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.

A pretty common problem with new features being rolled out across a game is that the first batch of them can't be too powerful or the have/have not issue becomes extreme; so they're balanced better against the generic version available to everything. As the feature matures and becomes widely available, developers are able to push it more and design in a world where everyone has options. Unfortunately, this leaves the early adopters who once enjoyed the privileged of having the best options by virtue of having the only options in the dust.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

15 points isn't really "negligible", at least if you believe Martel. That's almost four Guardsmen.

Also, yes, you're right, but they're not troops. If you need CP for other things, you might want to stuff as many of your weapons into Troops slots as possible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
I apologize in advance as I am late to this thread and ithis could already have been said, but... a very big problem with Codex Adeptus Astartes is the Stratagems. They are SO bad when compared to other codexes. Almost all of them are either overpriced, or really situational and specific.

I think it's because there they tried to make specific stratagems for specific units AND chapters... and the marines have such ridiculous diversity they just ended end up with an atom-thin layer of synergy. It's rare to find more than 1 or 2 that are usable.

Honour the Chapter can do work, but costs 3CP
Chapter Master is nice. Again 3CP
Killshot is good if you own (and take) multiple predators - pretty situational.


All the others are bobbins.

Use this when a unit of scout bikes falls back? What?
+1 to wound with Sternguard. Too specific.
Use when an enemy psyker uses a power within 24″ of a Black Templars unit. I mean really.

Awful.

Compare to something like the Blood Angels or Adeptus Custodes who have no subfactions and fewer units... you have the same number of stratagems - OR SOMETIMES MORE - and they are much more concentrated... so you might want to use 2 or 3 of them in a battle.

Instead of zero.

I actually think this is somewhat true of Guard (yes yes hear me out!)

There are some that are aces. Defensive Gunners, Crush Them, Commissar Tank (kinda), and Take Cover are all pretty good. Grenadiers is alright, if situational, but certainly not bad.

A good number though are bupkis.
Preliminary Bombardment? Yeah, no, thanks.
Reinforcement points and CP for Send in the Next Wave? Yeah, alright.
Fire on My Position: derp herp derp

I dunno. There actually are quite a few good stratagems, but the bad ones are REALLY bad.

Send In The Next Wave suffers for needing the reinforcement points garbage but I don't think Preliminary Bombardment is bad when it's only two CP and the army itself gathers a ridiculous amount of CP.

Fire On My Position might be funny with a suicidal drop from a Valkyrie but that's awful specific isn't it? That's almost a sorta list built around it.

Also that Sternguard Strategem? Only work with their special Bolters. How stupid is that?

 LunarSol wrote:
A pretty common problem with new features being rolled out across a game is that the first batch of them can't be too powerful or the have/have not issue becomes extreme; so they're balanced better against the generic version available to everything. As the feature matures and becomes widely available, developers are able to push it more and design in a world where everyone has options. Unfortunately, this leaves the early adopters who once enjoyed the privileged of having the best options by virtue of having the only options in the dust.

Unfortunately you have stumbled upon the core issue here.

GW does not want to make a balanced game. They intentionally make new content better than the previous content. It is a mockery from a standpoint of balance but is a brilliant strategy to sell plastic crack consistently on a quarterly basis.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

15 points isn't really "negligible", at least if you believe Martel. That's almost four Guardsmen.

Also, yes, you're right, but they're not troops. If you need CP for other things, you might want to stuff as many of your weapons into Troops slots as possible.

It's literally twice the Bolters as you can give the Sternguard Storm Bolters (would you rather have two Sternguard with Storm Bolters for 36 points or 3 Tactical Marines for 39? Exactly), and I've shown with math that Sternguard perform better anyway before. So if you want to spend extra points for the same Drop Pod strike, it'll actually go considerably better.

Also Marine armies can't get a lot of CP in the first place, so it isn't like you miss out on much (especially when Strategems were brought up just now). If you need the CP, Scouts will do the trick.

 Silentz wrote:
I apologize in advance as I am late to this thread and ithis could already have been said, but... a very big problem with Codex Adeptus Astartes is the Stratagems. They are SO bad when compared to other codexes. Almost all of them are either overpriced, or really situational and specific.

I think it's because there they tried to make specific stratagems for specific units AND chapters... and the marines have such ridiculous diversity they just ended end up with an atom-thin layer of synergy. It's rare to find more than 1 or 2 that are usable.

Honour the Chapter can do work, but costs 3CP
Chapter Master is nice. Again 3CP
Killshot is good if you own (and take) multiple predators - pretty situational.


All the others are bobbins.

Use this when a unit of scout bikes falls back? What?
+1 to wound with Sternguard. Too specific.
Use when an enemy psyker uses a power within 24″ of a Black Templars unit. I mean really.

Awful.

Compare to something like the Blood Angels or Adeptus Custodes who have no subfactions and fewer units... you have the same number of stratagems - OR SOMETIMES MORE - and they are much more concentrated... so you might want to use 2 or 3 of them in a battle.

Instead of zero.

My god, this x1000. Just played a 16 man tourney and boy do our strats suck.

Eldar popping out of webways, getting minuses to hit, moving units post deployment, advancing and charging. Stupid bugs shooting (SHOOTING!!!) twice, moving all over the place, effing anything psychic. Hell I played against index space wolves and he's deep striking hellblasters!!! (which I asupex'd with a unit of non-moving agressors and did....1 effing wound from 80ish shots w/ no re-rolls though)

I honestly used more re-roll cps than anything else which is embarrassing. I used aspex in one game and for poops and giggles did an orbital bombardment in another. Can't run 3 preds, they die too easy and give up too many points. I don't run an emperors champion or BA so if my characters outside of gman (Tiggy and a techmarine) are in combat something has gone terribly wrong. I actually used orbital bombardment against the nids, in the center of his horde, rolled a 6 for the range and did 2 mortal wounds.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
A pretty common problem with new features being rolled out across a game is that the first batch of them can't be too powerful or the have/have not issue becomes extreme; so they're balanced better against the generic version available to everything. As the feature matures and becomes widely available, developers are able to push it more and design in a world where everyone has options. Unfortunately, this leaves the early adopters who once enjoyed the privileged of having the best options by virtue of having the only options in the dust.

Unfortunately you have stumbled upon the core issue here.

GW does not want to make a balanced game. They intentionally make new content better than the previous content. It is a mockery from a standpoint of balance but is a brilliant strategy to sell plastic crack consistently on a quarterly basis.

Could have been true in 7th, but now this is just baseless GW bashing.

I get it that your marines are not performing as good as you would like, but statements like that make you lose any credibility.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
A pretty common problem with new features being rolled out across a game is that the first batch of them can't be too powerful or the have/have not issue becomes extreme; so they're balanced better against the generic version available to everything. As the feature matures and becomes widely available, developers are able to push it more and design in a world where everyone has options. Unfortunately, this leaves the early adopters who once enjoyed the privileged of having the best options by virtue of having the only options in the dust.

Unfortunately you have stumbled upon the core issue here.

GW does not want to make a balanced game. They intentionally make new content better than the previous content. It is a mockery from a standpoint of balance but is a brilliant strategy to sell plastic crack consistently on a quarterly basis.

Except they don't even do this.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

15 points isn't really "negligible", at least if you believe Martel. That's almost four Guardsmen.

Also, yes, you're right, but they're not troops. If you need CP for other things, you might want to stuff as many of your weapons into Troops slots as possible.

It's literally twice the Bolters as you can give the Sternguard Storm Bolters (would you rather have two Sternguard with Storm Bolters for 36 points or 3 Tactical Marines for 39? Exactly), and I've shown with math that Sternguard perform better anyway before. So if you want to spend extra points for the same Drop Pod strike, it'll actually go considerably better.

Also Marine armies can't get a lot of CP in the first place, so it isn't like you miss out on much (especially when Strategems were brought up just now). If you need the CP, Scouts will do the trick.

You're really missing the point?
There's only 4 bolter marines in the pod, and since there has to be 5 men in a Sternguard Squad, there will always be 4 bolter marines. That's 12 points already, so giving them all storm bolters just makes it 20 points more expensive instead, while the whole purpose of it is to drop some heavy and special weapons.

And yes, the scouts can get you more CP, it's true, but it's a "why not both?" case. The Tactical Marines take up troops slots and deliver 6/10 heavy weapons for fairly cheap. Yes, you could make them sternguard and do the same thing, but they're slightly more expensive and no longer take up troops slots. The fact that scouts can also come too just means that the list with the Tactical Marines has more CP and more points to spend while delivering fundamentally identical firepower. We all agree bolters are bad, and since it's the heavy weapons that do the heavy lifting, I'd argue that 6/10 heavy weapons on Sternguard isn't meaningfully better than 6/10 heavy weapons on Tactical Marines.

It's literally "Why don't you replace these two troops choices of Space Marines with two elites choices of Space Marines that do fundamentally the same thing, cost more, and at best give you 1CP instead of 3?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

15 points isn't really "negligible", at least if you believe Martel. That's almost four Guardsmen.

Also, yes, you're right, but they're not troops. If you need CP for other things, you might want to stuff as many of your weapons into Troops slots as possible.

4 guardsmen can block a critical charge. So, no, its not trivial.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

15 points isn't really "negligible", at least if you believe Martel. That's almost four Guardsmen.

Also, yes, you're right, but they're not troops. If you need CP for other things, you might want to stuff as many of your weapons into Troops slots as possible.

4 guardsmen can block a critical charge. So, no, its not trivial.

See, Slayer-Fan? Tactical marines are better in this case than Sternguard.

Not a huge fan of sternguard, really. Maybe because I'm BA. My elite slots go elsewhere. They are good for digging Eldar and Sisters out of cover, though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

15 points isn't really "negligible", at least if you believe Martel. That's almost four Guardsmen.

Also, yes, you're right, but they're not troops. If you need CP for other things, you might want to stuff as many of your weapons into Troops slots as possible.

It's literally twice the Bolters as you can give the Sternguard Storm Bolters (would you rather have two Sternguard with Storm Bolters for 36 points or 3 Tactical Marines for 39? Exactly), and I've shown with math that Sternguard perform better anyway before.

I seem to remember me showing that a well armed Tactical Squad could outperform your Sternguard loadout. I can roll out the math heavy debate you never responded back to again. If you've done some work since why don't you put up some numbers.

The Storm Bolters on Sternguard are pretty good, although the Special Issue Bolters fare better against elites (or marines in cover) and get the Stratagem. (3.3 vs. 2.2 using 10 man squads.)

As to why you might take 3 Tacs over 2 Sternguard? More wounds + obsec + CP.

The last game I had, I spent all my bolters and shotguns on electropriests. I'm glad I had more bodies and not sternguard.

I must say the last three games I've had, tac marines have done pretty well. The games were not vs Eldar or IG, though. Maybe the problem is not as heavily slanted towards marines as I originally though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

15 points isn't really "negligible", at least if you believe Martel. That's almost four Guardsmen.

Also, yes, you're right, but they're not troops. If you need CP for other things, you might want to stuff as many of your weapons into Troops slots as possible.

It's literally twice the Bolters as you can give the Sternguard Storm Bolters (would you rather have two Sternguard with Storm Bolters for 36 points or 3 Tactical Marines for 39? Exactly), and I've shown with math that Sternguard perform better anyway before. So if you want to spend extra points for the same Drop Pod strike, it'll actually go considerably better.

Also Marine armies can't get a lot of CP in the first place, so it isn't like you miss out on much (especially when Strategems were brought up just now). If you need the CP, Scouts will do the trick.

You're really missing the point?
There's only 4 bolter marines in the pod, and since there has to be 5 men in a Sternguard Squad, there will always be 4 bolter marines. That's 12 points already, so giving them all storm bolters just makes it 20 points more expensive instead, while the whole purpose of it is to drop some heavy and special weapons.

And yes, the scouts can get you more CP, it's true, but it's a "why not both?" case. The Tactical Marines take up troops slots and deliver 6/10 heavy weapons for fairly cheap. Yes, you could make them sternguard and do the same thing, but they're slightly more expensive and no longer take up troops slots. The fact that scouts can also come too just means that the list with the Tactical Marines has more CP and more points to spend while delivering fundamentally identical firepower. We all agree bolters are bad, and since it's the heavy weapons that do the heavy lifting, I'd argue that 6/10 heavy weapons on Sternguard isn't meaningfully better than 6/10 heavy weapons on Tactical Marines.

It's literally "Why don't you replace these two troops choices of Space Marines with two elites choices of Space Marines that do fundamentally the same thing, cost more, and at best give you 1CP instead of 3?"

Except it's implied Scouts are already taken is the point. It's one of the main screeners in the codex, so you're taking them. 3 squads probably. Boom there's your tax. Now you just buy your Devastators or Sternguard.

It isn't you need to choose between Scouts and Tactical Marines as the Scouts are taken. Why waste more points on the now non-existent tax?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The last game I had, I spent all my bolters and shotguns on electropriests. I'm glad I had more bodies and not sternguard.

I must say the last three games I've had, tac marines have done pretty well. The games were not vs Eldar or IG, though. Maybe the problem is not as heavily slanted towards marines as I originally though.

A Sternguard with a Storm Bolter gets twice the shots for 5 points more.

I don't have any modeled, and I'm not going to at this point. But sure, I guess.

*complains Marines doesn't have CPs, then doesn't get the concept of bringing 2 Battalions*

If you already have scouts, then your choices are:

1) Bring 2 Sternguard. Pay 15 more points per squad, unless they have storm bolters on the non-weapon carriers, and then it's 19 more points per squad, for a total of 38 points for 2 squads.

2) Bring 2 Tactical Marines, and instead spend those other 40 points to another 5-man scout squad. Congrats, you're only 2 of the very good SM HQ's away from fielding a second battalion for 3 more CP! Hooray! And you've built up your screens to boot.

Personally, I've been leaning towards brigades at 2K, but double battalion works as well. Arguably, its better for BA than it is for regular marines, but techmarines are a perfectly legit choice for everyone now. Repairing a pred or a razor can be very annoying for the opponent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

So guard are too tough with a 5+, but a space marine who still gets a save vs. Plasma doesn't help. 5+ vs. AP-2, 6+ vs Ap-3. Not to mention potential cover bonus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure tournament statistics show big wins for your style of list either, so I could probably make a mirrored claim. Or just claim that ITC has limited relevance to the majority of the player base at that. The holy "proof" of tournament statistics has its limits.

My style of lists for 8th definitely have not shown up I know, as they're basically all experiments and theories from extensive Mathhammer, observation, and tournament trends and counters, and so on. However the trends can be followed pretty easily for this edition (so yes I do get annoyed with people who don't understand something showing up once in a blue moon isn't proof) and I've made several correct calls in 6th and 7th, have I not?

No credit is given. The meta has changed quickly over the past 8 months and ITC appears to give different statistical results than BRB, CA, and Open War missions, which probably represent the vast majority of games "in the wild".

That post also makes it sound like you don't play much. Just curious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 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.

The Tactical Squad and its loadout is iconic in and of itself. Don't mess with it. This also helps the identity of CSM in that they have less regimented equipment options.

Imo changes to tac marines should not interfere with their aesthetic. Changes like "Tacs get to fire an extra shot with bolters." are much peferrable.

1. That Guardsman not getting a save is 4 points. The Marine getting a 6+ save is 13 points. You're skipping points entirely.
2. I'm not asking "credit" for anything. I'm asking how many incorrect calls I've made in 6th/7th and so far in 8th.
Regarding how much I play, I gotta play with borrowed models at the moment so it's a few times a month for the time being. That doesn't have bearing on whether or not I can do basic math though when you forget that "save" the Marine has is essentially non-existent. On a model that is 3x the cost.
3. Nobody cares about what you think is iconic. That has no bearing on game balance. The 1 Special/1 Heavy at 10 dudes is outdated and needs to go.

1. Nobody's ignoring points. In fact sometimes that's the argument for Tacs over Sternguard It's certainly why I don't spend lot's of extra points on T4 3+ save models.
2. You're saying you're not asking for credit, and then you're asking for credit again. I'm sure I can dig up some incorrect calls if I had to. As for basic math, I think you're relying on it too much and not modelling it out enough to build a holistic picture. Nor have you addressed the fact that the tournament statistics you're drawing upon have flawed underpinnings because of the differences in ITC missions and what most people actually play.
3. "So one cares what you think." isn't an argument. As for game balance, Slayer: "people need to quit suggesting to make Marines into a horde army" is a fluff argument, not a game balance one. Adjusting points can be used as a tool for balance as much as as buffing stats etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't many any sense when you can just buy your bizarre all-Bolter (WHY) as a separate squad in the first place and get an extra Sergeant...

I think his point was that Combat Squad lets him get a Heavy, Special, and Combi into a 5 man, so he can fit 2 of said 5-man squads into a pod, giving it a heavy/special weapon density of 6/10, while simultaneously giving him cheap (yes yes for marines, I know they're not Guard), expendable, durable marines that can chill out and do other things in the backfield.

Devastators will do the same thing, as will Sternguard (and Sternguard will have either Storm Bolters or their special ones, which is considerably better firepower for a negligible price difference).

15 points isn't really "negligible", at least if you believe Martel. That's almost four Guardsmen.

Also, yes, you're right, but they're not troops. If you need CP for other things, you might want to stuff as many of your weapons into Troops slots as possible.

It's literally twice the Bolters as you can give the Sternguard Storm Bolters (would you rather have two Sternguard with Storm Bolters for 36 points or 3 Tactical Marines for 39? Exactly), and I've shown with math that Sternguard perform better anyway before.

I seem to remember me showing that a well armed Tactical Squad could outperform your Sternguard loadout. I can roll out the math heavy debate you never responded back to again. If you've done some work since why don't you put up some numbers.

The Storm Bolters on Sternguard are pretty good, although the Special Issue Bolters fare better against elites (or marines in cover) and get the Stratagem. (3.3 vs. 2.2 using 10 man squads.)

As to why you might take 3 Tacs over 2 Sternguard? More wounds + obsec + CP.

No I already did respond to it and the Tactical Squad was garbage. Only a couple more wounds doesnt matter when the damage output is that much smaller as I showed.
Also the math shows that the Storm Bolter actually outperforms on most targets, and the Strategem ends up not helping a lot in most cases, especially against screening unit types. That's a saved CP there basically for something more important like a reroll or Helfire/Flakks.

Also Objective Secured is a useless rule and Scouts are already taken for the CP.

I almost always play ITC missions. But against Eldar/IG, it usually doesn't matter.

I hope you didn't miss my reply as well, Slayer-Fan. I am honestly curious if you think Marines can't take two battalions for some reason.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No I already did respond to it and the Tactical Squad was garbage. .

Link

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
A pretty common problem with new features being rolled out across a game is that the first batch of them can't be too powerful or the have/have not issue becomes extreme; so they're balanced better against the generic version available to everything. As the feature matures and becomes widely available, developers are able to push it more and design in a world where everyone has options. Unfortunately, this leaves the early adopters who once enjoyed the privileged of having the best options by virtue of having the only options in the dust.

Unfortunately you have stumbled upon the core issue here.

GW does not want to make a balanced game. They intentionally make new content better than the previous content. It is a mockery from a standpoint of balance but is a brilliant strategy to sell plastic crack consistently on a quarterly basis.

Except they don't even do this.

You don't notice the progressive power shift as time goes on? DA is laughably better than codex marines. Nids/eldar/AM are much better than the first armies to be released. Tau/DE/Necrons will really be telling. Though I expect DE will not be on par with eldar - just because that's the way it has always been.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
*complains Marines doesn't have CPs, then doesn't get the concept of bringing 2 Battalions*

If you already have scouts, then your choices are:

1) Bring 2 Sternguard. Pay 15 more points per squad, unless they have storm bolters on the non-weapon carriers, and then it's 19 more points per squad, for a total of 38 points for 2 squads.

2) Bring 2 Tactical Marines, and instead spend those other 40 points to another 5-man scout squad. Congrats, you're only 2 of the very good SM HQ's away from fielding a second battalion for 3 more CP! Hooray! And you've built up your screens to boot.

Which means if you're playing a large enough game that Marines need two battalions you need more screening. So we are back to Scouts. So I don't see how that applies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No I already did respond to it and the Tactical Squad was garbage. .

Link

If you really think I remember which thread that is, you'd be mistaken as that was weeks ago.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
*complains Marines doesn't have CPs, then doesn't get the concept of bringing 2 Battalions*

If you already have scouts, then your choices are:

1) Bring 2 Sternguard. Pay 15 more points per squad, unless they have storm bolters on the non-weapon carriers, and then it's 19 more points per squad, for a total of 38 points for 2 squads.

2) Bring 2 Tactical Marines, and instead spend those other 40 points to another 5-man scout squad. Congrats, you're only 2 of the very good SM HQ's away from fielding a second battalion for 3 more CP! Hooray! And you've built up your screens to boot.

Which means if you're playing a large enough game that Marines need two battalions you need more screening. So we are back to Scouts. So I don't see how that applies.

What are you even on about?

You literally complained earlier that Marines don't have enough CPs. 500 points is a large enough game to bring 2 battalions, if you want. For guard, you could bring like 3, lol. I'm saying that you get the same heavy weapon density, with the same chapter tactics, at the same ballistic skill, AND become damn near the whole way to a battalion, while being altogether cheaper.

If you don't understand why that's good, then I don't think you're as good at this game as you claim to be. Double battalion is fantastic, gives you more options, and if you're already doing 2-squads of pod sternguard, you could do 2-squads of pod tacticals for cheaper and with more CPs. That's... like, obviously better. I can't even conceive of why you wouldn't trade 4 Storm Bolters for like, 3 CPs and 38 points, lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
A pretty common problem with new features being rolled out across a game is that the first batch of them can't be too powerful or the have/have not issue becomes extreme; so they're balanced better against the generic version available to everything. As the feature matures and becomes widely available, developers are able to push it more and design in a world where everyone has options. Unfortunately, this leaves the early adopters who once enjoyed the privileged of having the best options by virtue of having the only options in the dust.

Unfortunately you have stumbled upon the core issue here.

GW does not want to make a balanced game. They intentionally make new content better than the previous content. It is a mockery from a standpoint of balance but is a brilliant strategy to sell plastic crack consistently on a quarterly basis.

It's actually a different kind of problem than what is traditionally considered power creep. It happens when you implement a new feature that you want to be a core perhaps even defining part of the game and try to do it incrementally. Warmachine ran into something similar with themes in MK3, where they wanted to release the themes as a big push on a model type over time, but eventually realized the only way to work was to give players access to all of them right away, even if some were unfinished and unsupported. MK3 and 8th are actually remarkably similar experiences, IMO, with 8th letting me reexperience the ups and downs of MK3 with almost a perfect year's lag.

Usually when i run double battalion, I'm looking at 3Xscouts, 2 tacs, and an intercessor.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

So guard are too tough with a 5+, but a space marine who still gets a save vs. Plasma doesn't help. 5+ vs. AP-2, 6+ vs Ap-3. Not to mention potential cover bonus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure tournament statistics show big wins for your style of list either, so I could probably make a mirrored claim. Or just claim that ITC has limited relevance to the majority of the player base at that. The holy "proof" of tournament statistics has its limits.

My style of lists for 8th definitely have not shown up I know, as they're basically all experiments and theories from extensive Mathhammer, observation, and tournament trends and counters, and so on. However the trends can be followed pretty easily for this edition (so yes I do get annoyed with people who don't understand something showing up once in a blue moon isn't proof) and I've made several correct calls in 6th and 7th, have I not?

No credit is given. The meta has changed quickly over the past 8 months and ITC appears to give different statistical results than BRB, CA, and Open War missions, which probably represent the vast majority of games "in the wild".

That post also makes it sound like you don't play much. Just curious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 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.

The Tactical Squad and its loadout is iconic in and of itself. Don't mess with it. This also helps the identity of CSM in that they have less regimented equipment options.

Imo changes to tac marines should not interfere with their aesthetic. Changes like "Tacs get to fire an extra shot with bolters." are much peferrable.

1. That Guardsman not getting a save is 4 points. The Marine getting a 6+ save is 13 points. You're skipping points entirely.
2. I'm not asking "credit" for anything. I'm asking how many incorrect calls I've made in 6th/7th and so far in 8th.
Regarding how much I play, I gotta play with borrowed models at the moment so it's a few times a month for the time being. That doesn't have bearing on whether or not I can do basic math though when you forget that "save" the Marine has is essentially non-existent. On a model that is 3x the cost.
3. Nobody cares about what you think is iconic. That has no bearing on game balance. The 1 Special/1 Heavy at 10 dudes is outdated and needs to go.

1. Nobody's ignoring points. In fact sometimes that's the argument for Tacs over Sternguard It's certainly why I don't spend lot's of extra points on T4 3+ save models.
2. You're saying you're not asking for credit, and then you're asking for credit again. I'm sure I can dig up some incorrect calls if I had to. As for basic math, I think you're relying on it too much and not modelling it out enough to build a holistic picture. Nor have you addressed the fact that the tournament statistics you're drawing upon have flawed underpinnings because of the differences in ITC missions and what most people actually play.
3. "So one cares what you think." isn't an argument. As for game balance, Slayer: "people need to quit suggesting to make Marines into a horde army" is a fluff argument, not a game balance one. Adjusting points can be used as a tool for balance as much as as buffing stats etc.

1. Which means you need to hit harder for the price. The price difference is negligible for literally twice the firepower.
2. Feel free to. Only one I can't really back up is if 7th Genestealer Cult would break the meta as 7th ended too quickly before enough people could get their armies put together. I started running Flamers and Combi-Flamers with my CSM just because of fearing them though if that says anything.
3. I'm saying nobody cares about what you think is the iconic load out as that should have no bearing on crunch. Tactical Marines haven't worked for YEARS because of it.