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 don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or
.667*.8333*4 = 2.22 points of guardsmen per hit

Heavy flamer is the same

Wvyern kills .5*.75*.3333*13= 1.62 points of marines per shot or
.5 *.8333. *.66666*4 = 1.11 points of guardsmen per shot.

Is it more dubious to assume Raven Guard or Iron hands or assume NOT one of those chapters? Most chapter tactics don't help with durability at all. Especially BA chapter tactics.

The best: Boyz
The almost best: Genestealers, Conscripts, Guard Infantry, Bezerkers
The very good: Fire warriors, Tesla Immortals, Battle Sisters, Noise Marines, Brimstones

Niiru wrote:
<snippity>
I'm confused, why are Scions better in melee than sisters?

- They have the same number of attacks
- They have the same strenght
- Neither have any melee weapons to alter stats (except for the leader of each squad, which works out the same for each)

- BUT sisters get a 3+ save and a 6++ rerollable invulnerable, vs scions straight 4+ save, so sisters should be more survivable?

Oh... but I guess scions with a tempestor prime can re-roll all 1's to hit and to wound, if they're the only squad being ordered by the tempestor.
But then, if sisters are the only sisters being "ordered" they can use an act of faith to fight twice per turn.

I screwed up on that one - I thought that Scions had WS 3+ for some reason.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

How so?

Heavy bolters and wyverns are much better than flamers vs marines, as shown. That's what I'm concerned about.

I think your math on the main gun is off, but it's proportionally off for both examples so not a big problem:

20 shots of S6 AP-2 at BS4+ vs RG tac marine: 20x(1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3)=2.96

I'm mostly impressed that the guardsmen are able to tank as much damage per pt as RG tac marines benefitting from their CT. I'm of the opinion that regular infantry squads are good but not OP by any means.

Amusingly, marines ate actually less vulnerable to normal flamers this edition than previous ones. This edition they can get a 2+ against flamers by being in cover.

sossen wrote:
I think your math on the main gun is off, but it's proportionally off for both examples so not a big problem:

20 shots of S6 AP-2 at BS4+ vs RG tac marine: 20x(1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3)=2.96

I'm mostly impressed that the guardsmen are able to tank as much damage per pt as RG tac marines benefitting from their CT. I'm of the opinion that regular infantry squads are good but not OP by any means.

I was doing the VMB as 15 shots, is it 20 now?

Either way, it should be about the same - and if you think that regular infantry squads are good but not OP, then marines with comparable durability should also be good but not OP, surely?

They are not comparable. I just showed that they aren't. Marines are losing points 1.5X as fast to the fething WYVERN. Almost twice as fast to the heavy bolter.

Nah, it's a good comparison.

Cover is a poor assumption the way this game works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Nah, it's a good comparison.

Then show me how I'm wrong. The weapons I listed are way more common.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:
I think your math on the main gun is off, but it's proportionally off for both examples so not a big problem:

20 shots of S6 AP-2 at BS4+ vs RG tac marine: 20x(1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3)=2.96

I'm mostly impressed that the guardsmen are able to tank as much damage per pt as RG tac marines benefitting from their CT. I'm of the opinion that regular infantry squads are good but not OP by any means.

I was doing the VMB as 15 shots, is it 20 now?

Either way, it should be about the same - and if you think that regular infantry squads are good but not OP, then marines with comparable durability should also be good but not OP, surely?

No, I think infantry squads are good because they still function as conscript-style bubblewrap for a gunline army. Tac marines cover less physical space per pt and can't benefit from the RG CT when they get charged or if a unit deepstrikes nearby.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

How so?

Heavy bolters and wyverns are much better than flamers vs marines, as shown. That's what I'm concerned about.

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Raven Guard Tactical Marine
Stationary: 0.33 wounds (4.29 pts; the Heavy Bolter payed 1.86 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.17 wounds (2.21 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.62 pts per point of damage inflicted)

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Imperial Guard Infantryman
Stationary: 0.833 wounds (3.33 pts; the heavy bolter payed 2.42 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.56 wounds (2.24 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.57 pts per wound inflicted)

So again, the Marine comes out to about as tough as a guardsman, point-for-point.

I already showed that they aren't even close on heavy bolters on a per hit basis, which cuts out a lot of the other extraneous crap.

Quit assuming Raven Guard. They are not the norm.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:
I think your math on the main gun is off, but it's proportionally off for both examples so not a big problem:

20 shots of S6 AP-2 at BS4+ vs RG tac marine: 20x(1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3)=2.96

I'm mostly impressed that the guardsmen are able to tank as much damage per pt as RG tac marines benefitting from their CT. I'm of the opinion that regular infantry squads are good but not OP by any means.

I was doing the VMB as 15 shots, is it 20 now?

Either way, it should be about the same - and if you think that regular infantry squads are good but not OP, then marines with comparable durability should also be good but not OP, surely?

No, I think infantry squads are good because they still function as conscript-style bubblewrap for a gunline army. Tac marines cover less physical space per pt and can't benefit from the RG CT when they get charged or if a unit deepstrikes nearby.

So how many Points Per Model should 'space on the table' cost?

And yeah, the RG CT aren't flawless, but IG are less resistant to morale than SM (without paying points) and can't combat squad, so I considered the gap in CT capability to be worth about as many points as combat squads + ATSKNF

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

How so?

Heavy bolters and wyverns are much better than flamers vs marines, as shown. That's what I'm concerned about.

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Raven Guard Tactical Marine
Stationary: 0.33 wounds (4.29 pts; the Heavy Bolter payed 1.86 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.17 wounds (2.21 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.62 pts per point of damage inflicted)

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Imperial Guard Infantryman
Stationary: 0.833 wounds (3.33 pts; the heavy bolter payed 2.42 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.56 wounds (2.24 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.57 pts per wound inflicted)

So again, the Marine comes out to about as tough as a guardsman, point-for-point.

I don't see why an AM heavy bolter would be moving often, to me it looks like the guardsman comes out on top in this comparison.

Martel732 wrote:
I already showed that they aren't even close on heavy bolters on a per hit basis, which cuts out a lot of the other extraneous crap.

Quit assuming Raven Guard. They are not the norm.

But the tactical marine's cost includes Chapter Tactics, and if it's durability you're worried about, then bring the durability CT. I don't know what the problem is.

Your 13 points can include a whole variety of bonuses, but CT is the durability enhancement. If you're talking Durability, use RG CT, since they pay for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

How so?

Heavy bolters and wyverns are much better than flamers vs marines, as shown. That's what I'm concerned about.

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Raven Guard Tactical Marine
Stationary: 0.33 wounds (4.29 pts; the Heavy Bolter payed 1.86 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.17 wounds (2.21 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.62 pts per point of damage inflicted)

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Imperial Guard Infantryman
Stationary: 0.833 wounds (3.33 pts; the heavy bolter payed 2.42 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.56 wounds (2.24 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.57 pts per wound inflicted)

So again, the Marine comes out to about as tough as a guardsman, point-for-point.

I don't see why an AM heavy bolter would be moving often, to me it looks like the guardsman comes out on top in this comparison.

Yes, by less than a whole point's durability. That's probably because guardsmen should really be like 4.3 or 4.4 points, but the system's not that granular.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how many Points Per Model should 'space on the table' cost?

That's a good question, I'm not sure but it does make a big difference with how the melee and deepstrike rules work. If 10 brimstones were restricted to only taking up as much space as one brimstone model I don't think they would be as good.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how many Points Per Model should 'space on the table' cost?

That's a good question, I'm not sure but it does make a big difference with how the melee and deepstrike rules work. If 10 brimstones were restricted to only taking up as much space as one brimstone model I don't think they would be as good.

See, now we're getting to the crux of the "mathhammer doesn't work" argument that I often throw forwards and which is immediately swamped by "YES IT DOES SHUT UP."

There are things like "space taken up on the table" which affect how useful a model is in an army (there are other factors too) which simply cannot be reflected in points costs because they are so variable.

Is a Guard Squad forced to huddle together to fit between two impassable buildings less 'points efficient' than one spread out? Or is it moreso because of the super limited frontage it can provide while still covering its sector? Is a guard squad being used to drive up and attack objectives in a transport (and therefore literally taking up 0 space on the table) less points efficient than one being purely used to screen tanks? Should it be?

I'm talking about the durability of a generic tac marine, not Raven Guard.

Mathhammer has limitations for sure, but it can be used to illustrate a point.

Given that taking up space turns off some very expensive units completely, it should be worth more that it currently costs, I think.k

Tac marines being overcosted is not a problem since many SM units and wargear are way undercosted. I'd be ok with 10 points tac marines but also 120 points of naked rhinos or 150 points of twin las/ass cannon razorbacks for example. A paper dark eldar raider is 115 with the cheapest mandatory upgrades. SM are one of the few armies that have transports that are cheaper than the unit inside.

Or 30 points of lascannons. Even better with guilliman at 500 points or without his ability to let everyone re-roll everything, just give him the ability to re-roll failed to hit OR to wound of ones, not eveything.

Tactical marines may be overcosted, but the army is quite effective overall. Many people complain about tactical not being a solid troop option. Well, I guess SM need another overpowered unit, do they?

Martel732 wrote:
I'm talking about the durability of a generic tac marine, not Raven Guard.

Mathhammer has limitations for sure, but it can be used to illustrate a point.

But a generic tac marine is paying for the potential to be Raven Guard, so of course it's going to be less efficient. It's like ignoring their power armour when calculating their durability per point - it's included in the cost, so you're skewing the numbers.

"Tac marines being overcosted is not a problem since many SM units and wargear are way undercosted"

Hardly. Yes, Guilliman is a thing, but he's not a thing for BA.

Just like in 7th, I think stock marine units are actually rather for what they cost. What are these OP options, other than maybe stormravens? Marines are fundamentally based off tac marines for many of their units, and the suckitude and generalist curse gets passed down along with it.

I don't think stock marines are really effective at all in 8th. Too fragile, as ironic as that is. They're limping along on Guilliman deathstars, a gimmick, just like in 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm talking about the durability of a generic tac marine, not Raven Guard.

Mathhammer has limitations for sure, but it can be used to illustrate a point.

But a generic tac marine is paying for the potential to be Raven Guard, so of course it's going to be less efficient. It's like ignoring their power armour when calculating their durability per point - it's included in the cost, so you're skewing the numbers.

I disagree. Most chapter tactics have nothing to do with durability. So your average vanilla marine will NOT have a durability buff from chapter tactics. DA, BA, and SW will likely also lack durability buffs.

Martel732 wrote:

I disagree. Most chapter tactics have nothing to do with durability. So your average vanilla marine will NOT have a durability buff from chapter tactics. DA, BA, and SW will likely also lack durability buffs.

See, the other Chapter Tactics buff some other aspect (mobility, fall back + shoot, leadership, shooting, charging, whatever).

Those Chapter Tactics won't show themselves in a durability comparison, but they will in other ways.

However, if your claim is that the Marines are too fragile to cope, then you pick the Chapter Tactic that mitigates that weakness. If, instead, your claim is that Marines are too bad at shooting, then you pick the Salamanders (or IF or whatever) chapter tactic. If you claim they're too bad at getting into combat, then you pick the Templar's chapter tactic. If you'd rather use their whole statline in a turn then pick the Ultramarines chapter tactic.

You are trying to show they aren't durable enough for their points. If that's your concern, pick the rule that improves their durability, and they're suddenly worth their points.

I never see anyone dismiss mathhammer as long as it supports their point. As long as it is used within the correct contexts and everyone understands what is being calculated there is no problem with it.

As for intangibles and synergy advantages I'd say that guardsmen are more impactful in an AM army than tac marines can be in an SM army.

They're too bad at all of those things at the same time. The durability problem is just one aspect. They shouldn't be losing more points to weapons specialized to kill other unit categories, and they are.

"but they will in other ways."

Allegedly.

Also, what do I pick as a BA? Oh yeah, ..... nothing.

sossen wrote:
I never see anyone dismiss mathhammer as long as it supports their point. As long as it is used within the correct contexts and everyone understands what is being calculated there is no problem with it.

As for intangibles and synergy advantages I'd say that guardsmen are more impactful in an AM army than tac marines can be in an SM army.

That depends a whole lot on army composition. Throw an IG squad into my superheavy tank company and I payed -1 CP for basically no reason. Throw an SM Raven Guard squad in my superheavy tank company and I just payed -1 CP for a rather durable objective camper in my backfield.

And my superheavy tank company is an AM army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
They're too bad at all of those things at the same time. The durability problem is just one aspect. They shouldn't be losing more points to weapons specialized to kill other unit categories, and they are.

"but they will in other ways."

Allegedly.

Also, what do I pick as a BA? Oh yeah, ..... nothing.

*shrug* I don't know what to tell you. I've said my bit, this really isn't a counter argument, so...

and no, I don't think they're that bad at "all those things at the same time." I think they're comparable to 3 guardsmen, which is about what they're worth. I can run the math if you want, but the only thing 3 guardsmen are better at is board space control (as Sossen mentioned).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Best" is very undefined. "Best" is very contextual based on army and purpose. Conscripts, Genestealers, Sisters and Custodes are all so different.

Obviously, my choice is Tacticals though I think they have more equipment options than any other troop in the game. Right now I'm leaning towards Salamanders 5 man w/lascannon squad. Reroll to hit and wound on a Lascannon, for free, is intense.

What good are options? It's not like you can chose in the middle of the battle like an obliteratre used to. You have to pick which options - usually it's the same deal - a single las cannon or 2 plasma guns on a 5 man. Who cares that you can take a multi melta or a plasma cannon - you are never going to do it.

Because you can optimize their role to synergize with the rest of your army. If Primaris Marines become more common, I think you'll see an uptick in the amount of Grav Cannons again, since at 24" range it can hit like 4 plasmas.

I've already run the math, which is pretty far off from yours. No one has refuted my calculations, so I'm going with mine.

I don't think a marine is anywhere close to as good as 3 guardsmen right now.

Min squad sizes and options are different, which will change the math and manifestations.