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.

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

Or you don't because y'know, not every unit is going to be in range?

It's amazing how Schrodinger's Conscript Blobs are both in range of being charged then able to Fall Back with no issues, but then there is still enough of an army present to shoot you to pieces with constant LOS and range.


If you're having that as such a consistent problem?
YOU ARE AT FAULT. YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED THE BOARD TO BE SET UP IN A MANNER THAT PUNISHES YOU.

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

You only get 1 melee attack on your opponent's fight phase. The sergeant gets 3, but he doesn't have a bolt pistol (because he swapped it for a chainsword). Tactical marines don't bring a bolt pistol and chainsword at the same time.

So, they stay in: sergeant gets 3 attacks, everyone else gets 1 attack plus 1 bolt pistol shot.
They leave: everyone gets 2 bolter shots, the sergeant is the only one who loses an attack.

The second attack (and the sergeant's other 3 attacks) happen in your fight phase, which you're going to get anyway as long as you keep pursuing and charging. So you don't lose those.

And I DID specify "offensively". Obviously losing melee shooting protection is an issue defensively.

The total for the whole round looks like this (aside from casualties, which is an unknown variable):
Your fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks.
Opponent's fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks.
Your shooting phase: 4x1 bolt pistol attacks.
Total: 18 for a 5 man squad.

This is equivalent to every model having 1.8 melee attacks (because 1 attack per phase = 2 attacks per round).

If they leave, it changes to:
Your fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks. (same as before)
Opponent's fight phase: nothing
Your shooting phase: 2x5 bolter attacks
Total: 17 for a 5 man squad. The -1 is, as I stated before, due to the sergeant. It's a very, very small difference.

 ross-128 wrote:

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

You only get 1 melee attack on your opponent's fight phase. The sergeant gets 3, but he doesn't have a bolt pistol (because he swapped it for a chainsword). Tactical marines don't bring a bolt pistol and chainsword at the same time.

So, they stay in: sergeant gets 3 attacks, everyone else gets 1 attack plus 1 bolt pistol shot.
They leave: everyone gets 2 bolter shots, the sergeant is the only one who loses an attack.

The second attack (and the sergeant's other 3 attacks) happen in your fight phase, which you're going to get anyway as long as you keep pursuing and charging. So you don't lose those.

And I DID specify "offensively". Obviously losing melee shooting protection is an issue defensively.

The total for the whole round looks like this (aside from casualties, which is an unknown variable):
Your fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks.
Opponent's fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks.
Your shooting phase: 4x1 bolt pistol attacks.
Total: 18 for a 5 man squad.

This is equivalent to every model having 1.8 melee attacks (because 1 attack per phase = 2 attacks per round).

If they leave, it changes to:
Your fight phase: 3 sergeant attacks, 4x1 tac marine attacks. (same as before)
Opponent's fight phase: nothing
Your shooting phase: 2x5 bolter attacks
Total: 17 for a 5 man squad. The -1 is, as I stated before, due to the sergeant. It's a very, very small difference.

For some dumb reason I was counting a chainsword for the marines. My bad, your right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ordana wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Tactical marines are actually much better than they look in melee, as long as you MSU them and take that free chainsword on the Sergeant.

If you take two 5 man squads instead of 1 10 man squad, you get two sergeants with two chainswords (and can take two combi-weapons, though that's on the shooting side of things).

This means your 10 space marines now have a total of 14 attacks. But wait, there's more, the other 8 who aren't sergeants still have their bolt pistols, adding another 4 effective attacks (because in a total round everyone gets two fight phases but one shooting phase).

So now your 10 space marines have 18 effective attacks, or basically 1.8 attacks per marine. But as long as you kill the sergeant last, each squad will only lose 1/6 of their strength per casualty because the sergeant accounts for the remaining 1/3 single-handedly.

Also, fun fact: from an offensive output standpoint, you don't care very much if your opponent falls back. You lose 1 melee attack, but gain 1 shooting attack because now you can double-tap the bolter in the shooting phase, so it evens out. Except for the sergeant, who loses 3 melee attacks and gains 2 shooting attacks (because he went from having no pistol to using his bolter).

A difference of just 1 attack across the entire squad isn't much, so whether your opponent stays or falls back you pretty much kill them equally well.

Just make sure to run your tacs MSU, to maximize the number of sergeants you have.

You actually lose an attack if the enemy falls back

Falling back: no melee during opponents phase, double tap bolter + 2 melee attacks from a new charge in your phase. = 4 attacks
Not Falling back: 2 melee attacks during opponent phase, bolt pistol + 2 melee attacks in your phase. = 5 attacks

The biggest problem with your opponent falling back is that you presumable get shot to **** by the rest of his army.

Or you don't because y'know, not every unit is going to be in range?

It's amazing how Schrodinger's Conscript Blobs are both in range of being charged then able to Fall Back with no issues, but then there is still enough of an army present to shoot you to pieces with constant LOS and range.
.[/b][/size]

You only need to move out of 1" to fall back. Even if the conscripts were spread out to stop flying models from jumping over the front they going to get pulled in by the 'pile in' move, leaving enough room behind them to fall back out of 1".

You want a practical example? Here you go
https://imgur.com/a/trBQd
This is a shot from the final game of the SoCal open. Another terrain piece in the guard deployment would be nice, and there are imo to many fire lanes down the center but I would call it a typical tournament table setup. (note, the players didn't set up the terrain so no blaming them for it).
There is more then enough room for the front lines of conscripts to fall back (esp since the models behind them can also take a step back) and your going to get shot to gak by atleast 3 Taurox (thats 72 shots) when they do.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Well, let me try it another way...

Guardsman puts 0.5 * 0.33 * 0.33 Marines in the bin each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 50 Guardsmen are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Marine Unit. They will take 50 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 2.7 Dead marines, rounded to 3.

Marines do 0.67 * 0.67 * 0.67 Guardsmen in the bin with each attack. So let's say, for simplicity sake, 20 Marines are all within 13 to 23 inches of a Guardsmen unit. They will take 20 attacks in the first *simultaneous* volley, and do an average of 6 Dead Guardsmen.

We'll now carry on, doing average damage to each other. T X = Turns of shooting. G Y = Number of Guardsmen remaining. M Z = Marines remaining.

T1 - G 44 - M 17
T2 - G 39 - M 15
T3 - G 34 - M 13
T4 - G 30 - M 11
T5 - G 27 - M 9
T6 - G 24 - M 8
T7 - G 22 - M 7
T8 - G 20 - M 6
T9 - G 18 - M 5
T10 - G16 - M 4
T11 - G14 - M 3
T12 - G13 - M 3
T13 - G12 - M 2
T14 - G11 - M 2
T15 - G10 - M 1
T16 - G10 - M 1
T17 - G 9 - M 0

So I was a little off. Someone else can run the numbers at 45 Guardsmen vs 20 Marines, and that should pan out about equal. If that's close, and again, I was rounding until the end where I was applying half-numbers, then that gives you an estimate of the value of a Guardsman vs Marine in a static shooting match. 20/45 = 44%, just as I predicted. And then I factored a Close Combat favour to the Marines, which puts them at about 40 %, which would be 20 Marines to 50 Guardsmen, presuming the Marines were capable of advancing so that even the last few dudes could get into close combat.

It's pretty much self-evident. You just have to recognize the numbers and how they interact.

Presuming a Marine is still 16 pts, haven't checked in a long while, then a Guardsman should be 7 points. Which I think is a bit much, I think they're 5, 6 tops, but that's a metric if we simply compare damage stats in a vacuum.

Ignoring morale, battlefield conditions, regiment doctrines/chapter tactics, supporting units/auras/etc., in a sterile mathhammer comparison is a horrible way to suggest balance changes.

Ignoring morale alone invalidates your simulation, particularly now that Commissars have been nerfed. Pretending the guardsmen were in one big 45-man squad they'd have suffered 2-3 morale casualties (~2.5) with an average roll in the first turn alone. By comparison the 20-man Tactical blob would need to roll well above average (6+ Vs D6 average of 3.5) to suffer morale casualties in that same first turn, and gets a re-roll against that failure natively.

A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?
The initial kills between 5 Marines with a Chainsword and 22 Conscripts (I didn't calculate if they had a Sergeant with 2 attacks) are 2 Conscripts and .85 Marines. Then it's 1.5 dead Marines and now 3.8 dead Conscripts (which I'll round to 4 for simplicity). 18 Conscripts kill .67 Marines, making that total two, there are now 5 dead Conscripts.

As the math keeps going, 16 Conscripts are gonna fight a Marine and the Sergeant. Long story short is that the Marines do lose and the Conscripts maybe lost a little more than half their squad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?
The initial kills between 5 Marines with a Chainsword and 22 Conscripts (I didn't calculate if they had a Sergeant with 2 attacks) are 2 Conscripts and .85 Marines. Then it's 1.5 dead Marines and now 3.8 dead Conscripts (which I'll round to 4 for simplicity). 18 Conscripts kill .67 Marines, making that total two, there are now 5 dead Conscripts.

As the math keeps going, 16 Conscripts are gonna fight a Marine and the Sergeant. Long story short is that the Marines do lose and the Conscripts maybe lost a little more than half their squad.

The sergeant is free, why wouldn't they have one? They also don't resolve simultaneously: the charging unit, ie the marines, resolves first.

 ross-128 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?
The initial kills between 5 Marines with a Chainsword and 22 Conscripts (I didn't calculate if they had a Sergeant with 2 attacks) are 2 Conscripts and .85 Marines. Then it's 1.5 dead Marines and now 3.8 dead Conscripts (which I'll round to 4 for simplicity). 18 Conscripts kill .67 Marines, making that total two, there are now 5 dead Conscripts.

As the math keeps going, 16 Conscripts are gonna fight a Marine and the Sergeant. Long story short is that the Marines do lose and the Conscripts maybe lost a little more than half their squad.

The sergeant is free, why wouldn't they have one? They also don't resolve simultaneously: the charging unit, ie the marines, resolves first.

I didn't know they had one.

Literally resolving Marines first just makes the whole scenario last a turn longer. It doesn't make the Marines win.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?
The initial kills between 5 Marines with a Chainsword and 22 Conscripts (I didn't calculate if they had a Sergeant with 2 attacks) are 2 Conscripts and .85 Marines. Then it's 1.5 dead Marines and now 3.8 dead Conscripts (which I'll round to 4 for simplicity). 18 Conscripts kill .67 Marines, making that total two, there are now 5 dead Conscripts.

As the math keeps going, 16 Conscripts are gonna fight a Marine and the Sergeant. Long story short is that the Marines do lose and the Conscripts maybe lost a little more than half their squad.

You forget that at the end of the first round, another D6 or 3.5 on average conscripts will flee do to battleshock. Rounding down that comes to 7 model or just under 1/3 the unit, mean while the Marines lose 1 model rounded up which is just 1/5 the unit.

Rounding marine casualties up at every step also significantly overstates how many casualties the marines are taking.

Conscripts need 27 attacks to kill 1 marine in melee on average, so 22 is slightly more likely to get 0 kills than 1.

When you're rounding the 0.2 casualties that 6 conscripts will inflict up to 1, well you're definitely giving them too much credit.

Of course rounding down at every step would make them seem immortal, so I recommend just keeping track of the fractions and only removing a model when they add up to 1. This isn't perfectly accurate, but it's slightly better than just rounding up all the time especially at very low model counts.

Don't forget that the sergeant dies last and he gets 3 attacks with that chainsword. Also, morale checks happen after each fight phase, so two of those per round.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?

Yeah really.

"10 Navy Seals standing in the open getting shot at by 45 insurgents. The Seals die, insurgents OP!"

Its not how the game works.

 ross-128 wrote:
Rounding marine casualties up at every step also significantly overstates how many casualties the marines are taking.

Conscripts need 27 attacks to kill 1 marine in melee on average, so 22 is slightly more likely to get 0 kills than 1.

When you're rounding the 0.2 casualties that 6 conscripts will inflict up to 1, well you're definitely giving them too much credit.

Of course rounding down at every step would make them seem immortal, so I recommend just keeping track of the fractions and only removing a model when they add up to 1. This isn't perfectly accurate, but it's slightly better than just rounding up all the time especially at very low model counts.

Don't forget that the sergeant dies last and he gets 3 attacks with that chainsword. Also, morale checks happen after each fight phase, so two of those per round.

Are these catachan conscripts? Because those have str 4...the same as a marine BTW which cost 4x more.

Maybe they are catachan conscripts, but maybe they are Ironhand Marines, or they can be Ravenguard Marines and we can go back to calculating who wins a shooting match at 24 inches. All I'm saying is that its a can of worms and then its anyones game.

side note, aren't marines 13 points? when did we get to 16?

the_scotsman wrote:
side note, aren't marines 13 points?

They are. Company Veterans are 16.

Probably my bad. I haven't built a marine list in a long time. 13 is the general consensus.

The overall point I was making is that Guardsmen are about 1 point undercosted, but that a straight contest of stats without any in-game scenario puts them near 6 points compared to tactical.

Conscripts should be 4 points apiece, given that you'll need to buy them a babysitter of some kind to help with morale. This would balance them with Infantry squads.

 ross-128 wrote:
Rounding marine casualties up at every step also significantly overstates how many casualties the marines are taking.

Conscripts need 27 attacks to kill 1 marine in melee on average, so 22 is slightly more likely to get 0 kills than 1.

When you're rounding the 0.2 casualties that 6 conscripts will inflict up to 1, well you're definitely giving them too much credit.

Of course rounding down at every step would make them seem immortal, so I recommend just keeping track of the fractions and only removing a model when they add up to 1. This isn't perfectly accurate, but it's slightly better than just rounding up all the time especially at very low model counts.

Don't forget that the sergeant dies last and he gets 3 attacks with that chainsword. Also, morale checks happen after each fight phase, so two of those per round.

I actually only ever rounded for the Conscripts except maybe once, so that's not actually an issue, and as well I actually rounded down for the Marines in maybe half the cases, for simplicity's sake. I also never included Overwatch and Regiment/Chapter bonuses. However, if the units aren't evenly matched at the base, how can we include the internal cost of those bonuses in the first place? We really can't. That said, I can always do the calculations for various bonuses. It's a lot more work, but I don't entirely care.

I also did not forget the Sergeant having 3 attacks until the last round. That's actually why the squad of Conscripts ended up below half its starting size: the Sergeant did just below half to more than half of the killing of the entire Marine. However, one model doing the work does not make the unit itself work. Just having a squad of Sergeants might be handier. If only they did that and gave them the ability to use Jump Packs to hit their targets faster. Sadly that's not a unit.

Oh. Wait. It is. I love my Vanguard so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?

Yeah really.

"10 Navy Seals standing in the open getting shot at by 45 insurgents. The Seals die, insurgents OP!"

Its not how the game works.

I literally did the math. Like, you cut out that whole part of the post because why?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?

Yeah really.

"10 Navy Seals standing in the open getting shot at by 45 insurgents. The Seals die, insurgents OP!"

Its not how the game works.

I literally did the math. Like, you cut out that whole part of the post because why?

The math isn't the part I was responding to. I was responding on the principle of "a shooting match is a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen." Which is still true, even if you were focussing on the math of additional CC.

Even with the math, theres a good case for marines to want to press into assault anyways. They can squeeze more casualties out of the squad, and therefore also out of the subsequent morale test, and they reduce the chances of the conscripts firing on them in the susequent turn.

For what it's worth, having IG engage anyone in a shooting match is going to be the "favourable" conditions Guard Hatah's are looking for. All the reason to show it.

I ran it above. Even in a situation where Morale was ignored, they're worth 6 points, compared to a Marine. Less, when you factor in morale, ineptitude in CC, generally being inferior in all ways.

If one presumes that infantry are undercosted, as I do, then adding one point per Guardsman / Conscript should bring them in line with the abilities per point of Tactical Marines. At that point, the Bolter becomes a points-reasonable way to take out Guardsmen. Which, really, it should be.

We can get rid of the unfortunate nerfs to Commissars, and have things as they should be. If a player is running about 100 infantry, that's 100 "fewer" points right there for things like Manticores and Wyverns and the like.

IG still have access to all the tools that win games in 8th edition, much as Eldar had all the tools to win in 7th. The trick is simply to charge a fair value for the units. Adding one point per Conscript makes them 3/4 times as valuable on the table.

Don't make me run a 50 Conscripts vs 20 Marines... I'll do it.

You are doing math in a vaucuum comparing Marines and Guard in a fashion they will never be fielded in, to prove a point that you've presupposed.

I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A static shooting match is also a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen. Because guardsmen have almost all of their strength in shooting, where as the marines would gain a huge advantage by charging.

Um not really?

Yeah really.

"10 Navy Seals standing in the open getting shot at by 45 insurgents. The Seals die, insurgents OP!"

Its not how the game works.

I literally did the math. Like, you cut out that whole part of the post because why?

The math isn't the part I was responding to. I was responding on the principle of "a shooting match is a terrible way to compare marines to guardsmen." Which is still true, even if you were focussing on the math of additional CC.

Even with the math, theres a good case for marines to want to press into assault anyways. They can squeeze more casualties out of the squad, and therefore also out of the subsequent morale test, and they reduce the chances of the conscripts firing on them in the susequent turn.

Are you suggesting the Navy Seals charge them in melee?

I think he was proposing they take cover, with his initial analogy about the SEALs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Are you suggesting the Navy Seals charge them in melee?

They did so in Afghanistan. And Won.

That's not relevant to your point, but the nerd in me couldn't let it go.

Heard it was the Brits.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

Well, many of your initial assumptions are problametic.

One, that taking up space on the field is always advantages/neutral, and never a downside (something that every horde player can tell, at some point being too big is a problem-your units are in each other's way and can't all reach.)
That's a really big factor in a shootout. the ability to engage only some models at a time, as the opposing unit is too large to all get into range.

Two, and more important, is the assumption that tactical marines with bolters SHOULD be a cost-effective answer to conscripts/infantry to begin with. tactical marines are not a dedicated horde clearer in shooting, its a "bit of everything" unit.
The bolters put a dent into hordes, the sarge gets a bit done in CC and the special/heavy weapons harm high-end targets, while keeping the platform as a whole in decent durability, and picking off the models you least need each time.
The infantry unit, to a degree, does the same with its own special/heavy weapons and sarge and the las troopers as meatshields
Your entire analysis is based upon a scenario in which BOTH units are equipped wrong, and used wrong.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

Well, many of your initial assumptions are problametic.

One, that taking up space on the field is always advantages/neutral, and never a downside (something that every horde player can tell, at some point being too big is a problem-your units are in each other's way and can't all reach.)
That's a really big factor in a shootout. the ability to engage only some models at a time, as the opposing unit is too large to all get into range.

Two, and more important, is the assumption that tactical marines with bolters SHOULD be a cost-effective answer to conscripts/infantry to begin with. tactical marines are not a dedicated horde clearer in shooting, its a "bit of everything" unit.
The bolters put a dent into hordes, the sarge gets a bit done in CC and the special/heavy weapons harm high-end targets, while keeping the platform as a whole in decent durability, and picking off the models you least need each time.
The infantry unit, to a degree, does the same with its own special/heavy weapons and sarge and the las troopers as meatshields
Your entire analysis is based upon a scenario in which BOTH units are equipped wrong, and used wrong.

The IG units are just there to space fill. They aren't being relied upon to do a single wound. This analysis is meaningless. The pressure is 100% on the marines to get mileage out of their stat-bloated models. IG just sits back and tell the marine player how many models to pick up.

@ Boom: I've played infantry centric guard since the Eye of Terror codex first released rules for Cadians. I consider myself well versed in playing hordes 'o dudes. The point I'm making, repeatedly, is that even in hypothetical best case scenarios for the Guardsmen, they're worth 6 points compared to Tacs. In game, my experience tells me they're worth 5 points, when all things are considered. By extension, while I'd like to see conscripts removed, they're a 4 point per model unit. I think that a tactical Marine is the "standard" to which other infantry can be compared.

I acknowledge that all I've done is compare stats in a vacuum, to come to my conclusion that excluding the mentioned factors a G is worth 6 points, based on the interaction of the mentioned stats. Going beyond that, I've stated that I believe an infantry Squad should be 50 points base, while Conscripts should be 120 pets for 30 models. That should also be the fixed size of the unit, in my opinion.

Do you have an opinion as to how many points Guardsmen and Conscripts should be?

@ Martel: Always on the crappy end of the stick. It's amazing that you have time to post with how often you are losing to the boogeyman du-jour. At least the Tau's Nova Reactor guys aren't an insurmountable problem any more. Now it's them pesky Humies, ammirite? You just can't catch a break! You are a truly honourable warrior, to continue battling a constant uphill battle against such impossible odds!

And yeah, I can totally see how Guardsmen do nothing, and it must be very frustrating to have to pick your models up for no reason while the Guard plays sits there, asking you to put your models away with no recourse whatsoever.

If you have time, could you perhaps suggest how many points you think G's and C's should b worth? I promise I won't be offended if you just come to the table without hyperbole and just answer the question. I figuratively insist upon it.

Martel732 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I created a hypothesis, and performed an experiment to test it. I've been quite clear with my assumptions and methods. If you wish to disagree with some kind of measurable proof, regardless of quality, I'd be happy To discuss it.

Well, many of your initial assumptions are problametic.

One, that taking up space on the field is always advantages/neutral, and never a downside (something that every horde player can tell, at some point being too big is a problem-your units are in each other's way and can't all reach.)
That's a really big factor in a shootout. the ability to engage only some models at a time, as the opposing unit is too large to all get into range.

Two, and more important, is the assumption that tactical marines with bolters SHOULD be a cost-effective answer to conscripts/infantry to begin with. tactical marines are not a dedicated horde clearer in shooting, its a "bit of everything" unit.
The bolters put a dent into hordes, the sarge gets a bit done in CC and the special/heavy weapons harm high-end targets, while keeping the platform as a whole in decent durability, and picking off the models you least need each time.
The infantry unit, to a degree, does the same with its own special/heavy weapons and sarge and the las troopers as meatshields
Your entire analysis is based upon a scenario in which BOTH units are equipped wrong, and used wrong.

The IG units are just there to space fill. They aren't being relied upon to do a single wound. This analysis is meaningless. The pressure is 100% on the marines to get mileage out of their stat-bloated models.

Thats literally been true of every edition. Lasguns dont kill squat, never really have, they've always been there largely just to fill space while other support stuff does the killing. Likewise, yes, it's incumbent upon the marine player to make the most of the flexibility of their generalist infantry while their support elements are there to support and not do most of the lifting. Thats the defining hallmark of the army. None of that is new.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Boom: I've played infantry centric guard since the Eye of Terror codex first released rules for Cadians. I consider myself well versed in playing hordes 'o dudes. The point I'm making, repeatedly, is that even in hypothetical best case scenarios for the Guardsmen, they're worth 6 points compared to Tacs. In game, my experience tells me they're worth 5 points, when all things are considered. By extension, while I'd like to see conscripts removed, they're a 4 point per model unit. I think that a tactical Marine is the "standard" to which other infantry can be compared.

I acknowledge that all I've done is compare stats in a vacuum, to come to my conclusion that excluding the mentioned factors a G is worth 6 points, based on the interaction of the mentioned stats.

The problem is that straight up direct attritional comparisons like that miss several things. It misses that these units fight other things as well and have different effectiveness against those foes. It misses that one unit can act more effectively in more phases than the other. It misses that it's dramatically easier to coordinate and manage smaller versus larger numbers of models on a table, it misses that one faction has more tools for maneuver and force concentration than the other. You've basically been judging everything on a "line up and shoot each other to death" basis...which is exactly what you shouldnt be doing with Space Marines and is pretty much exclusively what Guardsmen are there to do.