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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also - don't forget the fact that bolter marines cost 13 points to your 4. So you are really getting something close to 6 shots per bolter shot of comparable point values.

Bolter Marines also are hitting on 3+ versus 4+ on an Infantry Squad, with a save of 3+ versus a save of 5+ and rocking a higher LD with or without their Sergeant...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also - don't forget the fact that bolter marines cost 13 points to your 4. So you are really getting something close to 6 shots per bolter shot of comparable point values.

Bolter Marines also are hitting on 3+ versus 4+ on an Infantry Squad, with a save of 3+ versus a save of 5+...

both shooting at meq in this case. You are correct though - against each other - the squads just kill each other at about an equal rate.

 daedalus wrote:
Oops. I was thinking of the infantry cost for a plasma gun even.

Right. Err... well, he can keep the change!

...seven points

Yeah, I assumed he had the one point he was gonna spend on the bolter already. That's why I only gave him six.

Oh!

Carry on, Guardsman.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But a Master of Ordnance is an extra 30 points... are you suggesting he could have just found 30 points somewhere in his list?

I can find 45 points by removing the Grenade Launchers from the 3 Veteran Squads he had.

What was the point of those anyways? 24" range Frag Grenades/Krak Grenades? For 45 points thrown across the board? At that point, you might as well just keep the damn Lasguns on them since they're Vostroyans and benefit from the extra 6" range. Grenade Launchers are Assault so wouldn't ever benefit, same as Melta or Flamers.

. Malicious intent to cheat
. Brings grenade launchers

Pick one, dude

I wasn't there so I can't say whether or not he actually played them right. He might very well have been trying to play the Grenade Launchers as having the Vostroyan perk too.

You're...not serious are you?

*tournament winning list using grenade launchers*

BRB seeing psychologist, everything in my life is a lie. Joking aside I get why he did it, for vets Plasma comes at an 8pt premium so multiplying that by 9 that's 72 extra points that he just didn't have laying around and the Grenade Launchers are better than nothing. I guess we found a use for grenade launchers after all. If you're going budget I kind of wonder why he didn't just take sniper rifles to mesh with the lascannon but they were better than nothing I guess.

On the whole Primaris Pysker thing, I can kind of get where someone might not realize a primaris pysker isn't part of the regiment system, but if random casuals on the internet can spot the flaw in a matter of minutes I'm pretty surprised he never met a single IG player that pointed it out to him. I guess this kind of points to how many tournament guard players are just running soup and therefore aren't familiar with the more niche rules of the IG codex? Only real explanation I have. I feel like the relic of cadia would be a pretty obvious one considering it's one of the most competitive relics we have and the Cadian regiment is so common. That said I know a lot of people who don't really read the codex too thoroughly and just assume rules work the same as they always have, not the first time I've heard of someone just assuming something works a certain way because it always has.


This thread seems to be a bit off topic what with the tournament report post. Are we even discussing if FRFSRF is OP now or did that get left behind? Other than a brief comparison to Tac Marines which isn't exactly fair because the space marines have to pay for a few things IG don't, like the combat squad ability and ATSKNF. That and IG is one of the only armies with a good troop choice you can build an army around. I feel like we should be buffing units like Tac marines up to where they see use, not nerfing infantry squads because everyone else's troops suck therefore guard must suck as well. Especially considering we need an officer to give a specific order to make our lasguns as good as bolters, and prevents us from using things like take aim! or Get Back in the Fight!

Obviously you don't want you infantry to go up in cost. I get that. They ether need to cost more or get worse though.There is something serious to be said about a unit that cost 41 points outshooting a unit that cost 130 with their basic weapons AND the unit that cost 130 is supposed to be elite. There are still many people who don't even think marines are bad units lol. So obviosuly the next step is to point the finger at the gaurd infantry that is spammed and crushing tournaments.

Well yeah. But that's not what's happening here. A 41 point unit with an HQ support and an Order are shooting exactly the same amount as the 130 point unit. With much lower durability.

Not saying whether its overtuned or not, but lets try to keep it accurate.

Bharring wrote:
Well yeah. But that's not what's happening here. A 41 point unit with an HQ support and an Order are shooting exactly the same amount as the 130 point unit. With much lower durability.

Not saying whether its overtuned or not, but lets try to keep it accurate.

Equal cost of gaurdsmen are more durable than a tactical marine and have more than twice the firepower with FRF2RF. Sure they need support from their HQ to do that BUT they are going to have it every time - they are cheap AF.

That goalpost probably has a 2+ Jink save!

"There is something serious to be said about a unit that cost 41 points outshooting a unit that cost 130 with their basic weapons".

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Well yeah. But that's not what's happening here. A 41 point unit with an HQ support and an Order are shooting exactly the same amount as the 130 point unit. With much lower durability.

Not saying whether its overtuned or not, but lets try to keep it accurate.

Equal cost of gaurdsmen are more durable than a tactical marine and have more than twice the firepower with FRF2RF. Sure they need support from their HQ to do that BUT they are going to have it every time - they are cheap AF.

Just so we don't lose sight of the ball, here are things an unsupported Tactical Marine does better than its points in Guardsmen:
- Leadership
- Durability per point in cover (against Tacticals firing boltguns, 0.44 guardsmen die (or 1.78 points) compared to 0.11 Marines (or 1.44 points))
- reliability of single-shot weapons (a single Marine with a single lascannon is far more likely do do something than a single Guardsman with a single Lascannon).
- Close Combat (vs another Guardsman: Marine does .3 guardsmen (or 1.2 points) while the Guardsmen do .25 guardsmen (or 1 point))

Here are things 3 unsupported Guardsmen do better than Marines:
- shoot with their basic weapon
- Durability per point out of cover
- Can bring MORE single-shot weapons (because of cheapness)

20 Guardsmen, plus a Commander is pretty close to the cost of 10 marines.

I've run those numbers, upthread, for how much damage those shots should expect to cause.

Assuming you can get 72 shots off [18 Lasguns, RF Range, FRF, SRF] you should expect to do between 2 and 6 casualties, 81% of the time. Between 3 and 5, 56% of the time. Reasonable average of 4 dead Marines, at 13 pts each is 52 points of damage. Presuming they have no Chapter Tactic that would benefit them. But, if we're being fair, we're giving the Guardsmen an idyllic situation, so we should do the same for Marines, but I don't know the CT's well enough to know which would be best, so I'm going to compare to 10 Standard Tactical Marines.

10 Tactical Marines, Rapid Firing, will do 5-7 casualties 53% of the time, and 4-8 casualties 78% of the time, for an average of about 6 dead Guardsmen. 6x4 = 24 points of dead Guardsmen.

Yes, In a vacuum, Guardsmen with FRF, SRF are way more efficient at killing Tacticals than Tacticals are at killing Guardsmen. Wow. Shock. When equal points of models engage each other, and one gets to double their firepower and the other doesn't, the non-doubling side loses. So. Surprising.

One wonders what a Cheap Chaplain with an Assault Squad, pair of flamers would do, point for point, against Guardsmen. Would that be better? Maybe. But assault is impossible. So MEQ should not be played. Everyone just put your models in the bin, and go home.

Guardsmen should be 5 points per model, instead of 4. Because if they were, then 26 Guardsmen, getting 52 shots without FRF, SRF, is pretty much the equal of 10 Marines, when neither side gets additional rules / buffs.

Maybe Orders and the models that give them are undervalued. Maybe people should take a handful of sniper rifles [those that can take them] and just pick off the dick-all wounds that IG characters have. Most have 1 wound. They die to Removal. Bring Removal.

I can make an argument that non-Khorne berserker meqs should never to try melee.

Also, chaplains aren't cheap. That's really the crux of the problem. Those snipers you are talking about aren't cheap, either.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
*tournament winning list using grenade launchers*

BRB seeing psychologist, everything in my life is a lie. Joking aside I get why he did it, for vets Plasma comes at an 8pt premium so multiplying that by 9 that's 72 extra points that he just didn't have laying around and the Grenade Launchers are better than nothing. I guess we found a use for grenade launchers after all. If you're going budget I kind of wonder why he didn't just take sniper rifles to mesh with the lascannon but they were better than nothing I guess.

I mean, if you had to take Special Weapons? I could see Sniper Rifles meshing well with Lascannons since it's Vostroyans...but since it's Vostroyans, you could still get some serious mileage out of just plain Lasguns compared to Grenade Launchers. FRFSRF coupled with a 30" range, meaning Rapid Fire at 15"...that's nothing to sneeze at when talking about 9 squads or thereabouts(3 Veterans and 6 Infantry Squads).

On the whole Primaris Pysker thing, I can kind of get where someone might not realize a primaris pysker isn't part of the regiment system, but if random casuals on the internet can spot the flaw in a matter of minutes I'm pretty surprised he never met a single IG player that pointed it out to him. I guess this kind of points to how many tournament guard players are just running soup and therefore aren't familiar with the more niche rules of the IG codex? Only real explanation I have. I feel like the relic of cadia would be a pretty obvious one considering it's one of the most competitive relics we have and the Cadian regiment is so common. That said I know a lot of people who don't really read the codex too thoroughly and just assume rules work the same as they always have, not the first time I've heard of someone just assuming something works a certain way because it always has.

It's also a thing I've noticed when people focus on using Battlescribe and never actually checking their books.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Well yeah. But that's not what's happening here. A 41 point unit with an HQ support and an Order are shooting exactly the same amount as the 130 point unit. With much lower durability.

Not saying whether its overtuned or not, but lets try to keep it accurate.

Equal cost of gaurdsmen are more durable than a tactical marine and have more than twice the firepower with FRF2RF. Sure they need support from their HQ to do that BUT they are going to have it every time - they are cheap AF.

So does that mean we get to assume every tac squad is going to have Guilleman or at least a chapter master? After all they're cheap AF and no sane marine player is not going to take those options. Because in those numbers I don't remember seeing guilleman, or at least a chapter master/lieutenant. And keep in mind since they buff EVERYTHING within a 6" radius they've got pretty good efficiency for their buff auras too. Officers pick one unit at a time, and realistically most tournament level armies will not spam orders to the degree where every unit gets an order in a turn.


Now, I'm not arguing against the statement that tactical marines are trash. But I think it's a bad idea to nerf some of the only useful troops in the game just so they suck like everyone else's. Tac Marines should be a no brainer choice for space marine players to spam because they're friggin tactical marines, that's the point. It shouldn't completely upset the entire internet when a list with tac marines wins a championship. That's a sign that tactical marines aren't quite right, or that people just haven't grasped that you need boots on the ground this edition (because oddly enough there's a running theme with some of these "sky is falling" tourney wins is that the lists feature a large number of troops), not that guardsmen are OP. If guardsmen are better in most situations then the tac marines need to be brought up to their level in usefulness, be that through points tweaks or what have you.

Infantry squads should be good, they should be showing up in the majority of guard lists, and they should be a dependable unit to build an army around. The fact that guardsmen are some of the only troops in the game that actually fill this role shows that many troops choices in other codexes are woefully overcosted. Space marines should be relying on tac marines, Eldar should have at least some focus on guardians, necrons should be able to take legions of warriors, orks with mobz of boyz, nids on swarms of gaunts or genestealers, etc. etc. It shouldn't be the only build obviously, but if you're seeing a codex routinely ignore their troops outright or even worse, regard them as a "tax" to get to good stuff, that shows poor game balance, at least when the whole point of troops are "this is the core of your army and the most common units". A player should be able to walk into a store and no matter what army they play, pick up a box of their troops and say "yeah, I can't go wrong with this." The fact that guard players can actually look at their troops units and say "yeah I can totally take these and make them work 90% of the time" shows that the IG codex actually got something right. If you want to complain about something in the guard codex, by all means please complain about the shadowsword, primaris/astropath spam, and the manticore, but the infantry squad is hardly as big a deal as it's being made out to be, especially when you consider the main reason that IG list mentioned earlier was so nasty was because he had a parking lot of manticores with the relic of lost cadia. That's going to do an absolutely stupid amount of damage, especially against a chaos player.

*Note: I'd also like to note that I called it when I said it'd only be a matter of time before people claimed infantry squads were OP

Infantry squads are fine, Tacticals with Bolters are the ones that suck. Not the body, is just the bolter.

We should double the points of everything, so we can have more run to tweak point costs in the low end of the spectrum, and then increase infantry squads one point (So the same as increasing them 0,5 points with the point sistem we have now), make Grots 4 points, Brimstone 5, Conscripts 6, IG infantry 7, etc...

 greatbigtree wrote:
20 Guardsmen, plus a Commander is pretty close to the cost of 10 marines.

I've run those numbers, upthread, for how much damage those shots should expect to cause.

Assuming you can get 72 shots off [18 Lasguns, RF Range, FRF, SRF] you should expect to do between 2 and 6 casualties, 81% of the time. Between 3 and 5, 56% of the time. Reasonable average of 4 dead Marines, at 13 pts each is 52 points of damage. Presuming they have no Chapter Tactic that would benefit them. But, if we're being fair, we're giving the Guardsmen an idyllic situation, so we should do the same for Marines, but I don't know the CT's well enough to know which would be best, so I'm going to compare to 10 Standard Tactical Marines.

10 Tactical Marines, Rapid Firing, will do 5-7 casualties 53% of the time, and 4-8 casualties 78% of the time, for an average of about 6 dead Guardsmen. 6x4 = 24 points of dead Guardsmen.

Yes, In a vacuum, Guardsmen with FRF, SRF are way more efficient at killing Tacticals than Tacticals are at killing Guardsmen. Wow. Shock. When equal points of models engage each other, and one gets to double their firepower and the other doesn't, the non-doubling side loses. So. Surprising.

One wonders what a Cheap Chaplain with an Assault Squad, pair of flamers would do, point for point, against Guardsmen. Would that be better? Maybe. But assault is impossible. So MEQ should not be played. Everyone just put your models in the bin, and go home.

Guardsmen should be 5 points per model, instead of 4. Because if they were, then 26 Guardsmen, getting 52 shots without FRF, SRF, is pretty much the equal of 10 Marines, when neither side gets additional rules / buffs.

Maybe Orders and the models that give them are undervalued. Maybe people should take a handful of sniper rifles [those that can take them] and just pick off the dick-all wounds that IG characters have. Most have 1 wound. They die to Removal. Bring Removal.

In the above scenario, how many Tacticals and Infantry are fleeing from morale shortly thereafter? If the sergeant is still alive in both squads, that is leadership 8 with a refoll for the Tac Squad - so you'd need to roll a 5+ two times in order to lose anybody assuming the average of 4 dead marines. The Infantry Squad with 6 casualties would need to roll a 1 to not lose anybody, and on a 5+ the squad wipes. With a Commissar (+31 points), you'd need a 1 or 2 to not lose anybody, and can still wipe if on a reroll you roll a 5+ (Though in this case at least you could throw your sergeant under the buss since the Commissar's leadership boost is better than the sergeant's.).

Long story short, the Infantry Squad is far more likely to take additional losses, possibly even completely wiping, than the space marine squad - unless the guard player burns through CP to keep it on the field.

Sidenote: one thing I hate about these vacuum scenarios, kind of a pet peeve if you will. How often do people really not put a special weapon on their space marines? Or on guard infantry, how often do people not take any upgrades? I know I usually at the least slap on a vox caster just to make orders more reliable, and unless the squad was meant solely as a roadblock, I normally throw in a special weapon or a heavy weapon. It just seems weird to me hearing of the battle between 10 boltgun marines and 9 lasgun/1 boltgun guardsmen gunning each other down in an open field.

 Galas wrote:
Infantry squads are fine, Tacticals with Bolters are the ones that suck. Not the body, is just the bolter.

FINALLY somebody understands. Once Bolt Weapons get a slight bump there'll be significantly less complaints.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Infantry squads are fine, Tacticals with Bolters are the ones that suck. Not the body, is just the bolter.

FINALLY somebody understands. Once Bolt Weapons get a slight bump there'll be significantly less complaints.

Eh, 50pts infantry squads would be fine.

I still believe the low end of the scale doesn't have enough room for proper balance. When things cost 2, or 3 points, one point up or down is a change of 50% or 33%. Even making Infantry Squads 5ppm instead of 4ppm is a change of 25%. Too big to properly balance them.

But this is wishlisting, theres no chance in earth that GW will double the point costs like 9th age did. Too many "veterans" will flip the tables for that "big" of a change.

Bumping offensive output does not fix Marines vs non-marines though. If you give a marine a S5 gun, they're still going to lose point for point against hordes.

Because you're doing 25% more wounds [5/4 times as many wounds] but you are still dying at the same speed.


And I agree that vacuum scenarios suck. But you can measure and extrapolate. You can examine best and worst case scenarios, and then make judgements that fall within those two ends. That's all they're good for, but they are good at that. You can create a "Guardsmen, in this perfect scenario, would be worth X points. But since that's impossible, they should be worth X minus Y points."

That's all I'm throwing out there with my numbers. Guardsmen are worth 4 points according to the rules, but in my opinion are under costed. In a perfect scenario, they are worth slightly more than 6 points, compared to TAC's. Since that perfect scenario doesn't exist, and the scenario ignores morale, and limiting factors like it being harder to get 18 guys into perfect firing position than it is to get 10 guys into perfect position. The space between these numbers is 5 points per model, and that's why I think they should be 5 points.


Like any Buff, the more you can leverage it, the better. Invisibility was godly on Death Stars and virtually pointless on an Infantry Squad. Same rule applies to FRF, SRF. When you can make maximum leverage with it, it increases the relative damage output by quite a bit. You kill a couple extra Marines in a round of shooting, which in turn leverages IG's primary win condition of favourable attrition. I've said it before, but I love the sound my club makes on dead horseflesh.

 Blacksails wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Infantry squads are fine, Tacticals with Bolters are the ones that suck. Not the body, is just the bolter.

FINALLY somebody understands. Once Bolt Weapons get a slight bump there'll be significantly less complaints.

Eh, 50pts infantry squads would be fine.

Then I expect Vox-Casters as standard and Sergeants to have Lasguns, Laspistols, and Frag Grenades.

Personally, I wouldn't be particularly bothered if bolters got AP-1 or something. Though, this would require a shift in all of the bolt based weapons to compensate.

 Blacksails wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Infantry squads are fine, Tacticals with Bolters are the ones that suck. Not the body, is just the bolter.

FINALLY somebody understands. Once Bolt Weapons get a slight bump there'll be significantly less complaints.

Eh, 50pts infantry squads would be fine.

You'd rather Infantry squads get worse than Tactical Marines (Actually, Bolt Weapons in general) get better?

 greatbigtree wrote:
If you give a marine a S5 gun, they're still going to lose point for point against hordes.

Well, should we expect a small number of personal weapons to actually be for anti-horde to begin with?

M.

 Chris521 wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't be particularly bothered if bolters got AP-1 or something. Though, this would require a shift in all of the bolt based weapons to compensate.

Actually, it would be okay.

The Primaris bolt rifle has AP-1.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Infantry squads are fine, Tacticals with Bolters are the ones that suck. Not the body, is just the bolter.

FINALLY somebody understands. Once Bolt Weapons get a slight bump there'll be significantly less complaints.

Eh, 50pts infantry squads would be fine.

Then I expect Vox-Casters as standard and Sergeants to have Lasguns, Laspistols, and Frag Grenades.

Sure?

I don't care about the sergeant lasgun thing nearly as much as you, but I respect your dedication to the cause.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Infantry squads are fine, Tacticals with Bolters are the ones that suck. Not the body, is just the bolter.

FINALLY somebody understands. Once Bolt Weapons get a slight bump there'll be significantly less complaints.

Eh, 50pts infantry squads would be fine.

You'd rather Infantry squads get worse than Tactical Marines (Actually, Bolt Weapons in general) get better?

If we're going to get into a semi-serious discussion about my views on balance, I'd be hacking out so much of the game it would be barely recognizable. As a stopgap, I'd much rather remove all the special rule nonsense that has proliferated to nearly every basic infantry weapon, heavily restrict allies and superheavies from 'normal'/'standard' 40k games, and emphasize a smaller amount of models on the table at most common point levels.

Then, with a few point tweaks, bolters would be fine. They're simply suffering from a bad case of scale creep (and some power creep), which can be resolved by cutting a lot of the bs in the game.

In the meanwhile, its almost pointless to talk about balance when the game doesn't even know what it wants to be.

But 50pts for an infantry squad would be fine. And I'd also wave my magic wand to give Kan lasguns for sergeants. Maybe then Kan could rest well at night in a pile of sergeants modeled with rifles.

Kan should play Krieg, we have lasguns and hotshot lasguns on our sergeants.

Would 50 point squads be OK if you didn't have FRFSRF?

M.