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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Scouts are still the better unit, because their improved deployment options and weapons flexibility is more useful ingame than +1 armour save is, in my opinion.

I'd argue tacticals have better weapons flexibility; I'm personally playing a scout-heavy army right now (scouts and terminators, specifically), and I feel incredibly limited by what my scouts can actually equip that would actually be useful.

edit: removed quote pyramid

The only conclusion I can come to is that you believe a 4:1 ratio of points efficiency is too good, even though you said a unit should hard-counter its foes at a 2.5:1, so I would say 4:1 is fine.

I don't really understand what else it could be. If you mean Guardsmen are undercosted... then you don't understand what points efficiency is.

Points efficiency is saying "if you took 2000 points of Space Marines, you'd need 8600 points of Manticores to one-turn kill them."

This means that 2000 points of manticores will take 4-and-some-change turns to kill 2000 points of space marines. 2000 points of manticores will run out of rockets before they kill 2000 points of space marines who are just standing there and not fighting at all.

So essentially, I can conclude that your claims of "being wiped by manticores" are bogus.

EDIT: This is in reply to Martel's point.

 skchsan wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Why can't scouts be just another flavor of marines, and price them same as a tac marine?

Depends on if you believe their lowered armor save is worth the additional special rules they have.

I meant lowering the cost of tac marines down to level of scouts.

You would still see more Scouts than Tacticals even if they were the same points level. The ability to deploy on objectives and push deepstrikes all the way back into you opponents deployment zone is bonkers powerful.

 skchsan wrote:
I meant lowering the cost of tac marines down to level of scouts.

I know. And if they costed the same, the cost would be the difference between loadout/loadout options, and special rule differences.

"The only conclusion I can come to is that you believe a 4:1 ratio of points efficiency is too good, even though you said a unit should hard-counter its foes at a 2.5:1, so I would say 4:1 is fine.

I don't really understand what else it could be. If you mean Guardsmen are undercosted... then you don't understand what points efficiency is.

Points efficiency is saying "if you took 2000 points of Space Marines, you'd need 8600 points of Manticores to one-turn kill them."

This means that 2000 points of manticores will take 4-and-some-change turns to kill 2000 points of space marines. 2000 points of manticores will run out of rockets before they kill 2000 points of space marines who are just standing there and not fighting at all.

So essentially, I can conclude that your claims of "being wiped by manticores" are bogus."

Your conclusions are incorrect. Keep thinking. Think about how a battle actually unfolds. Think about things from the other side for once.

Martel732 wrote:
Your conclusions are incorrect.

Prove it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
"Astartes boltgun" rapid fire 2 S4 ap-1 1d

Literally doesn't affect anything outside of marines and CSM

Ah, yes, when a zero-point regular weapon on a single guy began to out perform the Storm Bolters wielded by everyone else.

I'd be terrified to see what an Astartes Storm Bolter would do. Rapid fire 4, perhaps? Ap -3 while we're at it?

It's more or less an example of changing something with a work around.
There's a lot of weak arguments saying "changing this will just make that too powerful waaah"
It's a weak argument and I just proved it wrong

Martel732 wrote:
Your conclusions are incorrect. Keep thinking. Think about how a battle actually unfolds.

You charge 2000 points of marines at 400 points of guardsmen and 1600 points of manticores. You kill 400 points of Guardsmen, the 1600 points of manticores kills 372 points of Marines, then your 1628 points of Marines touches the 1600 points of manticores and they never get to shoot again.

EDIT:
I do think about things from the other side. I routinely play a manticore spammer with my on-foot walking sororitas brigade and wipe the floor with him over and over again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
"Astartes boltgun" rapid fire 2 S4 ap-1 1d

Literally doesn't affect anything outside of marines and CSM

Ah, yes, when a zero-point regular weapon on a single guy began to out perform the Storm Bolters wielded by everyone else.

I'd be terrified to see what an Astartes Storm Bolter would do. Rapid fire 4, perhaps? Ap -3 while we're at it?

It's more or less an example of changing something with a work around.
There's a lot of weak arguments saying "changing this will just make that too powerful waaah"
It's a weak argument and I just proved it wrong

So if you leave storm bolters as they are, are you alright with the "Astartes Boltgun" outperforming the Storm Bolter that Tactical Terminators get, and also outperforming the special-issue bolter and storm-bolters available to Sternguard?

 fraser1191 wrote:
It's a weak argument and I just proved it wrong

No, you didn't. Because the argument was a lot more complex than the trollish strawman you just posted.

The argument was "If you boost one unit, but not the others, the others become weak in comparison, and the codex becomes internally inconsistent. If you boost all units to maintain consistency, you may make some units that are already powerful even more so."

You haven't disproven this argument, in fact, if anything you've proven it.

Sisters are much more efficient than marines.

2000 points of marines on foot take two turns to reach the guard lines. Unless you start paying for transports. Which cuts down your marines.

You are already going off the rails by thinking that all 2000 points of marines are there in one turn.

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are much more efficient than marines.

2000 points of marines on foot take two turns to reach the guard lines. Unless you start paying for transports. Which cuts down your marines.

You are already going off the rails by thinking that all 2000 points of marines are there in one turn.

Okay, sorry, two turns.

The manticores have killed 744 points of Marines by the time they reach the guardsmen, then the remaining 1264 points of marines easily overpower 400 points of guardsmen, then they suffer another 372 points of casualties, bringing them to 884 points remaining which then touch the manticores and they never shoot again.

My mistake.

Alternatively, they stand there and don't even touch the manticores, take another 372 points of casualties because their player is AFK, leaving them with 512 points remaining. And then the manticores are out of rockets. Neat.

Sisters are not inherently more efficient. The one point of toughness, strength, and weapons skill (Sisters are WS4+ with a few exceptions, and S3/T3 with no exceptions) makes a huge difference, and is one of the bigger weaknesses in the Sororitas army and why Sororitas tactics are vastly different from Marine tactics. And this is without considering the difference in equipment loadout choices.

You are deploying your guardsmen unintelligently now. 400 points of guardsmen can hold up 1200 pts of marines for at least two turns. They can do this even to jump marines, because I have it done to me all the time.

Also, manticores can chew up the marines closest to them first, creating extra transit time even after the guardsmen are dead.

You really haven't thought this through at all. Just ran some numbers and called it good.

Martel732 wrote:
You are deploying your guardsmen unintelligently now. 400 points of guardsmen can hold up 1200 pts of marines for at least two turns. They can do this even to jump marines, because I have it done to me all the time.

Also, manticores can chew up the marines closest to them first, creating extra transit time even after the guardsmen are dead.

You really haven't thought this through at all. Just ran some numbers and called it good.

Okay, let's do it your way. The Marines don't even move from their deployment zone, and the Manticores get complete uninterrupted shooting at them forever. The Marines end up with 512 points of their army alive because the Manticores ran out of rockets.

The Marines literally don't even have to touch the Manticores to not be killed by them.

 Melissia wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
It's a weak argument and I just proved it wrong

No, you didn't. Because the argument was a lot more complex than the trollish strawman you just posted.

The argument was "If you boost one unit, but not the others, the others become weak in comparison, and the codex becomes internally inconsistent. If you boost all units to maintain consistency, you may make some units that are already powerful even more so."

You haven't disproven this argument, in fact, if anything you've proven it.

Here is a proof: There already exists a "special issue bolter" in the codex, it is called a "boltrifle". And this "boltrifle" is equipped by a boosted tactical marine called an Intercessor. The Intercessor hasn't broken anything. Regards

pismakron wrote:
Here is a proof: There already exists a "special issue bolter" in the codex, it is called a "boltrifle". And this "boltrifle" is equipped by a boosted tactical marine called an Intercessor. The Intercessor hasn't broken anything. Regards

This has nothing to do with the argument being had, which has nothing to do with the naming issues you think it does.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You are deploying your guardsmen unintelligently now. 400 points of guardsmen can hold up 1200 pts of marines for at least two turns. They can do this even to jump marines, because I have it done to me all the time.

Also, manticores can chew up the marines closest to them first, creating extra transit time even after the guardsmen are dead.

You really haven't thought this through at all. Just ran some numbers and called it good.

Okay, let's do it your way. The Marines don't even move from their deployment zone, and the Manticores get complete uninterrupted shooting at them forever. The Marines end up with 512 points of their army alive because the Manticores ran out of rockets.

The Marines literally don't even have to touch the Manticores to not be killed by them.

We both know that doesn't cut it, either. They'll kill the marines on objectives selectively because no one can hide from a manticore.

 Melissia wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Here is a proof: There already exists a "special issue bolter" in the codex, it is called a "boltrifle". And this "boltrifle" is equipped by a boosted tactical marine called an Intercessor. The Intercessor hasn't broken anything. Regards

This has nothing to do with the argument being had, which has nothing to do with the naming issues you think it does.

Well I think it does. Some people are pining for bolters with AP-1, and sometimes also marines with two wounds and/or two attacks. The counter argument is that this will break a lot of game-balance. But Ithis I bollocks, as we already have Intercessors. And Intercessors didn't break anything, nor did they prove any magical solution to anything. Regards

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You are deploying your guardsmen unintelligently now. 400 points of guardsmen can hold up 1200 pts of marines for at least two turns. They can do this even to jump marines, because I have it done to me all the time.

Also, manticores can chew up the marines closest to them first, creating extra transit time even after the guardsmen are dead.

You really haven't thought this through at all. Just ran some numbers and called it good.

Okay, let's do it your way. The Marines don't even move from their deployment zone, and the Manticores get complete uninterrupted shooting at them forever. The Marines end up with 512 points of their army alive because the Manticores ran out of rockets.

The Marines literally don't even have to touch the Manticores to not be killed by them.

We both know that doesn't cut it, either. They'll kill the marines on objectives selectively because no one can hide from a manticore.

Sure, yeah. I mean, the Space Marine player literally went AFK and still didn't get tabled in 5-7 turns, so not sure what's expected of him. It's not a balanced game when one side has a player and the other side is just models standing on a table.

pismakron wrote:
Well I think it does. Some people are pining for bolters with AP-1, and sometimes also marines with two wounds and/or two attacks. The counter argument is that this will break a lot of game-balance. But Ithis I bollocks, as we already have Intercessors. And Intercessors didn't break anything, nor did they prove any magical solution to anything. Regards

Intercessors made tradeoffs to obtain those things. In many situations, intercessors are flat out inferior to tactical marines.

You also didn't equip the marines. Which is why I brought that up before. It's very relevant in order to simulate an actual battle.

 Melissia wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Well I think it does. Some people are pining for bolters with AP-1, and sometimes also marines with two wounds and/or two attacks. The counter argument is that this will break a lot of game-balance. But Ithis I bollocks, as we already have Intercessors. And Intercessors didn't break anything, nor did they prove any magical solution to anything. Regards

Intercessors made tradeoffs to obtain those things. In many situations, intercessors are flat out inferior to tactical marines.

Really? I don't see that. Intercessors are more vulnerable to Overcharged plasma, I will grant you that..

Martel732 wrote:
You also didn't equip the marines. Which is why I brought that up before. It's very relevant in order to simulate an actual battle.

It's true, but again, that's a player decision. Part of the way I manage to run a whole brigade of Sororitas at 2000 points fairly easily is because I barely equip people. 3 Storm Bolters per 10 girl squad, meltaguns on the Dominions, and that's about it. "Equipping your marines" is a player decision, and so if you're getting tabled by Manticores, perhaps they're over-equipped.

Edit:
I do bring Heavy Bolters on my Retributors, 4 per 5 girl squad, times 3.

 Melissia wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
It's a weak argument and I just proved it wrong

No, you didn't. Because the argument was a lot more complex than the trollish strawman you just posted.

The argument was "If you boost one unit, but not the others, the others become weak in comparison, and the codex becomes internally inconsistent. If you boost all units to maintain consistency, you may make some units that are already powerful even more so."

You haven't disproven this argument, in fact, if anything you've proven it.

The argument is that if the boltgun is buffed than by extension SoB are buffed along with other units that can take them.
By giving marine weapons a prefix for ALL of their weapons you can isolate them from other imperium armies. And as far as buffing the boltgun making the storm bolter irrelevant, it's just an arbitrary example I made.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
It's a weak argument and I just proved it wrong

No, you didn't. Because the argument was a lot more complex than the trollish strawman you just posted.

The argument was "If you boost one unit, but not the others, the others become weak in comparison, and the codex becomes internally inconsistent. If you boost all units to maintain consistency, you may make some units that are already powerful even more so."

You haven't disproven this argument, in fact, if anything you've proven it.

The argument is that if the boltgun is buffed than by extension SoB are buffed along with other units that can take them.
By giving marine weapons a prefix for ALL of their weapons you can isolate them from other imperium armies. And as far as buffing the boltgun making the storm bolter irrelevant, it's just an arbitrary example I made.

You missed my point:
If you buff the Boltgun, you have to at least buff all other Astartes weapons (e.g. heavy bolters, special issue bolters, storm bolters, etc) to keep them relevant and not drop off the map. Like if you made your example, Storm Bolters, and therefore Tactical Terminators, are obsolete. But if you make Tactical Terminators Rapid Fire 4, -1 damage, then you've made heavy bolters obsolete (storm bolter Sternguard would be better than heavy bolter devastators). So now you make Heavy Bolters +1 Strength... and now they're just ultra-cheap assault cannons, and twin heavy bolters are essentially an assault cannon by themselves.

pismakron wrote:
Really? I don't see that. Intercessors are more vulnerable to Overcharged plasma, I will grant you that..

You haven't paid much attention, then.

Intercessors cannot ride in cheap transports. Tacticals can. Rhinos are superbly durable for their points, especially when popping smoke, and are capable of delivering tacticals in to rapid fire + assault range-- and absorbing overwatch for the purposes of the assault. This allows Tacticals to take advantage of the next point...

Intercessors can only equip very limited anti-infantry weaponry. They cannot take flamers or plasmaguns or grav-guns, their sarges cannot take combiweapons, and in BA's case they can't take heavy flamers, either. A tactical squad with flamer/combiflamer/power sword in a rhino can do a surprising amount of damage on the charge. And that's just against infantry. The intercessor can take a couple options nothing non-Primaris can, but they're really rather lukewarm compared to the bolt rifle.

Intercessors cannot equip anti-tank weaponry. With the exception of krak grenades-- which, let's face it, is kind of a joke that people often forget even exists-- intercessors cannot take anti-tank weaponry at all. The closest they get is the stalker, but that's not really sufficient to seriously threaten most vehicles considering it's a single shot, and it's still S4.

Finally, intercessors are vulnerable to multi-wound damage. Anything that does 2 wounds or more per hit, they're extremely vulnerable to, where on tacticals, multi-wound damage is actually wasted and inefficient. Doing three wounds to a tactical marine is two wasted wounds, but doing those three wounds to an intercessor is only a single wasted wound.

Intercessors are an alternative to tacticals, not a flat upgrade. A viable alternative if their loadout and abilities fits your needs more than tacticals, but not everyone's tactical needs are the same, and for many lists, tactical marines are the superior choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
The argument is that if the boltgun is buffed than by extension SoB are buffed along with other units that can take them.

That's not the entirety of the argument, thus why I called (and still call) your response a strawman.

Scouts vs Tacticals is a side grade. It maked sense for Scouts to be cheaper when they had inferior BS and WS than tacticals, but now that they have the same, they should cost the same. One has better deployment options, other has +1 save and more weapons options.

Then to chose one over the other is based in what you want them to do, it becomes a tactical and strategic choice.

 Galas wrote:
Scouts vs Tacticals is a side grade. It maked sense for Scouts to be cheaper when they had inferior BS and WS than tacticals, but now that they have the same, they should cost the same. One has better deployment options, other has +1 save and more weapons options.

Then to chose one over the other is based in what you want them to do, it becomes a tactical and strategic choice.

This follows. I'm still personally of the opinion that scouts are better at the same price point, but I agree that it becomes more of a choice.

I'm agnostic on the matter.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm agnostic on the matter.

That's a good thing, I think. Right? That's what balance is?