Switch Theme:

Can the MeQ statline be saved?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Shining spears are mobility specialists, because you can point to them and say "this unit is fast". I would not call them 'generalist' in the way that either Imperial Guard Infantry Squads are generalists or Tactical Squads are generalist. A lot of what they do, they do well because they move fast. Would they be good in CC if they moved 6" a turn with no FLY or other deployment options? They're clearly a mobility specialist.

Pointing to a specialist and saying "I want my tactical marines to be like that" while explicitly pointing out that their mobility compensates for things like their short-ranged guns is why people make fun of Marine players. Of course if Tactical Marines moved 14" a turn (and had Fly) they'd be a lot better...

as for Guard, they don't really shoot infantry that well. They might do it "efficiently" because they're so cheap, but they're hardly "specialist anti-infantry" units. I think their niche is being good at screening, and that's about it. Orders do improve their performance, yes, but are not without points or opportunity costs of their own, so while they do contribute to making the Guard generalist into a specialist, they also pay a bit more for it.

I'm not really sure what it means to be a "mobility specialist". The game isn't a race. There are units that don't really do anything but move fast, and they are usually terrible. Mobility is only relevant insofar as it supports a unit's real roles. I guess you can imagine a unit which is purely an objective grabber, though it doesn't have much of a place in 8th and is done better by deep strikers, but Spears certainly aren't that. Yes, they're very fast. They're also pretty good at killing infantry and tanks alike, and pretty good at shooting and CC alike. They're a generalist unit by any reasonable definition of the term -- they're pretty good at just about everything. This is the sense of "generalist" that everyone means when they talk about Marines being generalists, and how the squads can take a heavy weapon for anti-tank and are paying for S4 and WS3+ to not embarrass themselves in CC, etc. I didn't say that Marines should be good at everything for all of the same reasons -- they can be good at anti-tank by having a 48" lascannon rather than a bike with a 6"/CC lance. I'm just saying: if you want to think about designing and balancing a generalist unit, it's probably helpful to look at actually-existing good generalist units to see what they're like.

And you're just wrong on Guard. They absolutely shoot infantry well. There are whole factions that have no unit which shoots GEQs more efficiently than a single rapid-firing Infantry Squad. Orders significantly improve their performance per point too, at the cost of some durability (although you can cheat this by not bringing enough officers to order all of your squads). It's really weird that you keep dismissing their efficiency as a result of their simply being cheap. I mean, duh. Things are efficient if they do a lot for a little. Guard would not be good at shooting if they were 8 ppm, nor would they be very good at screening. But they're not 8 ppm. They're 4 ppm. And at that price they're very good at shooting infantry and screening. They're not very effective at killing tanks, especially not when the tanks are far away. You can give them a lascannon and make them reasonable generalists, but this drastically reduces their durability and anti-infantry shooting efficiency, so most people don't do it.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

So assuming small arms, we'll use Lasguns:

One rapid-firing lasgun kills 1.33 points of Guardsmen (.33 wounds).

A rapid-firing lasgun currently does 0.11 wounds to a Space Marine, meaning that to get a wound efficiency of 1.33 points per wound, you'd get...

.... just over 12 points per model. Turns out they're actually already really close.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Being cheap is a specialization that trumps all others.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Dionysodorus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Shining spears are mobility specialists, because you can point to them and say "this unit is fast". I would not call them 'generalist' in the way that either Imperial Guard Infantry Squads are generalists or Tactical Squads are generalist. A lot of what they do, they do well because they move fast. Would they be good in CC if they moved 6" a turn with no FLY or other deployment options? They're clearly a mobility specialist.

Pointing to a specialist and saying "I want my tactical marines to be like that" while explicitly pointing out that their mobility compensates for things like their short-ranged guns is why people make fun of Marine players. Of course if Tactical Marines moved 14" a turn (and had Fly) they'd be a lot better...

as for Guard, they don't really shoot infantry that well. They might do it "efficiently" because they're so cheap, but they're hardly "specialist anti-infantry" units. I think their niche is being good at screening, and that's about it. Orders do improve their performance, yes, but are not without points or opportunity costs of their own, so while they do contribute to making the Guard generalist into a specialist, they also pay a bit more for it.

I'm not really sure what it means to be a "mobility specialist". The game isn't a race. There are units that don't really do anything but move fast, and they are usually terrible. Mobility is only relevant insofar as it supports a unit's real roles. I guess you can imagine a unit which is purely an objective grabber, though it doesn't have much of a place in 8th and is done better by deep strikers, but Spears certainly aren't that. Yes, they're very fast. They're also pretty good at killing infantry and tanks alike, and pretty good at shooting and CC alike. They're a generalist unit by any reasonable definition of the term -- they're pretty good at just about everything. This is the sense of "generalist" that everyone means when they talk about Marines being generalists, and how the squads can take a heavy weapon for anti-tank and are paying for S4 and WS3+ to not embarrass themselves in CC, etc. I didn't say that Marines should be good at everything for all of the same reasons -- they can be good at anti-tank by having a 48" lascannon rather than a bike with a 6"/CC lance. I'm just saying: if you want to think about designing and balancing a generalist unit, it's probably helpful to look at actually-existing good generalist units to see what they're like.

And you're just wrong on Guard. They absolutely shoot infantry well. There are whole factions that have no unit which shoots GEQs more efficiently than a single rapid-firing Infantry Squad. Orders significantly improve their performance per point too, at the cost of some durability (although you can cheat this by not bringing enough officers to order all of your squads). It's really weird that you keep dismissing their efficiency as a result of their simply being cheap. I mean, duh. Things are efficient if they do a lot for a little. Guard would not be good at shooting if they were 8 ppm, nor would they be very good at screening. But they're not 8 ppm. They're 4 ppm. And at that price they're very good at shooting infantry and screening. They're not very effective at killing tanks, especially not when the tanks are far away. You can give them a lascannon and make them reasonable generalists, but this drastically reduces their durability and anti-infantry shooting efficiency, so most people don't do it.


What I mean by "mobility specialist" is that they specialize in mobility. Mobility opens up tactical avenues in game-decision terms that would otherwise not be available, such as using an otherwise terrible unit (Shining Spears without Fly or speed) in a very good way (as you illustrate with your example of shining spears that HAVE fly and speed!).

A single rapid-firing Infantry Squad will kill 3.3 guardsmen. A rapid-firing Sororitas squad kills 3 guardsmen for just about the same points. If you include Orders, the Guardsmen now cost 70 points and kill 6.6 guardsmen, but 70 points of Sororitas will kill 6. I would consider Sororitas squads generalist, so yes, the guardsmen are a bit better at shooting than Sororitas, but not good enough to suddenly make them shooting specialists. Also, the Guard have spent an HQ and a troops slot, and the Sororitas have spent a troops slot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:Being cheap is a specialization that trumps all others.


Unit1126PLL wrote:So assuming small arms, we'll use Lasguns:

One rapid-firing lasgun kills 1.33 points of Guardsmen (.33 wounds).

A rapid-firing lasgun currently does 0.11 wounds to a Space Marine, meaning that to get a wound efficiency of 1.33 points per wound, you'd get...

.... just over 12 points per model. Turns out they're actually already really close.


What do you have to say, Martel, about your assertion that we make Marines just as durable against Lasguns as IG are, point for point? Would you say Tactical Marines would be fair at 12ppm?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/23 17:14:18


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




All small arms. Not just lasguns.

The correct price point for tacs is likely one point more than sisters. That's the unfortunate reality of 8th ed.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel732 wrote:
All small arms. Not just lasguns.

The correct price point for tacs is likely one point more than sisters. That's the unfortunate reality of 8th ed.


Define what you mean by small arms, do you mean bolters?

Bolters in rapid fire (fired by guardsmen) do 0.44 wounds to guardsmen, or 1.78 points (assuming guardsmen are 4ppm)

Bolters in rapid fire (fired by guardsmen) do 0.17 wounds to a Space Marine, so to get 1.78 points vs a bolter, a Space Marine would have to cost...

...10.5 points, but we'd have to pick between 10 and 11 points.

Do you really think Tactical Marines would ever be taken over scouts at the same price point?
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I'd extend to heavy bolters as well. 10 ppm feels right based off my games in 8th. Especially vs guard and eldar. Make scouts also 10 ppm and id use both.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Martel732 wrote:
All small arms. Not just lasguns.

The correct price point for tacs is likely one point more than sisters. That's the unfortunate reality of 8th ed.


More than 1pt, S3/T3 is not as good as you think. SM being S4/T4 is pretty important, wounds against hem on 4's and 5's is much better than 3's and 4's. after playing many SoB games T4+ vs T3 is a large difference in how many bodies you remove compared to SM.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




No. 1 pt. Sisters are identical in every meaningful way in 8th. T3 is great in 8th with commonality of str 5. Melee stats don't matter.
BA can get ONE squad into cc per turn. The rest of my army might as well be ewoks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/23 17:30:02


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Martel732 wrote:
I'd extend to heavy bolters as well. 10 ppm feels right based off my games in 8th. Especially vs guard and eldar. Make scouts also 10 ppm and id use both.


Part of the problem with TACs is that scouts have always been just as good by any meaningful measure but cheaper. They should almost certainly cost the same as scouts have rules that make up for their minor stat deficiencies.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel732 wrote:
I'd extend to heavy bolters as well. 10 ppm feels right based off my games in 8th. Especially vs guard and eldar. Make scouts also 10 ppm and id use both.


1) I protest because Heavy Bolters are not small arms, though here's the math anyways:

Heavy bolters fired by guardsmen:

0.83 wounds to Guardsmen, costing the Guard player 3.33 points.

0.5 wounds to a Space Marine. To make a Heavy Bolter cost a Marine player 3.33 points, Marines would be under seven points. This is hardly fair.

2) No one would use scouts and Tacticals together. There's no reason ever to take a tactical over a scout even at identical price points. You could cost both of them 1PPM, and the scout would still be better because of deployment and basic weapon flexibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
No. 1 pt. Sisters are identical in every meaningful way in 8th. T3 is great in 8th with commonality of str 5. Melee stats don't matter.
BA can get ONE squad into cc per turn. The rest of my army might as well be ewoks.



"Sisters are identical in every way."

Vs a lasgun in rapid fire:
Sororitas: 0.16 casualties
Space Marine: 0.11 casualties.

That's very nearly 50% more casualties. Unless you think "ability to take lasgun fire" isn't a meaningful difference, but then we can wholesale discount the unupgraded infantry squad, right? I mean, lasguns can't cause a meaningful difference after all.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/23 17:34:43


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What I mean by "mobility specialist" is that they specialize in mobility. Mobility opens up tactical avenues in game-decision terms that would otherwise not be available, such as using an otherwise terrible unit (Shining Spears without Fly or speed) in a very good way (as you illustrate with your example of shining spears that HAVE fly and speed!).

A single rapid-firing Infantry Squad will kill 3.3 guardsmen. A rapid-firing Sororitas squad kills 3 guardsmen for just about the same points. If you include Orders, the Guardsmen now cost 70 points and kill 6.6 guardsmen, but 70 points of Sororitas will kill 6. I would consider Sororitas squads generalist, so yes, the guardsmen are a bit better at shooting than Sororitas, but not good enough to suddenly make them shooting specialists. Also, the Guard have spent an HQ and a troops slot, and the Sororitas have spent a troops slot.

Okay. That seems to me like a weird way to use "specialist", but regardless you can surely see that Shining Spears are generalists in the normal, everyday sense that people use when talking about units that are good at everything.

I don't really see what the Sisters to Infantry comparison is supposed to show. For one, Battle Sisters are another unit which is very good at shooting infantry. People double down on that by giving the squad 3 storm bolters. And a Sisters squad with bolters isn't very generalist. They're short-ranged, terrible against vehicles, and not good in CC. What about them seems generalist to you? The whole reason you take regular Sisters squads is to be able to throw bolter fire into infantry. Then you're saying that an order costs 30 points, which is just disingenuous. A Company Commander can order 2 squads. I'm not sure I have ever actually not been able to order 2 squads with a CC for at least the first 3 turns. If we correct for that, we're paying 55 points to kill 6.6 Guardsmen compared to 70 to kill 6, which would be 40% more efficient (that's a lot) -- two Infantry squads with a CC kill GEQs 20% more efficiently than do 51 point triple- storm bolter BSSs. It also seems weird to talk like "spending" an HQ slot is a real sacrifice for most lists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So assuming small arms, we'll use Lasguns:

One rapid-firing lasgun kills 1.33 points of Guardsmen (.33 wounds).

A rapid-firing lasgun currently does 0.11 wounds to a Space Marine, meaning that to get a wound efficiency of 1.33 points per wound, you'd get...

.... just over 12 points per model. Turns out they're actually already really close.

Yes, which is a huge problem, right? Marines are slightly less durable than Guardsmen in the face of the worst weapon in the game for shooting Marines relative to Guardsmen. That said, I agree with you that it's probably not realistic to try to fix this only by bringing down Marine points. That's why there's a huge thread about how Guardsmen should probably cost 5 ppm.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/23 17:37:24


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Dionysodorus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What I mean by "mobility specialist" is that they specialize in mobility. Mobility opens up tactical avenues in game-decision terms that would otherwise not be available, such as using an otherwise terrible unit (Shining Spears without Fly or speed) in a very good way (as you illustrate with your example of shining spears that HAVE fly and speed!).

A single rapid-firing Infantry Squad will kill 3.3 guardsmen. A rapid-firing Sororitas squad kills 3 guardsmen for just about the same points. If you include Orders, the Guardsmen now cost 70 points and kill 6.6 guardsmen, but 70 points of Sororitas will kill 6. I would consider Sororitas squads generalist, so yes, the guardsmen are a bit better at shooting than Sororitas, but not good enough to suddenly make them shooting specialists. Also, the Guard have spent an HQ and a troops slot, and the Sororitas have spent a troops slot.

Okay. That seems to me like a weird way to use "specialist", but regardless you can surely see that Shining Spears are generalists in the normal, everyday sense that people use when talking about units that are good at everything.

I don't really see what the Sisters to Infantry comparison is supposed to show. For one, Battle Sisters are another unit which is very good at shooting infantry. People double down on that by giving the squad 3 storm bolters. And a Sisters squad with bolters isn't very generalist. They're short-ranged, terrible against vehicles, and not good in CC. What about them seems generalist to you? The whole reason you take regular Sisters squads is to be able to throw bolter fire into infantry. Then you're saying that an order costs 30 points, which is just disingenuous. A Company Commander can order 2 squads. I'm not sure I have ever actually not been able to order 2 squads with a CC for at least the first 3 turns. If we correct for that, we're paying 55 points to kill 6.6 Guardsmen compared to 70 to kill 6, which would be 40% more efficient (that's a lot) -- two Infantry squads with a CC kill GEQs 20% more efficiently than do 51 point triple- storm bolter BSSs. It also seems weird to talk like "spending" an HQ slot is a real sacrifice for most lists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So assuming small arms, we'll use Lasguns:

One rapid-firing lasgun kills 1.33 points of Guardsmen (.33 wounds).

A rapid-firing lasgun currently does 0.11 wounds to a Space Marine, meaning that to get a wound efficiency of 1.33 points per wound, you'd get...

.... just over 12 points per model. Turns out they're actually already really close.

Yes, which is a huge problem, right? Marines are slightly less durable than Guardsmen in the face of the worst weapon in the game for shooting Marines relative to Guardsmen. That said, I agree with you that it's probably not realistic to try to fix this only by bringing down Marine points. That's why there's a huge thread about how Guardsmen should probably cost 5 ppm.


Your last point makes sense. 5ppm guardsmen would be okay, as I mentioned in my first post in that thread. The problem with using not-small-arms as small-arms though is that you end up with diminishing returns. I mean, if we want to make a Space Marine as efficient as a Guardsmen against a Volcano Cannon, we might as well make Space Marines 4ppm right away. It's only fair, after all. That's the problem with durability in general: it loses significance as the weapons it is tested against go up.

Hell, if we wanted to make a Baneblade as efficient as a Space Marine against Volcano Cannons, they should cost 13ppm, since each one gets one-shot by the gun. Does that illustrate the problem with using durability as a metric?

Your first point I don't understand, because "And a Sisters squad with bolters isn't very generalist. They're short-ranged, terrible against vehicles, and not good in CC." is all true about Guardsmen too. I think my definition of generalist is different than yours:

My definition of "generalist" is a unit that doesn't really do anything very well. I would not consider either Infantry Squads or Sororitas terribly good at any specific thing. They might both be fairly good at killing Infantry, but that's not why people buy them. In fact, in many cases, people skip the BSS entirely in favour of Dominions, because Dominions are - you guessed it - specialists. The only reason Infantry Squads are useful is because cheapness means you take up space and taking up space makes for a good screen.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Martel732 wrote:
No. 1 pt. Sisters are identical in every meaningful way in 8th. T3 is great in 8th with commonality of str 5. Melee stats don't matter.
BA can get ONE squad into cc per turn. The rest of my army might as well be ewoks.



S3, S4, S6/7 matters HUGELY tho

S3
Vs T 4= 5+
Vs T3 = 4+

S4
Vs T4 = 4+
Vs T3 = 3+

S6-7
Vs T4 = 3+
Vs T3 = 2+


   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




Being ewoks would actually be pretty amazing.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 Amishprn86 wrote:
More than 1pt, S3/T3 is not as good as you think. SM being S4/T4 is pretty important, wounds against hem on 4's and 5's is much better than 3's and 4's. after playing many SoB games T4+ vs T3 is a large difference in how many bodies you remove compared to SM.
This. Very much this.

Marine players who have never actually seriously played a T3 army alongside a T4 army always underestimate the importance of T4.

However, you won't get Martel to agree to anything sensible. If he isn't winning with his marines no matter how crappy his tactics and how many blunders he's making, then marines are underpowered and everyone else is overpowered.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/23 17:50:41


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Small arms/ heavy bolters are only one thing. Most of my guys die to basilisks manticores battlecannons and overcharge plasma. Tell me again how great t4 is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
No. 1 pt. Sisters are identical in every meaningful way in 8th. T3 is great in 8th with commonality of str 5. Melee stats don't matter.
BA can get ONE squad into cc per turn. The rest of my army might as well be ewoks.



S3, S4, S6/7 matters HUGELY tho

S3
Vs T 4= 5+
Vs T3 = 4+

S4
Vs T4 = 4+
Vs T3 = 3+

S6-7
Vs T4 = 3+
Vs T3 = 2+



See the above.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/23 17:51:43


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel732 wrote:
Small arms/ heavy bolters are only one thing. Most of my guys die to basilisks manticores battlecannons and overcharge plasma. Tell me again how great t4 is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
No. 1 pt. Sisters are identical in every meaningful way in 8th. T3 is great in 8th with commonality of str 5. Melee stats don't matter.
BA can get ONE squad into cc per turn. The rest of my army might as well be ewoks.



S3, S4, S6/7 matters HUGELY tho

S3
Vs T 4= 5+
Vs T3 = 4+

S4
Vs T4 = 4+
Vs T3 = 3+

S6-7
Vs T4 = 3+
Vs T3 = 2+



See the above.


So what you're saying is that when people fire anti-tank or anti-monster weapons at your marines, they die like Guardsmen. Okay.

When people fire Necron Pylons or Belicosa Volcano Cannons at my Baneblades, they die like guardsmen. Should Baneblades be 4ppm?
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Even if guardsmen are 5ppm, marines are still a joke. But i'll take it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Small arms/ heavy bolters are only one thing. Most of my guys die to basilisks manticores battlecannons and overcharge plasma. Tell me again how great t4 is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
No. 1 pt. Sisters are identical in every meaningful way in 8th. T3 is great in 8th with commonality of str 5. Melee stats don't matter.
BA can get ONE squad into cc per turn. The rest of my army might as well be ewoks.



S3, S4, S6/7 matters HUGELY tho

S3
Vs T 4= 5+
Vs T3 = 4+

S4
Vs T4 = 4+
Vs T3 = 3+

S6-7
Vs T4 = 3+
Vs T3 = 2+



See the above.


So what you're saying is that when people fire anti-tank or anti-monster weapons at your marines, they die like Guardsmen. Okay.

When people fire Necron Pylons or Belicosa Volcano Cannons at my Baneblades, they die like guardsmen. Should Baneblades be 4ppm?


At this point, why not?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/23 17:54:39


 
   
Made in il
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch






Yea, using an OP choice as your standard for comparison isn't really effective.

Anyway, the point people miss here is that any change to the tactical marine would have to apply to every single variant of the marine, or you get into the issue that the variants become worthless in comparison, and every chance you make that you apply to all variants is bound the break some.

For example, let double the bolter fire rate, shall we? Now the tactical are pretty good, and characters are a bit better, but let's look at variants?
First, heavy bolter value dropped to none, unless you boost it as well, because it's rate is no longer a big step up.
Now let's talk sternguard, do you double thier rate too? If no, the special issue bolters are now trash, if yes it becomes insane.
How about rubrics? Intercessors?
All become obsolete if left unchanged, yet broken if matched.
You really can't touch the bolter itself unless it's a major overhaul.

So let's look at stats.
Give them +1 attack and S from the power armor?
Sure. That's fine on the tactical, but let's look at matching it on variants?
The sternguard, rubric and such mentioned above are fine, nothing breaks and the game rolls. Characters become a much bigger threat though.
But then you look at assault marines. They get risky if you match it.
How about Vanguard with thier weapons?
Terminators?
Possessed?
Heaven forbid bezerkers?


Tl, Dr there is no blanket change you can do that is reasonable and balanced. Any changes to the marine profile requires a massive rebalance of the game.

It CAN be done, but not as a simple fix you can slap on the existing game balance. Any slight touch breaks things worse than index brimestones.

can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel, you're clearly arguing in bad faith.

Armies get shot by bolters and lasguns. That's a fact. To say "well, it's all irrelevant because Manticores" is the very definition of a bad-faith argument, because instead of addressing the point and trying to come to a solution (as I did entering this thread: my first post was suggestions on how to improve the Tactical Marine), you've filled it with "whataboutisms" and denied outright truths in favor of your skewed perception of reality.

I wonder if you even know how disingenuous and outright ... well, stupid, or at least unable to come to grips with facts ... you're being.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel, you're clearly arguing in bad faith.

Armies get shot by bolters and lasguns. That's a fact. To say "well, it's all irrelevant because Manticores" is the very definition of a bad-faith argument, because instead of addressing the point and trying to come to a solution (as I did entering this thread: my first post was suggestions on how to improve the Tactical Marine), you've filled it with "whataboutisms" and denied outright truths in favor of your skewed perception of reality.

I wonder if you even know how disingenuous and outright ... well, stupid, or at least unable to come to grips with facts ... you're being.


I said MINIMALLY the small arms issue needs to be addressed. That doesn't mean there aren't a ton of other issues. These anti-tank/anti-monster weapons are getting spammed because they are too efficient for their price. So it stands that most are my losses are coming through mechanisms that bypass T4 completely. So please reiterate the appeal of T4 under these conditions.

"I wonder if you even know how disingenuous and outright ... well, stupid, or at least unable to come to grips with facts ... you're being. "

I ask myself of that of practically every IG poster in this forum.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/23 18:05:51


 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut




Who knows what GW's design philosophy is these days but long ago the idea of a generalist unit was one that did a bit of everthing okay. This meant they would perform okay wherever they were on the table.

As compared with specialists that were good at one thing and awful at others.

So for example Eldar Aspect Warriors (way, way back) were specialised. Get a squad of fire dragons shooting a tank and its highly efficient in terms of damage for points. Shooting say marines is worse. Shooting Orks or Guardsmen is awful.

Specialist units were meant to be harder to use because of this, but offered greater reward. If you can get to those vehicles you improve your chances of winning. If you shoot boys you reduce them etc.

Unfortunately this largely died and is clearly dead in 8th (despite some glimmers with just the indexes). You just have that crude dichotomy of points efficient and not.

Marines are not generalists. They are just rubbish against almost every target I can think of. They have some of the worst shooting in the game. Their melee is laughable. They are just ablative wounds for an objective camping lascannon.

To some degree this is fine - they are just troops after all - but fluff wise and getting basic tacticals (or CSM) onto the table this doesn't help. I'd be tempted to give both "super objective secured" but that seems like a gimmick.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel732 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel, you're clearly arguing in bad faith.

Armies get shot by bolters and lasguns. That's a fact. To say "well, it's all irrelevant because Manticores" is the very definition of a bad-faith argument, because instead of addressing the point and trying to come to a solution (as I did entering this thread: my first post was suggestions on how to improve the Tactical Marine), you've filled it with "whataboutisms" and denied outright truths in favor of your skewed perception of reality.

I wonder if you even know how disingenuous and outright ... well, stupid, or at least unable to come to grips with facts ... you're being.


I said MINIMALLY the small arms issue needs to be addressed. That doesn't mean there aren't a ton of other issues. These anti-tank/anti-monster weapons are getting spammed because they are too efficient for their price. So it stands that most are my losses are coming through mechanisms that bypass T4 completely.


Too efficient for their price against what? Marines? Tanks? Monsters? Guardsmen? What is an optimum points efficiency? 3 to 1 (spending 3 points to kill 1)? Four to one? One to one?

You need to tell me what your ideal "points efficiency" is, against what target, and then we can crunch some numbers.

Here's my example: A good goal for how efficient a unit is is that it is 3 to 1 against its preferred target type. So that would mean costing 210 points to one-shot a 70 point Rhino, if the unit is an anti-tank unit.

EDIT: I disagree that specialists aren't a thing anymore. There's still "points efficiency" to consider. For example, a 20 point IG lascannon will kill 0.42 Ork Boys (which are 6ppm each) pr 2.52 points. This means the Lascannon's "points efficiency" against orks is like 8 to 1 (it's spending 8 points for every 1 point of Ork Boys it kills, excluding the Heavy Weapon Team platform). That's an ATROCIOUSLY BAD points efficiency ratio, if our goal is 3 to 1.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/23 18:09:33


 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 BoomWolf wrote:
So let's look at stats.
Give them +1 attack and S from the power armor?
Sure. That's fine on the tactical, but let's look at matching it on variants?

Not to mention the other rules that could get in the way of this, like the BA special rule.

At base S5, Every BA marine, without strength-enhancing gear like power axes or fists/hammers, would suddenly wound marines on a 2+ on the charge (3+ from S5 vs T4, to-wound roll gets +1 from BA special rule meaning only a 1 or 2 can fail), or when charged. At base S5, thunder hammers become S10. Buffed by a Sanguinary Priest, BA with hammers or fists become S12. So they wound nearly everything on a 2+, and anything they don't wound on a 2+, they still wound on a 2+ on the turn they charged-- and on top of that they get an additional attack.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




There are several issues with your concept. Some weapons, like plasma, have no preferred target type. Oh wait, I guess they don't like T9.

I'll take your word on the lasguns because many games the IG guy doesn't even need to fire them. Because mass, cheap Str 8+ dominates that thoroughly. I'd actually be ecstastic if I could make lasguns matter in a matchup. It's usually not that close. I'd said many times that guardsmen would be worth their points with no weapon at all. Just obstacles and area denial. They win the game for the IG player by just standing there and doing nothing at all.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/23 18:11:35


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

Give base marines a 3++. Up their toughness to 5 and give them 2+ WS/BS. Their firepower still holds them back from being awesome but at least they can tank some shots as a unit. Like they should.

Fundamentally rework Guilliman.

Drop reroll hits and reroll wounds entirely.

Give him an army wide buff to all adeptus astartes. When he's on the table, they get to add 1 to hit rolls, and add 1 to wound rolls. Additionally, all marines ignore morale when he's on the table. And, allow him to designate a unit within 6" to fire twice in the shooting phase, but at the cost of movement.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/23 18:12:18


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Yo guys arguing about T3vsT4.

DeathGuard/Custodes/Ogryn T5 master race all the way.

After playing Custodes with their T5 and BS/WS of 2+, playing Tau is like a torture. "Why are all my shots missing?!"

We wont enter in point prices and competitiveness, of course, but the feeling of the army is just so... hmmm noice.


 Marmatag wrote:
Give base marines a 3++, and make ATSKNF give morale immunity. Up their toughness to 5 and give them 2+ WS/BS. Their firepower still holds them back from being awesome but at least they can tank some shots as a unit. Like they should.


All of this is just insane. To fix tacticals you just need to erase them from existence and make the Primaris Intercessor the new tacticals. Just make them 16-17ppm and allow them to take primaris special/heavy weapons.
Tacticals are a failure from a design standpoint you can't fix them with points without breaking the game and other units.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/23 18:11:48


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




"To fix tacticals you just need to erase them from existence and make the Primaris Intercessor the new tacticals. Just make them 16-17ppm and allow them to take primaris special/heavy weapons. "

That's probably the best we can actually do. Of course, they actually makes them worse vs IG, but I'm being realistic here.
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

Bottom line is they should have kept the AP system from 7th but added in a new rend keyword.

Heavy Bolter. AP4. Rend -1.

So a 3+ goes to 4. And a 4+ gets no save.

Plasma. Ap4, Rend -2. 3+ goes to 5+. Ap4 gets no save.

For example.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/23 18:15:14


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: