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’m sorry but I have to ask what does basal mean?

 Primark G wrote:
Even with the points reduction from CA?

My nearly full primaris army went down 25 points in chapter approved. Guilliman and chronos went up in price. Intersessors went down. I can fit 1 more intercessor into my army...OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
I’m sorry but I have to ask what does basal mean?

Core = base - think about it.

You actually have a PSM army? That’s surprising.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
The thing about banana is he has a very obvious bias.

He's making good arguments.

Not really. I, and several others, have pointed out repeatedly his selective characterizations, that his own data contradicts him, his melodramatic fearmongering ("So it's not hard to see marines falling to 22-25 of 29") without evidence, etc.

The fact that he's not willing to address those points in lieu of repeating the same tired statements doesn't qualify as a "good argument." Might as well be at the presidential podium saying, "I have the best arguments, the best people."

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
The thing about banana is he has a very obvious bias.

He's making good arguments.

Not really. I, and several others, have pointed out repeatedly his selective characterizations, that his own data contradicts him, his melodramatic fearmongering ("So it's not hard to see marines falling to 22-25 of 29") without evidence, etc.

The fact that he's not willing to address those points in lieu of repeating the same tired statements doesn't qualify as a "good argument." Might as well be at the presidential podium saying, "I have the best arguments, the best people."

Alternatively, if you haven't actually rebutted the arguments repeating them makes complete sense.

One huge problem is the existence of Guilliman, he conceals the extent of the issues with the marine codex. He is an insane force multiplier. However, even with him, marines struggle to compete, which means that if you don't want to play Ultramarines, you're utterly fethed.

Basal marines are tac marines basically, which is the base for all other marine units.

 Crimson wrote:
One huge problem is the existence of Guilliman, he conceals the extent of the issues with the marine codex. He is an insane force multiplier. However, even with him, marines struggle to compete, which means that if you don't want to play Ultramarines, you're utterly fethed.

Can you prove that playing without Guilliman makes SM unplayable?

 Primark G wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
One huge problem is the existence of Guilliman, he conceals the extent of the issues with the marine codex. He is an insane force multiplier. However, even with him, marines struggle to compete, which means that if you don't want to play Ultramarines, you're utterly fethed.

Can you prove that playing without Guilliman makes SM unplayable?

Can you make less strawmen? He didn't say it made SM "unplayable", he said that they "struggle to compete".

 Primark G wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
One huge problem is the existence of Guilliman, he conceals the extent of the issues with the marine codex. He is an insane force multiplier. However, even with him, marines struggle to compete, which means that if you don't want to play Ultramarines, you're utterly fethed.

Can you prove that playing without Guilliman makes SM unplayable?

No, but very few things can be conclusively "proven." That's not how observational science works. I can look at the units' mathematical efficacy w/o BobbyG and say that they are at a mathematical disadvantage.

 Primark G wrote:

Can you prove that playing without Guilliman makes SM unplayable?

They're not unplayable in casual setting, so personally I am not super concerned, but in a competitive setting they're in serious trouble.

But considering how long this thread is and you're not convinced that marines are pretty weak, I really don't think there is anything I can say to convince you.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

About basal marines being overcosted?

Yes there is, there is a ton of evidence to support marines being bad without Guilliman, it's all of the ITC tournament data for 2018, even with the codex. You saying "there's no evidence" doesn't mean there is no evidence. My god.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

There is a mountain of evidence.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes there is, there is a ton of evidence to support marines being bad without Guilliman, it's all of the ITC tournament data for 2018, even with the codex. You saying "there's no evidence" doesn't mean there is no evidence. My god.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

There is a mountain of evidence.

Primark G is playing Ultramarines, so he doesn't care if other chapters suck.

Evidence:

It takes 9 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove a space marine
It take 11 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove the same points value of guardsmen.

And this is a weapon that's supposed to be good vs light targets.

This gets so much uglier with any kind of AP on a weapon.

Raven Guard and Salamanders have great chapter tactics as well.

Salamanders are weak, imo. I think the two best are Imperial Fists and Raven Guard.

Martel732 wrote:
Evidence:

It takes 9 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove a space marine
It take 11 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove the same points value of guardsmen.

And this is a weapon that's supposed to be good vs light targets.

This gets so much uglier with any kind of AP on a weapon.

Again, in a a vacuum that sounds like solid math, but isn't. Rework the same problem with a lasgun. You can also kill 385 pts of Guilliman with 2 lascanon shots but at max only 8 points of guardsmen. Why don't you include that fact as a balance argument?

 deviantduck wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Evidence:

It takes 9 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove a space marine
It take 11 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove the same points value of guardsmen.

And this is a weapon that's supposed to be good vs light targets.

This gets so much uglier with any kind of AP on a weapon.

Again, in a a vacuum that sounds like solid math, but isn't. Rework the same problem with a lasgun. You can also kill 385 pts of Guilliman with 2 lascanon shots but at max only 8 points of guardsmen. Why don't you include that fact as a balance argument?

Because Bolters are supposed to be good against light infantry? It's right there in his post?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
The thing about banana is he has a very obvious bias.

He's making good arguments.

Not really. I, and several others, have pointed out repeatedly his selective characterizations, that his own data contradicts him, his melodramatic fearmongering ("So it's not hard to see marines falling to 22-25 of 29" without evidence, etc.

The fact that he's not willing to address those points in lieu of repeating the same tired statements doesn't qualify as a "good argument." Might as well be at the presidential podium saying, "I have the best arguments, the best people."

First of all, HOW DARE YOU ASSUME MY GENDER. I'M POLY AMORPHOUS AND PREFER THE PRONOUN SPONGE!!!!

Now that is out of the way I see a lot of baseless claims without data. I thought you were against that?

If memory serves I've yet to see one shred of hard data, that has not been thoroughly debunked, to back-up anything you claim.

Tournament results - nope (this one time, before anyone else had a codex, marines one a tourney.. summarily shown to be lazy analysis)
Math-hammer - nope
Personal lists - nope
ITC results - nope
Unit comparisons - nope
Anything else?

(BTW all data points I have provided)

Genuinely curious, where does my data contradict itself? The data may be open to contradictory interpretations and I easily could have done that but if you or I have data that contradicts what I have provided or even conclusions from that data that I overlooked or ignored that would be helpful to the conversation. (At least more helpful than nuh-uh, you're wrong)

The other two criticisms are subjective (the third is mostly true, I am a bit melodramatic and hyperbolic) but it seems pretty settled that codex armies are > their index version, right?
As those index armies get codexes they should get better right?
If they get better and marines stay the same then it is not out of the realm of possibility that those armies get better than SM right?
Where in this inference chain am I out of line?

It's not a sure thing. Necrons/Tau could get a GK codex. Orks codex could reduce boy squads to units of 10. Anything is possible. Until next years CA drops I doubt we will have a solid answer and even then that could shake everything up. But I feel I've provided enough data so people can see what I'm basing my assumptions/predictions on and am more than willing to debate any of that on the merits.

I'm eagerly await LVO to see what marine lists are running but the most recent highly placing list was G-man, some psychers and 4 fire-raptors (which I suggested and I expect will be a close approximation of the most competitive marine list, maybe with only 3 FRs but we'll see). Maybe that's the answer to this thread, FIRE RAPTORS!!!!

I have the distinct impression at this point I'm just being trolled by people with nothing constructive to add so I'll just let the data and conversely lack of data speak for itself. Hopefully I'm proven wrong and 8th edition flourishes with many competitive builds and armies but it looks, to me, like we are rushing headlong into the issues of 7th with 3-4 competitive armies/builds and the once in a blue moon outlier.

18 BS 4 lasgun shots to kill a marine.
19.5 BS 4 lasgun shots to kill the same points of guardsmen.

Pretty sure you have to get down to S2 for the marine to get an advantage.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Evidence:

It takes 9 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove a space marine
It take 11 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove the same points value of guardsmen.

And this is a weapon that's supposed to be good vs light targets.

This gets so much uglier with any kind of AP on a weapon.

Again, in a a vacuum that sounds like solid math, but isn't. Rework the same problem with a lasgun. You can also kill 385 pts of Guilliman with 2 lascanon shots but at max only 8 points of guardsmen. Why don't you include that fact as a balance argument?

Because Bolters are supposed to be good against light infantry? It's right there in his post?

And they are great against Guardsmen. The comparison is wrong. He's comparing shots per points and not shots per wounds. Guardsmen have a higher wounds to points ratio. In that vacuum, every gun in the game is worse against Guardsmen than SM.

This is why primaris marines are proper elite infantry. At least they're harder to kill with small arms than equivalent points worth of guardsmen. They're just hampered by lack of options and insanely expensive transports.

 deviantduck wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Evidence:

It takes 9 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove a space marine
It take 11 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove the same points value of guardsmen.

And this is a weapon that's supposed to be good vs light targets.

This gets so much uglier with any kind of AP on a weapon.

Again, in a a vacuum that sounds like solid math, but isn't. Rework the same problem with a lasgun. You can also kill 385 pts of Guilliman with 2 lascanon shots but at max only 8 points of guardsmen. Why don't you include that fact as a balance argument?

Because Bolters are supposed to be good against light infantry? It's right there in his post?

And they are great against Guardsmen. The comparison is wrong. He's comparing shots per points and not shots per wounds. Guardsmen have a higher wounds to points ratio. In that vacuum, every gun in the game is worse against Guardsmen than SM.

I don't know about you, but I pay POINTS for my units. That's my entire point. You just made my case for me. My comparison is NOT wrong, because everything ultimately comes down to points. In fact, doing it any other way is wrong.

PSM units have specific roles, you shouldn’t build your army solely around them if you want to design a competitive list.

Martel732 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Evidence:

It takes 9 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove a space marine
It take 11 BS 3+ boltgun shots to remove the same points value of guardsmen.

And this is a weapon that's supposed to be good vs light targets.

This gets so much uglier with any kind of AP on a weapon.

Again, in a a vacuum that sounds like solid math, but isn't. Rework the same problem with a lasgun. You can also kill 385 pts of Guilliman with 2 lascanon shots but at max only 8 points of guardsmen. Why don't you include that fact as a balance argument?

Because Bolters are supposed to be good against light infantry? It's right there in his post?

And they are great against Guardsmen. The comparison is wrong. He's comparing shots per points and not shots per wounds. Guardsmen have a higher wounds to points ratio. In that vacuum, every gun in the game is worse against Guardsmen than SM.

I don't know about you, but I pay POINTS for my units. That's my entire point. You just made my case for me. My comparison is NOT wrong, because everything ultimately comes down to points. In fact, doing it any other way is wrong.

Ok... what is the point you're trying to make? I read your statement as apples to armadillos. A bolter is better at killing marines than guardsmen if you base it on how many points it could potentially kill. 2 bolter shots can kill 8 points of guardsmen, 26 points of Tacticals, or 45 points of Termies. So what?

I wasn't doing potential. I was doing averages.

Looks like you didn’t factor in PSM.

I was talking BASAL space marines.