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 think you are saying that sarcastically, but you have your point. Space Marines are made to work from their fluff in a way that just isn't feasible in a Warhammer40k game.

So you end with a experience that isn't satisfactory to anybody. Space Marine players don't feel like space marines ,and their opponents don't feel they are fighting space marines.

This did happened too for example with Tyranids from 5th to 7th. They didn't feel anything like Tyranids should feel with the Flyrant spam.

Typically in historical scenarios, attackers have at least a 1.5:1 advantage, if not more. Marines are being told to attack and be aggressive at 1:1.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.

IOW:

Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.

What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.

I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.

The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.

Marines don't do front assault. They drop pod right into the middle of an enemy and deliver devastating damage. In the fluff a drop pod doesn't care if it crushes your screen on the way down ether...it's actually preferable.

@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.

Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.

Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.

IOW:

Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.

What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.

I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.

The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.

Marines don't do front assault. They drop pod right into the middle of an enemy and deliver devastating damage. In the fluff a drop pod doesn't care if it crushes your screen on the way down ether...it's actually preferable.

I think drop pods should actually let you land on top of enemies and do Mortal Wounds (But have some kind of scatter mechanic). Then, their 8th point costs would be legitimate.

Historically, each defender was about equal to each attacker, at least on average. In the fluff, each Marine is much, much better than the average man.

On the tabletop, each Marine is much better than the average man. More than twice as durable. Twice as much shooting. About twice as deadly in melee. But they cost 3-4 times as much per. So yeah, if it's 1 Marine per Guardsman, it isn't historically inaccurate to assault.

The other problem is that, while Marines are much better than the average man, so are Necron Warriors, Tyranid Warriors, freaking DEMONS, and Aspect Warriors. Even Fire Warriors are notably better than the average man! You're playing supersoldiers. But you're typically playing against other super-factions as well.

Guard are a very different kind of super. They're super-numerous. Which means very low in points. In a pure shootout, it should be no surprise that basic Guardsmen win by attrition. The Marines should be focusing their efforts, coordinating their activities, and only engaging part of the enemy force at a time.

Martel732 wrote:Typically in historical scenarios, attackers have at least a 1.5:1 advantage, if not more. Marines are being told to attack and be aggressive at 1:1.

Yes, this is true, though I'm not sure it's sensible. The "defenders" in 40k get none of the massive advantages defenders get IRL. Unlike IRL, fortifications actually do take a bite into the number of men you can field in 40k, just as an example.

Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.

IOW:

Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.

What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.

I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.

The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.

Marines don't do front assault. They drop pod right into the middle of an enemy and deliver devastating damage. In the fluff a drop pod doesn't care if it crushes your screen on the way down ether...it's actually preferable.

Right, that's my point. The Space Marines should have a much larger table to attack on, so that there's space for them to deep strike into. The fundamental problem with SM on a 6x4 in the current environment (and this is what Martel is right about) is that a horde army can just cram everything important behind a huge mob of whatever, and so you can't physically put a miniature there.

If the table were, say, 20x20 (or at least, much larger than 6x4) than the enemy would have to choose between force concentration and space, and there would be areas where the enemy has sparse concentration: this is where the Space Marines shine. Right now, forces like Nids and IG can take up the entire board and also achieve maximum force concentration at the same time.

I do not believe the Space Marines drop on fully concentrated prepared defenses in a state of high-alert. I tend to believe they are more like the idea of Blitzkrieg or Deep Battle, where they avoid such attritional fights and move swiftly past them.

Bharring wrote:
@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.

Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.

Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.

I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.

Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.

Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.

I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?

All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?

Bharring wrote:
Historically, each defender was about equal to each attacker, at least on average. In the fluff, each Marine is much, much better than the average man.

On the tabletop, each Marine is much better than the average man. More than twice as durable. Twice as much shooting. About twice as deadly in melee. But they cost 3-4 times as much per. So yeah, if it's 1 Marine per Guardsman, it isn't historically inaccurate to assault.

The other problem is that, while Marines are much better than the average man, so are Necron Warriors, Tyranid Warriors, freaking DEMONS, and Aspect Warriors. Even Fire Warriors are notably better than the average man! You're playing supersoldiers. But you're typically playing against other super-factions as well.

Guard are a very different kind of super. They're super-numerous. Which means very low in points. In a pure shootout, it should be no surprise that basic Guardsmen win by attrition. The Marines should be focusing their efforts, coordinating their activities, and only engaging part of the enemy force at a time.

I'm talking points-wise. The attacker would typically be bringing triple "points" to attack a dug in defender.

 Galas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.

IOW:

Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.

What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.

I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.

The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.

Marines don't do front assault. They drop pod right into the middle of an enemy and deliver devastating damage. In the fluff a drop pod doesn't care if it crushes your screen on the way down ether...it's actually preferable.

I think drop pods should actually let you land on top of enemies and do Mortal Wounds (But have some kind of scatter mechanic). Then, their 8th point costs would be legitimate.

That would be cool but kind of broken. How about we make them function a lot like they did before? They scatter but you can place models anywhere within 6 inches of them - if you can't place them legally you die - but this is how marines should be played.

Marines cost so much for what they do. That's the real sole problem.

The AP system really hurt them. In truth a hybrid system would be best. Some guns ignore armor of 5+ or worse, other guns just offer a -1 to save. I don't see why we can't have both levels of granularity.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.

Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.

Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.

I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?

All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?

hang on you aren't tabling people with guard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Marines cost so much for what they do. That's the real sole problem.

The AP system really hurt them. In truth a hybrid system would be best. Some guns ignore armor of 5+ or worse, other guns just offer a -1 to save. I don't see why we can't have both levels of granularity.

How about power armor gives +1 ap to whatever gun is shooting you. So you have a 2+ save against las guns. Term armor makes you immune to ap0 and has the same rule.

I always thought in 6th and 7th a pod that scattered into a squad should Tank Shock it (although I didn't think it should be placeable atop a squad).

@Martel,
All those "reasonable" or one-sided fights are either the larger picture our pitched battles are in, or happen in the background. The games are the elements of war where either side has a viable chance. Typically, Marines fight Cultist-level forces most of the time. Backworlds that rebel or xenos not powerful enough to matter. But those would be boring games. There are some interesting missions and narative play that simulate them - including some where the smaller force only needs to do X or Y to auto-win - but the typical game like that would be insanely imbalanced.

Xeno,
Monday nights game, 2k CWE vs Marines - came down to who could hold more objectives.

And the CWE was footdar - so not a lot of durability. It happens.

Besides, if most of the threats are things with the durability of 5-man tacs in cover and the firepower of a lascannon, it can be quite effective, and hard to carve up. WIthout G-man and AssaultCannon Razorbacks, it won't kill a ton, but it will survive a ton.

3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.

Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.

Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.

I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?

All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?

hang on you aren't tabling people with guard?

No? I don't play Imperial Guard except my Baneblade Company. My other lists are a foot Sisters of Battle brigade I've been using in a local campaign and an Inquisition list I am building that does include IG elements, but is as close to mono inquisition as it can be.

Martel732 wrote:
3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.

Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.

Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.

Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.

I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?

All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?

hang on you aren't tabling people with guard?

No? I don't play Imperial Guard except my Baneblade Company. My other lists are a foot Sisters of Battle brigade I've been using in a local campaign and an Inquisition list I am building that does include IG elements, but is as close to mono inquisition as it can be.

That is interesting - aren't sisters a glass cannon army? What kind of armies are you going up against? No inquisition players around here (im the closest thing as i am the only gk player) thats why I am asking.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.

This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.

Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.

It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.

"This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power."

I'm talking WW II era here. Which is the best mimic we have for 40K, imo.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.

Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.

It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.

"This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power."

I'm talking WW II era here. Which is the best mimic we have for 40K, imo.

I can imagine a situation where marines wouldn't be the attacker so it's not fair to say they will always be the attacker.

Imperial Fists are all about being defensive marines.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.

Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.

It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.

"This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power."

I'm talking WW II era here. Which is the best mimic we have for 40K, imo.

Yeah that makes sense - 3:1 sounds about right for WW2.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.

Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.

It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.

"This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power."

I'm talking WW II era here. Which is the best mimic we have for 40K, imo.

I can imagine a situation where marines wouldn't be the attacker so it's not fair to say they will always be the attacker.

If you are trying to squeeze utility out of marines, you have to be. According to the thread, at least.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.

Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.

Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.

I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?

All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?

hang on you aren't tabling people with guard?

No? I don't play Imperial Guard except my Baneblade Company. My other lists are a foot Sisters of Battle brigade I've been using in a local campaign and an Inquisition list I am building that does include IG elements, but is as close to mono inquisition as it can be.

That is interesting - aren't sisters a glass cannon army? What kind of armies are you going up against? No inquisition players around here (im the closest thing as i am the only gk player) thats why I am asking.

My two campaign games so far have been against Guard and Space Marines.

The first list was Cadians, with 30 conscripts, warlord commissar with Iron Discipline, 3 Leman Russ Tanks, 1 Leman Russ Tank Commander, one Manticore, one Basilisk, an Astropath, a Primaris Psyker, some bullgryns, an Ogryn Bodyguard, and a load of officers. I beat it, though both of us incurred huge losses. I think I had ~12 sisters left on the board, and he had an empty Manticore with no ammunition left, the Basilisk, one infantry squad, some other crippled smattered squads here and there, and the Astropath.

The second list I fought was primaris-heavy Ultramarines without Guilliman, and it was also very very close - he conceded with a Whirlwind, some tactical marines, and a few other scattered units left. I had probably, ~20 sisters and my Inquisitorial Land Raider left (the latter did not come with me to the first game).

As for my Inquisition, I have had one game with them (my list was a Thunderbolt Fighter, an Inquisitorial Land Raider, and a Chimera, with 2 squads of Acolytes, a Ministorum Priest, an Officer of the Fleet, an Ogryn Bodyguard, an Astrotelepath, and 5 Inquisitors). It was a 3k team game, and I was allied with Space Wolves. This is where I saw the DP get killed by Wulfen, and the other opponent (other than the Word Bearers) was a Raven Guard player.

 Galas wrote:
Imperial Fists are all about being defensive marines.

I think they've had some worthy defenses but they are also known for siege. Something I hate about these chapter strengths is - all space marines are good at everything. Literally A space marine chapter a lethal weapon - it doesn't mater which one. So hate hate it when any chapter is talked about like..."oh these are the defensive marines". All marines are expert defenders and attackers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.

IOW:

Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.

Stuff like this has been an issue through most of 40k. Most 40 tables and battles are the tactical equivalent of getting into a firefight with a kalashnikov with someone else in the same room, with predictably odd results.

What Archon worth his salt would possibly Dark Eldar engage in a pitched frontal firefight with an Imperial Guard tank company? Why are divisional or strategic level weapons like Deathstrikes and Manticores units that you'd actually place on a table to shoot at things on that same table? Why does Eldrad seemingly personally lead every Ulthwe fighting force ever encountered? Why are air to air interceptors dogfighting at altitudes where ground based flame weapons and hand thrown grenades can be used against them from the ground?

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.

Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.

It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.

It's irrelevant that it should be used to directly measure balance by. The tabletop already assumes the situation is fubar.

The 'realistic' scenario is that the marine player knows what the guard list is ahead of time, tailors their list, and brings double the points. Air strikes hit the artillery, Pods fall from the sky and marines with Lascannons reduce artillery and Tanks even further, and then they go on to systematically dig out and wipe up any remaining guardsmen and conscripts. Then they go grab the 'objective', whatever that is, some lost tech whacthimacallit, artifact, or remote control to the orbital fortress. And then they move on to do the same thing ten more times in a short campaign.

And people read that and think "that's what they should feel like in the game!" The issue is that they can't feel like that, because the match is intended to be between equals.

Fieldguns hurt defenders. Handheld guns hurt attacker.

The attacking army in greek phalanx warfare didn't need a huge margin. But in the era of rifle-armed infantrymen, it started requiring a lot more. Look at how Assaults were done even comparing the Civil War to WW1. In WW1, crossing that no-mans-land, even into impromptu fortifications, was suicide.

The Franco-Prussian war is also interesting in this regard. An unexpected win by the Prussians/Germans was in part because their tactic was to encircle then force the French to assault *them*. The basic Prussian firearm was terrible compared to the basic French firearm, such that any assault on the French was going to go badly. But by forcing the French to assault them, that completely changed the scenario.

At any rate, war is very different in the universe of 40k.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.

Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.

Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.

I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?

I’m pretty sure your doing something wrong then. Do you play with any Los blocking terrain.
One of my games came down to the last die rolls of the bottom of turn 7.
I’ve only been tabled twice and both times by eldar. My first and second games of 8th ed.

Seriously. If your getting just pounded playing marines you should try something else. Like ally in some conscripts.

The correct WW2 guidance is that it's 3:1 odds to launch a successful assault, those odds increase to 5:1 or higher if your opponent is defending a fortified town or village, with around 7:1 if you're attacking into proper urban areas.

This is due to the fact the majority of WW2 offensive firepower is based on tanks and artillery, which fare very poorly in built up areas for numerous reasons and so you're forced to advance infantry into defensive fire, which results in significant casualties, and thus enforces you to have numbers to occupy ground taken and replace forward losses.

Stalingrad, Berlin, and Caen are all excellent examples of this in action.


It should be noted that things like Droppods and Walkers would of had a _huge_ impact on this style of warfare. Stalingrad would have been a very different story if Germany had Powerarmour, Droppods, and Dreadnoughts going in. Not to mention teleportation and Psykers.