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.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Isn't it once again though just showing that the guardsmen themselves are underpriced-as established MONTHS ago?

None of this changes at 5ppm. Maybe at 6, which isn't happening.

Martel732 wrote:
"When you shoot 80 points worth of models that are mildly buffed at a unit and kill 13 points worth? You burn a reroll and you lose 0 points most likely. Your some how falling behind?
"

If the marines remove 11 points and the guardsmen remove 13, then yes, the marines are falling behind. If they have to spend a CP to make it 11-0 , they are STILL falling behind. The killer number in this is only removing 11 pts of enemy. Marines can't afford that.

No the're not, you shoot first kill 2.87 models, they shoot kill .143 models, you shoot again kill another 2.87 models (5.75 Guard killed total) 22 Guard shots now do .707 wounds ( .85 models lost) 9 bolter shots now doing 2.58 wounds ( 8.25 models lost). So at this point Guardsman have lost 44% of thier shooting and the MEQ have lost 10%. The GEQ are down to .5 wounds per turn against the MEQ. That 1 CP causes a snowball effect, which in the end will see both GEQ units dead while 50 percent of the MEQ unit still up.

I don't care about models. I care about points.

In my meta (semi-competitive) the humble tactical does alright, and I usually field afew units when I play my Salamanders.

I run them MSU though, with either 1 special+combi weapon or 1 heavy weapon.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"The thing is the 3+ save can become a 2+ in cover with a single reroll it takes 20 Guardsman with 1RF2RF to kill 1 Marine at 13-24". That same marine unit will kill 2.3 guardsman per turn (about 11 points worth). "

So if marines are in cover and burn a reroll, they are still falling behind? How glorious.

Marines are in cover and burning a reroll, while you're doing 2 squads of Guard(with no upgrades--and knowing you, you have the math wrong anyways since 20 Guardsmen equals 18 Lasguns not 20) and an officer placing an Order(the only Order those two squads can receive) OR a Stratagem to make it a Combined Squad in order for this to work.

20 Guardsman firing 36 (1RF2RF) Lasgun shots at 13-24"

36×.5×.33×.165= .9801 wounds. If you apply a reroll you would end up taking 0 wounds more then likely. This puts you 9 points ahead, which will only grow since you will probably get first turn and after the second turn of shooting they will likley be down to 16 guardsman and only be doing about .75 wounds per turn. You can literally spend 1 CP and end up ahead in the long run.

The point you seem to have missed is this:
Without seeing his math, and knowing his propensity for being wrong/biased when it comes to Guard stuff in general, 20 Guardsmen firing Lasguns requires at least 3 Infantry Squads OR Conscript Squads(which are BS5+ rather than BS4+ and only accept Orders on a 4+) OR some weird setup of an Infantry Squad, Command Squads, and/or HWTs.

Or just 2 Infantry squads with 2 Commanders, not hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care about models. I care about points.

Okay you lose 65 they lose 80 (100 at 5ppm if the rumorms are true)

That's just false.
At 5 ppm guard it is a MUCH closer comparison and the winner in a dual between guardsmen and tac marines becomes dependant on external factors, such as manuvers, support, moral rolls, etc.

13 guard in a squad vs 5 bolter toting tacticals, an impossible scenario but I'll use it to get the point across.
13 guards, assuming they all enter range at once and the marines are out of cover will deal 0.722 wounds at 9.386 points.
5 tacticals at the flipped scenario will deal 1.481 wounds, or 7.405 points.

So here already, we get a result not too far off. the guards still win a shootout, but are less easily getting cover, and are more in danger of moral casualties adding more damage and its far easier for marines to assure everyone is in range than it is for the guard.
And that's before we even got to balancing the tac marine-this is just making the guard his proper well-accepted cost.


Lets take it a step further-we drop the tac marine just 1 point.
12 guards vs 5 marines.
Marines still deal 1.481 wounds, or 7.405 points.
Guards now deal .0667 wounds, at 8.004 points.
Now the gap in sheer shooting is very narrow, and marines still hold the edge when it comes to leadership, taking cover, and concentrated power making it easier to make use of the entire squad.

Had we reduced the marines to 11, we'd get the 11 guards dealing 0.611 wounds, or 6.721 points-the guards are now outright out-gunned by the marines, while the marines still keep all the benefits of being easier to bring to bear, get good positions and being virtually immune to moral.

Had you tuned tac marines to 11 points, they would VASTLY outclass a 5 point guard to the point of rendering them non-viable.

The moment infantry become the proper 5 point, tac marines are nearly good. 1 point reduction makes them competitive, 2 point reduction makes them too good.

Martel732 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Isn't it once again though just showing that the guardsmen themselves are underpriced-as established MONTHS ago?

None of this changes at 5ppm. Maybe at 6, which isn't happening.

I dont think too many people ever questioned that Guardsman were under priced.

It might 1 PPM dosen't sound like a lot but across 120 models its 120 points. That's almost a Leman Russ.

@ Boomwolf
"Marines still deal 1.481 wounds, or 7.405 points.
Guards now deal .0667 wounds, at 8.004 points."

Did you mean .667 wounds?

 BoomWolf wrote:
That's just false.
At 5 ppm guard it is a MUCH closer comparison and the winner in a dual between guardsmen and tac marines becomes dependant on external factors, such as manuvers, support, moral rolls, etc.

13 guard in a squad vs 5 bolter toting tacticals, an impossible scenario but I'll use it to get the point across.
13 guards, assuming they all enter range at once and the marines are out of cover will deal 0.722 wounds at 9.386 points.
5 tacticals at the flipped scenario will deal 1.481 wounds, or 7.405 points.

So here already, we get a result not too far off. the guards still win a shootout, but are less easily getting cover, and are more in danger of moral casualties adding more damage and its far easier for marines to assure everyone is in range than it is for the guard.
And that's before we even got to balancing the tac marine-this is just making the guard his proper well-accepted cost.


Lets take it a step further-we drop the tac marine just 1 point.
12 guards vs 5 marines.
Marines still deal 1.481 wounds, or 7.405 points.
Guards now deal .0667 wounds, at 8.004 points.
Now the gap in sheer shooting is very narrow, and marines still hold the edge when it comes to leadership, taking cover, and concentrated power making it easier to make use of the entire squad.

Had we reduced the marines to 11, we'd get the 11 guards dealing 0.611 wounds, or 6.721 points-the guards are now outright out-gunned by the marines, while the marines still keep all the benefits of being easier to bring to bear, get good positions and being virtually immune to moral.

Had you tuned tac marines to 11 points, they would VASTLY outclass a 5 point guard to the point of rendering them non-viable.

The moment infantry become the proper 5 point, tac marines are nearly good. 1 point reduction makes them competitive, 2 point reduction makes them too good.

You're not taking into account the fact that the Guard squad is better at simply taking up space to stop Deep Strikes and similar, but you're taking into account the advantages of force concentration the Tacticals provide.

People out-think the value of taking space.

It is VERY easy to block your entire table half even with marines. any unit that does not provide extra deployment options does not actually provide all that much value by taking more space.
The effectiveness of taking more space is really quick to be extinguished by the fact you don't need to push all that far away, just to push enough. 15 models across 3 units is honestly enough to block huge swats of land from enemy drops (and a decent marine army will have more than that available in units you can afford to take the hit with.), and you dont need to block every possible drop site-only block any meaningful drop site.


The value of getting that extra space taken just don't compare to the value of your units being much harder to clean up (cover and moral edges) and given that a small marine squad is basically immune to moral, and is very easy to hand cover for its a big thing.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Or just 2 Infantry squads with 2 Commanders, not hard.

Here's the problem with your statement:
How many models are in an Infantry Squad?
10.
How many of those can carry Lasguns?
9.
The Sergeant CANNOT EVER HAVE A LASGUN. 2 Infantry Squads will never be able to fully take advantage of FRFSRF because of the simple fact that Infantry Squads, when being fielded seriously as the core of a Guard army, are:
A) Carrying a Special Weapon(-1 Lasgun)
B) Carrying a Heavy Weapons Team(-1 Lasgun)

So right there you're down to 7 models in a 10 man squad firing as part of FRFSRF, meaning 14 shots at beyond Rapid Fire range and 28 shots in Rapid Fire range while exchanging all of the other possible Orders that you could receive.

Get now why I am pointing this out? It requires you to assume, mathwise, that you've got something that just isn't possible.
The same math holds for Veterans and Scions as well; it always starts at 9 models able to take advantage of FRFSRF.
The only unit that ever has gotten solid 100% coverage from FRFSRF is Conscripts.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Or just 2 Infantry squads with 2 Commanders, not hard.

Here's the problem with your statement:
How many models are in an Infantry Squad?
10.
How many of those can carry Lasguns?
9.
The Sergeant CANNOT EVER HAVE A LASGUN. 2 Infantry Squads will never be able to fully take advantage of FRFSRF because of the simple fact that Infantry Squads, when being fielded seriously as the core of a Guard army, are:
A) Carrying a Special Weapon(-1 Lasgun)
B) Carrying a Heavy Weapons Team(-1 Lasgun)

So right there you're down to 7 models in a 10 man squad firing as part of FRFSRF, meaning 14 shots at beyond Rapid Fire range and 28 shots in Rapid Fire range while exchanging all of the other possible Orders that you could receive.

Get now why I am pointing this out? It requires you to assume, mathwise, that you've got something that just isn't possible.
The same math holds for Veterans and Scions as well; it always starts at 9 models able to take advantage of FRFSRF.
The only unit that ever has gotten solid 100% coverage from FRFSRF is Conscripts.

I just assume that people are being generous when they make these assumptions, and go off naked as a worst case scenario. Because you're right, the squad will have a special weapon and it'll probably be plasma. Using the old numbers (4 ppm) that's 3:1 roughly, they could go 2:1 and load up on weapons vs that still naked tactical squad and then the numbers for damage caused changes quite a bit.

edit: 5 man naked tactical squad, 65 points. 10 man guard squad with plasma gun and heavy bolter: 55 points. The ratios remain the same, so as you scale up for the marines, you scale up for the guard. At 5ppm guard, it becomes equal, only guard are kitted out.
Some rough head math tells me that 5 tacticals at long range will do 3-4 hits, 2-3 wounds and 1-2 kills on average assuming they go first. If guard roll disastrously for morale they lose, what, another model? Then they return fire.

a few things to note. GW really feths up 3+ save models. I think they are assuming a 3+ is still a 3+ (which it was still overpriced when it was) these days the pleathora of ap 4-5 weapons in the game before that marines just laughed off, now turn your power armor into flakk armor or at best carapace armor, that's a huge swath of weapons in the game making marines 16% less durable. So instead of marines being 13ppm they need to start out at a base of 11, as a bare minimum. That's the most expedient way to fix marines.

Better idea would be make marines 2+, terminators 1+.

as for the discussion on guardsmen. The price of guardsmen is a red herring. 4ppm or 5ppm makes 0 difference. as a guard player i've converted over entirely to troops that are 15ppm and have no gun: crusaders. and they still wreck fething face. Grinding advance was a mistake. the base russ needs to be about 20 points cheaper and the price of Executioner cannons, punishers, ect Double or triple. Making the executioner/punisher about 20-40 points more.

or they could simply remove grinding advance.sad but true.

Manticores are another issue.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care about models. I care about points.

People forget how this works seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also people need to quit suggesting to make Marines into a horde army. How about we make the models worth their points instead of just cutting the cost?

I'm mainly suggesting it because its much easier.

On that martel is right.

Trying to make tacticals worth 13 points will require making vast changes to a large swat of units across many armies.

Better watch out. Certain posters will go postal on you for saying I'm right.

gendoikari87 wrote:
a few things to note. GW really feths up 3+ save models. I think they are assuming a 3+ is still a 3+ (which it was still overpriced when it was) these days the pleathora of ap 4-5 weapons in the game before that marines just laughed off, now turn your power armor into flakk armor or at best carapace armor, that's a huge swath of weapons in the game making marines 16% less durable. So instead of marines being 13ppm they need to start out at a base of 11, as a bare minimum. That's the most expedient way to fix marines.

Did you forget the part where they now get a save vs old AP 2-3 weapons?

 Bobthehero wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
a few things to note. GW really feths up 3+ save models. I think they are assuming a 3+ is still a 3+ (which it was still overpriced when it was) these days the pleathora of ap 4-5 weapons in the game before that marines just laughed off, now turn your power armor into flakk armor or at best carapace armor, that's a huge swath of weapons in the game making marines 16% less durable. So instead of marines being 13ppm they need to start out at a base of 11, as a bare minimum. That's the most expedient way to fix marines.

Did you forget the part where they now get a save vs old AP 2-3 weapons?

That actually helps a lot less than you think it would.

I love it when people claim that a 1 point bump won't affect anything.

How many lists have an extra 10pts per guard/marine squad lying around? That's some kind of good (plasma/power/las/etc) weapon not being taken to fit the same number of dudes in. Or a buff character has to hit the bench to allow for the same number of troops to hit the field.

Assuming someone is taking 3 squads of 10 man guard or 3 five man tac squads, that's 30 and 15 points respectively to find in order to keep that +3 CP brigade bonus.

Small point increases don't matter for the 1v1, they matter because of everything else you have to adjust, crimp, and size down to make room.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
I love it when people claim that a 1 point bump won't affect anything.

How many lists have an extra 10pts per guard/marine squad lying around? That's some kind of good (plasma/power/las/etc) weapon not being taken to fit the same number of dudes in. Or a buff character has to hit the bench to allow for the same number of troops to hit the field.

Assuming someone is taking 3 squads of 10 man guard or 3 five man tac squads, that's 30 and 15 points respectively to find in order to keep that +3 CP brigade bonus.

Small point increases don't matter for the 1v1, they matter because of everything else you have to adjust, crimp, and size down to make room.

Greetings, i play guard.... I will tell you when making my lists i generally have 45-90 points lying around. granted i do not normally take infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
a few things to note. GW really feths up 3+ save models. I think they are assuming a 3+ is still a 3+ (which it was still overpriced when it was) these days the pleathora of ap 4-5 weapons in the game before that marines just laughed off, now turn your power armor into flakk armor or at best carapace armor, that's a huge swath of weapons in the game making marines 16% less durable. So instead of marines being 13ppm they need to start out at a base of 11, as a bare minimum. That's the most expedient way to fix marines.

Did you forget the part where they now get a save vs old AP 2-3 weapons?

That actually helps a lot less than you think it would.

This. Particularly if it's a -3 with a 3+. a 6+ save is basically non existent

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Or just 2 Infantry squads with 2 Commanders, not hard.

Here's the problem with your statement:
How many models are in an Infantry Squad?
10.
How many of those can carry Lasguns?
9.
The Sergeant CANNOT EVER HAVE A LASGUN. 2 Infantry Squads will never be able to fully take advantage of FRFSRF because of the simple fact that Infantry Squads, when being fielded seriously as the core of a Guard army, are:
A) Carrying a Special Weapon(-1 Lasgun)
B) Carrying a Heavy Weapons Team(-1 Lasgun)

So right there you're down to 7 models in a 10 man squad firing as part of FRFSRF, meaning 14 shots at beyond Rapid Fire range and 28 shots in Rapid Fire range while exchanging all of the other possible Orders that you could receive.

Get now why I am pointing this out? It requires you to assume, mathwise, that you've got something that just isn't possible.
The same math holds for Veterans and Scions as well; it always starts at 9 models able to take advantage of FRFSRF.
The only unit that ever has gotten solid 100% coverage from FRFSRF is Conscripts.

You may want to re-read his original post, he said 36 lasgun shots (ie, 2 unupgraded Guard Squads).
Last I checked, infantry squads aren't forced to take Special and Heavy weapons (if it's wise to do so).



Also seriously? 3+ is worse against old AP4, the basically the same against old AP5,6 & - (and better in cover), better vs old AP3 and the same vs old AP2 & 1 (though worse in cover).
It's basically a wash.
Also weren't people literally complaining last edition about Heavy Bolters being useless because AP4 is worthless while simultaneously complaining about there being too much AP1/2/3?

gendoikari87 wrote:

This. Particularly if it's a -3 with a 3+. a 6+ save is basically non existent

So is the difference between a 4+ and a 3+, then.

Marines are just a generalist purpose unit that would be great irl. You don't see armies of transports with miniguns or armies of explictly heavy weapon teams. But on tabletop, there are different laws. It's not the weapons that make tactical marines bad. It's actually that there is no tactics in the game.

 koooaei wrote:
Marines are just a generalist purpose unit that would be great irl. You don't see armies of transports with miniguns or armies of explictly heavy weapon teams. But on tabletop, there are different laws. It's not the weapons that make tactical marines bad. It's actually that there is no tactics in the game.

The problem is TAC/CSM squads should have access to two special weapons.

In the army a 5 man squad (Fire Team) usually has 2-3 special weapons depending on the unit. Usually a SAW and at least one GL not to mention 240-B and other crew served weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care about models. I care about points.

People forget how this works seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also people need to quit suggesting to make Marines into a horde army. How about we make the models worth their points instead of just cutting the cost?

Im saying neither give every CSM and TAC marine Bolter, Bolt pistol, and Chainsword with any upgrade swapping for the appropriate weapon. That way they have the flexability they need. Being able to get 4 S4 attacks in a turn will make them worth thier points.

I confess it is a little odd that Imperial Guardsmen and Space Marines have access to the exact same number and type of weapons, except for Grav and only because that's a recent kit and nu mod nu roolz.

Like. They're SPACE MARINES. Surely the Imperum can bend the rules so they can have two melta guns per 5 men, not one? Guardsmen are expendable and cost less than their weapons. Surely the marine is more expensive than the meltagun? It can't be they don't have the means to access mass meltaguns I mean, even the sisters of battle can do that...

Adding flexibility like that to your average tactical squad would go a long way to making them more playable.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I confess it is a little odd that Imperial Guardsmen and Space Marines have access to the exact same number and type of weapons, except for Grav and only because that's a recent kit and nu mod nu roolz.

Like. They're SPACE MARINES. Surely the Imperum can bend the rules so they can have two melta guns per 5 men, not one? Guardsmen are expendable and cost less than their weapons. Surely the marine is more expensive than the meltagun? It can't be they don't have the means to access mass meltaguns I mean, even the sisters of battle can do that...

Adding flexibility like that to your average tactical squad would go a long way to making them more playable.

It's a lot odd. The squads Sgt. having a special weapon is weird, the number of special weapons is weird, the inflexability is weird, the inability to carry a CCW and a Rifle equivalent is weird. An actual General would look at this and go cross eyed.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I confess it is a little odd that Imperial Guardsmen and Space Marines have access to the exact same number and type of weapons, except for Grav and only because that's a recent kit and nu mod nu roolz.

Like. They're SPACE MARINES. Surely the Imperum can bend the rules so they can have two melta guns per 5 men, not one? Guardsmen are expendable and cost less than their weapons. Surely the marine is more expensive than the meltagun? It can't be they don't have the means to access mass meltaguns I mean, even the sisters of battle can do that...

Adding flexibility like that to your average tactical squad would go a long way to making them more playable.

It's a lot odd. The squads Sgt. having a special weapon is weird, the number of special weapons is weird, the inflexability is weird, the inability to carry a CCW and a Rifle equivalent is weird. An actual General would look at this and go cross eyed.

Ah. Good old Reboot Girlieman.
It's His fault. That's why the Primaris have no options at all. Clearly allowing tacticals the tiny bit of flexibility they do have was a concession to another primarch. Perhaps Magnus. He likes a bit of a change.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It can't be they don't have the means to access mass meltaguns I mean, even the sisters of battle can do that...

Even Sisters of Battle have something it means Marines must have the same thing but even better while Sisters get access to nothing that the marines have of course!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It can't be they don't have the means to access mass meltaguns I mean, even the sisters of battle can do that...

Even Sisters of Battle have something it means Marines must have the same thing but even better while Sisters get access to nothing that the marines have of course!

Did someone blow the horn for SoB martyrs to come in with the "woe is me"?

You did.