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.

27 lasgun shots to kill a Raven Guard Marine in the open.

27 lasgun shots kill 4.5 guardsmen in the open.

13 pts to 18.

Hm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Against BA:

18 Lasgun shots to kill a tactical marine in the open.

18 Lasgun shots kill 3 guardsmen.

Hm.

It takes 6 lasgun shots to kill a guardsman ?

How do guardsman and marines (both regular and raven guard) fair when in cover vs lasguns

 Rydria wrote:
It takes 6 lasgun shots to kill a guardsman ?

6/2 (BS4+) = 3, 3/2 (S v T wounding roll) = 1.5, 1.5/3 (2) (armour save) = 1


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In cover:

Blood Angels Tactical Marine: 36 Lasguns shots to kill one

Raven Guard Tactical Marine: 54 Lasgun shots to kill

36 lasgun shots kill 4.5 guardsmen in cover

54 lasgun shots kill 6.75 guardsmen in cover

 Jaxler wrote:

 Generalstoner wrote:
Necron Warriors, Guard conscripts and Tau Fire Warriors.

"Fire warriors, warriors"

Lolwut? Those are horrible. Scions are the better than either of those.

I think a lot of people are misperceiving a unit that uses the same models as a troop choice but has different upgrade options as being that troop choice, namely Scions and Battle Sisters for Scion Command Squads and Dominions.


SCS and Dominions are very similar, and both are very good. They get full special weapons loadouts and special rules that allow them to cross the no-man's land, in the form of Deep Strike and Vanguard. They're bother extremely good, but they're not troops.

Their troops cousins are not great, though. Scions' Hot Shot Lasguns are less than amazing, and they don't get full plasma/melta loadouts. Battle Sisters don't get Vanguard and also only get 2 special weapons [plus a Superior's Combi-Weapon], which is significantly less good and certainly inferior than quite a few other troops. Scions are decent, but BSS are a step short of terrible.

Fire Warrior Strike Teams are probably better for your 8 points than Scions. Scions have AP and Deep Strike, But Fire Warriors have the range to not really need Deep Strike and the Strength to destroy tanks and wound all infantry on a 3+, while Scions need a 5+. I don't rank Fire Warrior Strike Teams among my top troop choices, but they're not bad.

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

Tesla Immortals are okay, but I'd hesitate to call them 'very good'. They're not bad but they're completely one-dimensional and their weapons quickly lose effectiveness against tougher targets..

They also need a 100+pt Overlord to really shine.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
27 lasgun shots to kill a Raven Guard Marine in the open.

27 lasgun shots kill 4.5 guardsmen in the open.

13 pts to 18.

Hm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Against BA:

18 Lasgun shots to kill a tactical marine in the open.

18 Lasgun shots kill 3 guardsmen.

Hm.

Each lasgun hit kills 1.44 pts of marines, and 1.33 pts of guardsmen. Even less of conscripts. This is about as even as they get, but as I showed above, it get massively titled in the favor of geqs with other weapons.

sossen wrote:
I never see anyone dismiss mathhammer as long as it supports their point.

Finally somebody pointed it out.


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.

They're also paying for the potential to be Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or White Scars. None of those you showed the math for because it doesn't help your point on the durability of a Tactical Marine huh? Then there's the Tactical Marines for Blood Angels (which is for Martel) and Dark Angels.

Moreover, a Tactical Marine doesn't do anything that can't be done elsewhere in the army for better. The entry might as well not exist. It's a garbage entry. They aren't a competitive unit, and you forget that nobody takes them outside of getting free vehicles out of it (and if that bonus applied to Sternguard or Scouts instead, you can bet your ass it would've been done with those units instead).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Moreover, a Tactical Marine doesn't do anything that can't be done elsewhere in the army for better.

Sure it does, it gets you a Lascannon in a Troops choice. Nothing else in the army gets you a Lascannon in a Troops choice.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Moreover, a Tactical Marine doesn't do anything that can't be done elsewhere in the army for better.

Sure it does, it gets you a Lascannon in a Troops choice. Nothing else in the army gets you a Lascannon in a Troops choice.

That's not doing anything? I can get Lascannons for cheaper and more effective elsewhere.
I can get an ML in the troop slot for cheaper via Scouts. Almost the same performance (T8 is rare, and the difference in AP is negligible vs most targets anyway), and it has an Anti-Infantry capability (though minor).

Yeah not buying your argument. When you have to get as specific as that, you have lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I could get Lascannons via infantry squads for cheaper. So there's that.

Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

Agreed. Tacticals are quite useful.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

So you agree with me. Or a unit is OP enough to win tournaments or is unusable crap. Typical and good metric, yes-yes!

By that metric Tau's in 7th where totally useless, because they didn't won anything agains't Space Marines or Eldar in tournaments.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

Tournament armies have more than troops. In fact some armies that do very well do so by having the minimum of troops. Tournament standings don't necessarily reflect on a single unit.

 Galas wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

So you agree with me. Or a unit is OP enough to win tournaments or is unusable crap. Typical and good metric, yes-yes!

By that metric Tau's in 7th where totally useless, because they didn't won anything agains't Space Marines or Eldar in tournaments.

Actually I have 4 levels. The unit is OP, pretty good, mediocre, or trash.

Also the Tau army WAS trash, but Riptides and Srormsurges were good enough to ally in to several armies. So yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

Tournament armies have more than troops. In fact some armies that do very well do so by having the minimum of troops. Tournament standings don't necessarily reflect on a single unit.

But sometimes those armies will load up on troops. The tournament is a measure of unit worth because, as you said, people will go out of their way to avoid certain units. Everybody was avoiding Tactical Marines until they got free Razorbacks and Rhinos out of it, remember?

Yeah we all know internal balance is pretty mediocre in GW games, 7th even more. Eldar where only OP by 3-4 units, but everyone speaks about OP Eldar where.

Tacticals are as Katherine said, balanced. Many other units are balanced. The problem is that normally people want to balance the game around making the balanced units Op, instead of nerfing the real OP ones, and buffing the weaker ones.
Now GW with all their FAQ's and Erratas and Chapter Aproved can do more precise balancing, with smaller buffs and nerfs, instead of before where they did a balance change for a whole army with a Codex and that was all of the balance for probably 3-5 years.

I don't think you've looked at tacs super close. Their firepower is poor and they are more fragile thsn guardsmen.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah we all know internal balance is pretty mediocre in GW games, 7th even more. Eldar where only OP by 3-4 units, but everyone speaks about OP Eldar where.

Tacticals are as Katherine said, balanced. Many other units are balanced. The problem is that normally people want to balance the game around making the balanced units Op, instead of nerfing the real OP ones, and buffing the weaker ones.

That implies Tactical Marines were balanced the whole time. They weren't. They're just what you're using as the measure of balance when you should be doing the opposite. I already explained in great detail, last edition (before everyone's favorite formation the Gladius existed) and this current edition, why the Tactical Marine doesn't work as a unit, even though I've said they have the stats of a 14 point unit. Loadout is why, and upgrades is why. Plus they don't look good on the table but that's a personal matter on my end.

They never WERE balanced. Several other troop choices were balanced (in this edition, Guard Infantry squads, Tyranid stuff, Deathwatch, etc. Last edition you had Necrons troops, Genestealer Cults, etc), and you had the broken ones (6th-7th Scatterbikes and 5th Edition Grey Hunters are atrocities that can never be forgiven). However the Tactical Marine was never discussed as good outside the ridiculously miniscule minority. They weren't important and won't be, and the unit entry might as well be deleted.

I literally did math showing that if you wanted you can make your tactical marines as good as Imperial Guardsmen at durability, or at least within literally eleven-hundreths of a single point in a 2000 point match (for example).

If you don't want that durability, play White Scars or Black Templars or whatever, get the other bonuses. But don't say "tacticals aren't durable enough" and then avoid spending their free "insert special rule here" which they get on durability.

The tactical hate on dakkadakka is real.

Okay, let's say you DO get the durability buff.

They now lack hitting power.

They're incompetent across the board-not by a TON, but they pay for being generalists in a specialists' game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The tactical hate on dakkadakka is real.

And it's mostly the same three people spamming it everywhere, too.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay, let's say you DO get the durability buff.

They now lack hitting power.

They're incompetent across the board-not by a TON, but they pay for being generalists in a specialists' game.

Raven Guard Space Marine vs Raven Guard Space Marine at >12" : 0.11 wounds

3 Imperial Guardsmen vs Raven Guard Space Marine at >12" : 0.11 wounds

Huh. How very odd. I thought the Raven Guards would be way underpowered at shooting considering what you wrote.

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The tactical hate on dakkadakka is real.

And it's mostly the same three people spamming it everywhere, too.

Because we have tournaments and stats to back it up instead of the same "You need to play smart and L2P" garbage the Tactical Marine defenders have been regurgitating for years.

You have yet to answer to the fact that it literally took FREE transports with OS to get people to buy into the unit entry. As long as that didn't exist, the entry for Tactical Marines might as well not have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I literally did math showing that if you wanted you can make your tactical marines as good as Imperial Guardsmen at durability, or at least within literally eleven-hundreths of a single point in a 2000 point match (for example).

If you don't want that durability, play White Scars or Black Templars or whatever, get the other bonuses. But don't say "tacticals aren't durable enough" and then avoid spending their free "insert special rule here" which they get on durability.

The tactical hate on dakkadakka is real.

That's Martel. I'm saying they're not good because of the loadout choices and applications.

Nobody is speaking about how great Tacticals Marine are. Scouts have always been a superior choice, even in the more "casual" type of lists.

People is just saying that Tacticals Marine are, not perfectly, but mostly balanced in a middle of the road way. The problem is with how busted the game sistem is.

 Blackie wrote:
Ork boyz, since everything else in the codex sucks, with the exception of a few HQs. There are no orks lists without boyz, but that's not because they're great, but because we don't have other viable ways to play them.

I would actually say that Boyz* are great, and that there are a lot of ork units in the index that don't suck, they're just not quite good enough. We could just be using the words "great" and "sucks" differently, so maybe we're actually in complete agreement.

*Slugga Boyz specifically. I would say that Shoota Boyz are good, but not great.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

When you have 16 of them, that bonus means an extra few D6 of wounds againts vehicles in the first round of firing. That can mean one less enemy unit firing back, and diminished options for the opponent. And if youre going to poo-poo a 16% increase in firepower, it seems easy to poo-poo an 11% increase in points. It's nothing.

Devastators are great, but they use the Lascannon just like the Tacticals. They get to fire one at a 2+, which is nice. But everybody else is exactly the same as a tactical model.

Using S3 AP0 weapons as your reference point is the best possible situation for tac marines - and they still come out with roughly the same survivability. If we go the other way and look at something like a soulreaper cannon we get:

4*(2/3)*(2/3)*(5/6)=1.11 dead RG tac marines, 14.4 pts.

4*2/3*2/3*1=1.78 dead guardsmen, 7.1 pts.

This is assuming the best CT for durability. Cover doesn't do much for the marines here, they would still lose more. The typical weaponry used to attack these units is somewhere between this disparity in survivability and that of a lasgun, which still means significantly worse for the marine on average. Tac marines are fragile.