marines have no strengths because of math. Mathematically they just don't. They pay for advantages that are too difficult to leverage too much of the time.

As amusing as it is to watch Martel being driven in to a corner, let's stay on topic.

 Melissia wrote:
As amusing as it is to watch Martel being driven in to a corner, let's stay on topic.

These suppression techniques of yours aren't working. He is making an important point about points efficiency, ignoring the facts won't make them go away.

[delete]

Corner? WTF is she talking about?

Unit A is, per point, more vulnerable than Unit B? This is an example of how statistics are not trustworthy as they can be shaped to support any argument one wishes.

There are simply too many variables to take that seriously.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Unit A is, per point, more vulnerable than Unit B? This is an example of how statistics are not trustworthy as they can be shaped to support any argument one wishes.

There are simply too many variables to take that seriously.

There are many variables but definitely a finite number. It's not really statistics either, you could just call it probability calculations assuming that your dice are true d6s. That doesn't mean that it isn't a complex problem but it's not beyond analysis. It's not untrustworthy as long as you understand what is being compared and put it into context on a tabletop. Cover, range, highrolls etc can all be taken into account. It's not for no reason that tactical marines are seen as squishy, they need cover to be competitive and even then they are weak per pt vs weapons with AP.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Unit A is, per point, more vulnerable than Unit B? This is an example of how statistics are not trustworthy as they can be shaped to support any argument one wishes.

There are simply too many variables to take that seriously.

No, they just don't support your beliefs, and so that makes them "untrustworthy". Also, since we are buying units with "points", what metric other than durability/pt is more meaningful in a durability discussion? I even showed this explicitly up above with the flamer. A flamer kills 4.67 POINTS of conscripts, and kills 7.58 POINTS of marines. So which list are you getting further ahead against by firing a flamer? The IG loses more models, but the marines lose more points. But we bought our lists with points, not models. Now start adding these special weapons that everyone assumes tac marines have and the marines are losing even more points. That's why I think tacs stink.

I just take everything with a grain of salt.

And I haven't touched my ultramarines this edition, but yeah, I'm betting they suck. But I knew that months ago when the AP rules came out. I knew armies with good armor saves were going to pay and armies like my guard were going to get a save for the first time since I started playing.

From my point of view, they seem costed appropriately. When looking at the comparison holistically. Looking at Scions, guardsmen, scouts, and tacticals. The main culprit in the lack of balance here, if comparing these troops at all is even wise to do, is the core rules! I get armor saves when I didn't use to and common weapons I have access to such as heavy bolters and autocannons now reduce 3+ saves when they didn't before. However, it's easier to get tacticals in cover and they certainly benefit more from it.


I'm not going into Marine threads and detailing them. I'm kind of over this conversation at this point. Mostly because it's pointless. GW will do what they do and in the meantime I am having fun playing my buddy's space pups (his damn Wulfen are insane by the way) and Tau.

Conscript spam and GEQ hordes in general are powerful for two reasons:
1 AP5 became AP0
2 Template and Large Blast weapons could get you more potential hits than the current randumb mechanic. This renders most anti-horde weapons from 7th useless or sub-par.

This is the simple truth about guard right now. Guardsmen in the open are no longer bolter fodder, but a guardsman is still the bolter's optimal target. SM players need to come to terms with the fact that Flamers and bolters aren't enough. You need to bring dedicated anti-horde for bolters to mop up after. How you do this is a question for another thread. This thread is about how the guard fares without scions and conscripts.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
I just take everything with a grain of salt.

And I haven't touched my ultramarines this edition, but yeah, I'm betting they suck. But I knew that months ago when the AP rules came out. I knew armies with good armor saves were going to pay and armies like my guard were going to get a save for the first time since I started playing.

From my point of view, they seem costed appropriately. When looking at the comparison holistically. Looking at Scions, guardsmen, scouts, and tacticals. The main culprit in the lack of balance here, if comparing these troops at all is even wise to do, is the core rules! I get armor saves when I didn't use to and common weapons I have access to such as heavy bolters and autocannons now reduce 3+ saves when they didn't before. However, it's easier to get tacticals in cover and they certainly benefit more from it.


I'm not going into Marine threads and detailing them. I'm kind of over this conversation at this point. Mostly because it's pointless. GW will do what they do and in the meantime I am having fun playing my buddy's space pups (his damn Wulfen are insane by the way) and Tau.

Can't disagree with the last line. I also feared the return of AP, but I was wrong in the incarnation of my fear. My marines don't feel super fragile like 2nd, but rather, T3 5+ is so hard to get off the board on a per point basis. I mean yes, even though i can do the math and compute how fragile marines really are, they still don't feel as fragile as hordes are durable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CplPunishment wrote:
Conscript spam and GEQ hordes in general are powerful for two reasons:
1 AP5 became AP0
2 Template and Large Blast weapons could get you more potential hits than the current randumb mechanic. This renders most anti-horde weapons from 7th useless or sub-par.

This is the simple truth about guard right now. Guardsmen in the open are no longer bolter fodder, but a guardsman is still the bolter's optimal target. SM players need to come to terms with the fact that Flamers and bolters aren't enough. You need to bring dedicated anti-horde for bolters to mop up after. How you do this is a question for another thread. This thread is about how the guard fares without scions and conscripts.

You forgot hordes having access to psychology ignoring mechanics. But yes, you are basically correct.

OMG. I completely didn't notice the "conscripts" part of the thread. No scions OR conscripts? There's still artillery and the Vulture and a couple other FW doodads and the basic IG squad itself. Can IG leverage IG squads to be surrogate conscripts? I've never seen anyone try, because they are ALL on the conscript train. That's a super legit question. If the IG player allows DS drop gaps, things change a lot, because then marines can access the artillery.

Martel's problem is thinking in black white terms conflating strengths with efficiency and efficiency with being able to leverage that efficiency.

Most units have strengths and weakness's. Marines have high BS high armour and are relatively strong and tough compared to other armies. If you stick tacs in cover they have a 2+ armour save compared to the 5+ guard as it tends to be difficult to get 50 conscripts all in cover, they also get a host of special rules. They are also generally not that bad at anything. Weaknesses you pay a premium for them and they are often not a specialist tool. The key thing is this is about the unit itself.

By comparing those strengths and weaknesses to its pts value we can approximate how efficient that unit is.

Conscripts Many weaknesses no real strengths at all but pts wise very efficent.

Marines typically many strengths few real weaknesses but pts inefficient.

Leverage is complex it is your ability to bring those strengths and efficiency to bare - Leverage is often dependent on several things. Firstly player skill hypothetically Martel may not be able leverage marines as a low skill player by standing them in the open so they have a direct shoot out with conscripts that doesn't mean someone else can't. Leverage them by utilising their objective holding for example. Leverage is also effected by other units commissars enable conscripts to be better leveraged the conscript itself doesn't get a better statline because commissars exist and if taken with out them has the same strength and weaknesses it always had. Skitarii vanguard are strong and relatively efficient but difficult to leverage because they have no transports or scout/deepstrike ability. The game board plays a role if you have more line of sight blocking terrain mobility and indirect fire become more valuable. You can't stick marines in terrain if there is none. Finnally meta is vital if everyone runs tanks AV weapons have beter opportunitys to be leveraged if you only play against guard infantry that Las cannon isn't going to help but it is just as good a tool at doing what it does.

So to break something simple down say the plasma gun in overcharge

Strengths 2 shots, high strength, high AP 2 damage and option to fire in a safer mode weakness chance it kills you and a pts premium.

Efficiency well that depends on the BS of the model firing the gun for guard infantry it is 16% less efficient a choice than for a tac squad. However if is cheaper for the guard so it is overall more efficient in their hands.

Leverage ignoring skill if my opponent takes nothing but infantry squads within a void shield generator it's very difficult to leverage the strengths of the plasma because the AP doesn't matter the damage doesn't matter and even if you kill infantry your not making the points back however if my opponent is taking stormravens and primaris marines happy days. If I've given my plasma to a scion I can position it where I want barring unusual amounts of bubblewrap if I put my plasma on a tac squad I can't.

The strengths and weakness of the plasma gun don't change, it's efficiency varies by army and your ability to levarage it can potentially vary considerably.

Tacs are strong they are inefficient but the can be good if they are leveraged correctly.

Most opponents know how to make that leveraging process impossible. Tac marines are ancient. They are one of the first things that players learn how to deal with. I haven't lost to a non-gladius tac-based list since 4th ed. The math is THAT stacked against them. And I know tacs.

"Marines typically many strengths few real weaknesses but pts inefficient"

This means on a per point basis, they don't have strengths. If you overpay for something, it's not longer a strength. It's a liability.

The rules of the game punish generalists, and always have.

Again your back to the black and whites " makes leverage impossible" and yet others are telling you they can levarage them.

You are saying you've not lost to a tac based list since 4th well very few lists are pure tac based but I've certainly won games using them and you cant judge tacs in 8th by tacs in 7th or older edditions the rules have changed so there performance against you in the past is null and void.

The math is clearly not that stacked against them (not saying it's in their favor however) but you showed us your maths earlier in which the conscript on average killed a marine so I shall take your maths with a pinch of salt. Needless other people are telling you its not so black and white.

Their strengths don't go away because there pts are inefficient. Units are still good at what they do they are still bad at what there bad at. I may feel that decked out IK are inefficient this does effect my decision's on whether I want to run them. I can still acknowledge they have strengths and how to use them to best effect if I ran one.

Your comming to that conclusion because again your back to binary good/bad. Units like tacs are not perfect but there not bad either their is room in the middle

No the rules of the game don't inherently punish generalists you have to factor in efficiency and leverage what is a conscript if not a generalist it's generally bad at all things however few people are going to tell you it's a weak choice.

Martel732 wrote:

OMG. I completely didn't notice the "conscripts" part of the thread. No scions OR conscripts? There's still artillery and the Vulture and a couple other FW doodads and the basic IG squad itself. Can IG leverage IG squads to be surrogate conscripts? I've never seen anyone try, because they are ALL on the conscript train. That's a super legit question. If the IG player allows DS drop gaps, things change a lot, because then marines can access the artillery.

I've played 2 games recently without conscripts. One of which also didn't use Scions.

First game was against Blood Angels. I think they were Sanguinary Guard? Idk the dude didn't seem to know his rules very well and wanted to play PL so also changed his weapons after the first turn, I think?

Regardless, he deep struck right in front of me and got a charge off. From that point on he proceeded to fly over units and charge whatever he wanted. I eventually won but it was a slow grind as 2+ saves with 2 wounds with all his HQs and apothecary and banner dudes were tough to bring down with my neutered list. If those Sanguinary Guard dudes get an invuln then I'll never kill them.

My most recent game was a tank heavy list with only 3 infantry squads against Space Wolves. His list stomped me. A knight, Wulfen, flyer with hell Frost Cannon, too many heavy bolters, and 2 Las Cannon, predator, laserback, venerable deadnought with that 3+ invuln and then Bjorn behind him. He just marched up the field and there was nothing I could do. I think in his charge with Bjorn against a Russ he did 26 damage. Lol. My infantry screens crumbled to morale immediately and so only held him up for 1 turn. I think all I killed was a predator and a Wulfen. Leman Russes are terrible but at least fun.

The hard thing with the guard is that we have so many options to build a list, it's hard to say if Scions or conscripts are required. With conscripts protecting those tanks the game would have been different. Scions wouldn't have really helped there much since most units had an invuln and are super tough.

Martel732 wrote:

OMG. I completely didn't notice the "conscripts" part of the thread. No scions OR conscripts? There's still artillery and the Vulture and a couple other FW doodads and the basic IG squad itself. Can IG leverage IG squads to be surrogate conscripts? I've never seen anyone try, because they are ALL on the conscript train. That's a super legit question. If the IG player allows DS drop gaps, things change a lot, because then marines can access the artillery.

Before I gave up, I spent a few pages of one of the other threads trying to convince people that it was possible. I speculate the tournament list that everyone was talking about weeks ago would have had to give up a single tank for the point difference, and I'm pretty doubtful that it would have made that list any less powerful.

Personally, I've screened against GK with infantry before. It's slightly more expensive, but still pretty functional at the end of the day, though you do have to change up your tactics a bit since Magic Tail theory doesn't really apply anymore.

 Colonel Cross wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

OMG. I completely didn't notice the "conscripts" part of the thread. No scions OR conscripts? There's still artillery and the Vulture and a couple other FW doodads and the basic IG squad itself. Can IG leverage IG squads to be surrogate conscripts? I've never seen anyone try, because they are ALL on the conscript train. That's a super legit question. If the IG player allows DS drop gaps, things change a lot, because then marines can access the artillery.

I've played 2 games recently without conscripts. One of which also didn't use Scions.

First game was against Blood Angels. I think they were Sanguinary Guard? Idk the dude didn't seem to know his rules very well and wanted to play PL so also changed his weapons after the first turn, I think?

Regardless, he deep struck right in front of me and got a charge off. From that point on he proceeded to fly over units and charge whatever he wanted. I eventually won but it was a slow grind as 2+ saves with 2 wounds with all his HQs and apothecary and banner dudes were tough to bring down with my neutered list. If those Sanguinary Guard dudes get an invuln then I'll never kill them.

My most recent game was a tank heavy list with only 3 infantry squads against Space Wolves. His list stomped me. A knight, Wulfen, flyer with hell Frost Cannon, too many heavy bolters, and 2 Las Cannon, predator, laserback, venerable deadnought with that 3+ invuln and then Bjorn behind him. He just marched up the field and there was nothing I could do. I think in his charge with Bjorn against a Russ he did 26 damage. Lol. My infantry screens crumbled to morale immediately and so only held him up for 1 turn. I think all I killed was a predator and a Wulfen. Leman Russes are terrible but at least fun.

The hard thing with the guard is that we have so many options to build a list, it's hard to say if Scions or conscripts are required. With conscripts protecting those tanks the game would have been different. Scions wouldn't have really helped there much since most units had an invuln and are super tough.

It's sad but Russes don't pull their weight anymore. I love those tanks. The basilisk is cheaper, more reliable and ignores LOS.

I think guard need 6-9 infantry squads minimum to be competitive without conscripts. Buying them barebones helps mitigate their higher cost. They do have their own advantages as well.

As for rolling without scions, our option is either mechanized/airborne infantry (expensive bullet magnets) or area denial aka MORE BIG GUNS! I'm leaning towards the latter.

What about vultures? Anyone using those? I've been told they're busted.

Martel732 wrote:
What about vultures? Anyone using those? I've been told they're busted.

Simply put, the average player won't have one. FW is pricey.

I don't know. I face FW on a regular basis. I played against two FW WKs consistently for 20 months in 7th.

I can only speak for my local meta, of course.

U02dah4 wrote:
Again your back to the black and whites " makes leverage impossible" and yet others are telling you they can levarage them.

You are saying you've not lost to a tac based list since 4th well very few lists are pure tac based but I've certainly won games using them and you cant judge tacs in 8th by tacs in 7th or older edditions the rules have changed so there performance against you in the past is null and void.

The math is clearly not that stacked against them (not saying it's in their favor however) but you showed us your maths earlier in which the conscript on average killed a marine so I shall take your maths with a pinch of salt. Needless other people are telling you its not so black and white.

Their strengths don't go away because there pts are inefficient. Units are still good at what they do they are still bad at what there bad at. I may feel that decked out IK are inefficient this does effect my decision's on whether I want to run them. I can still acknowledge they have strengths and how to use them to best effect if I ran one.

Your comming to that conclusion because again your back to binary good/bad. Units like tacs are not perfect but there not bad either their is room in the middle

No the rules of the game don't inherently punish generalists you have to factor in efficiency and leverage what is a conscript if not a generalist it's generally bad at all things however few people are going to tell you it's a weak choice.

It is completely binary in this way: the question I'm asking is whether something is worth putting in a list or not. There are only two outcomes: in the list or not in the list. So it kind of does boil down to a binary decision.

" but you showed us your maths earlier in which the conscript on average killed a marine so I shall take your maths with a pinch of salt"

No, I didn't. Go look again.

"Ah my bad I thought it was wounds caused!"

This guy gets it. Try harder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CplPunishment wrote:
I can only speak for my local meta, of course.

Tournies were full of the inferno lance WKs, too. I think it's a mistake to leave FW out of the discussion. That's why I asked about Vultures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

OMG. I completely didn't notice the "conscripts" part of the thread. No scions OR conscripts? There's still artillery and the Vulture and a couple other FW doodads and the basic IG squad itself. Can IG leverage IG squads to be surrogate conscripts? I've never seen anyone try, because they are ALL on the conscript train. That's a super legit question. If the IG player allows DS drop gaps, things change a lot, because then marines can access the artillery.

Before I gave up, I spent a few pages of one of the other threads trying to convince people that it was possible. I speculate the tournament list that everyone was talking about weeks ago would have had to give up a single tank for the point difference, and I'm pretty doubtful that it would have made that list any less powerful.

Personally, I've screened against GK with infantry before. It's slightly more expensive, but still pretty functional at the end of the day, though you do have to change up your tactics a bit since Magic Tail theory doesn't really apply anymore.

Pro: no need to buy commissars, better firepower/pt

Cons: Vulnerable to psychology, order efficiency is poor, can't cover as much physical space, less durability/pt