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.

Only if you consider the cheaper GEQs, per point, and no cover.

Take an average GEQ or go per model or allow cover, and it's very different.

Once again, DAs give up nearly *twice* the points per hit from S4AP0.

It's just horde GEQs who's schtick is being points-efficient wounds who don't.

Martel732 wrote:
Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about.

With a 2+ save in cover 40 bolter shots is about equivalent to 6 plasma shots (the plasma is better) if it's primaris marines with 2 wounds - now we are in the realm of 80 bolter shots to 6 plasma shots.

40 marines with bolters do the damage of 3 sterngaurd with plasma shooting into cover against primaris marines. Str 4 is not the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Only if you consider the cheaper GEQs, per point, and no cover.

Take an average GEQ or go per model or allow cover, and it's very different.

Once again, DAs give up nearly *twice* the points per hit from S4AP0.

It's just horde GEQs who's schtick is being points-efficient wounds who don't.

Please don't start talking about DA. They suck too - they and most aspect warriors can join the we suck crew - they should all get a real buff. Dire avengers should probably all have 4++ saves with 3 shot avenger cat at 12 points.

Ok.

Guardians.

Guardians lose more points per S4 hit than Tacs.

Storm Guardians.

Fire Warriors.

Scions.

Even Kabs (t3 5+) lose slightly more points/hit from S4 unless they have FnP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Also, I wouldn't say DAs suck.)

My drukhari opponents are ignoring cover all the time now. Quit assuming cover. It's a terrible assumption.

And yes, DA suck hard.

Due to their cost, almost every weapon in the game is bad news for marines. Some are just way worse than others.

If only Marines could ignore cover? Maybe they could do some homebrew chapter with some tactics? Maybe call them Imperial Fists? Maybe a different name, as that's too close to Iron Hands.

At any rate, a 6ppm Kab at t3 5+ no FnP still gives up more points than a 13ppm Tac marine at t3 3+. Without considering cover. With considering cover, Tac Marines are scary good at tanking S4AP0. The no-FnP thing is kinda a stretch, though - which is why I listed them last.

There are a lot of GEQ that aren't Guardsmen. All the other GEQ on that list will typically give up more points per hit of S4 than Marines.

Because ignoring cover against drukhari is so useful.

Only marines have to cower in cover to pretend to be cost effective. Imperials have all kinds of stuff good at hosing other imperials, but largely suck vs xenos. See: melta.

There is one geq: guardsmen. The others have signficant divergences. But now this is semantics. But t3 != geq.

When the point is "they're more points-efficient then all these GEQ outside cover", claiming they have to cower in cover isn't a solid path to refute the claim.

Martel732 wrote:
My drukhari opponents are ignoring cover all the time now. Quit assuming cover. It's a terrible assumption.

And yes, DA suck hard.

Due to their cost, almost every weapon in the game is bad news for marines. Some are just way worse than others.

Well - flayed skull is OP - DE are OP in general. There is no denying that.

They're still not more efficient because they have fewer shots of their own. And they suffer disproportionately from any amount of ap. Any given opponent doesn't care how fast your marines die if they can be ignored in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My drukhari opponents are ignoring cover all the time now. Quit assuming cover. It's a terrible assumption.

And yes, DA suck hard.

Due to their cost, almost every weapon in the game is bad news for marines. Some are just way worse than others.

Well - flayed skull is OP - DE are OP in general. There is no denying that.

I suspect someone is going to try here.

Bharring wrote:
If only Marines could ignore cover? Maybe they could do some homebrew chapter with some tactics? Maybe call them Imperial Fists? Maybe a different name, as that's too close to Iron Hands.

At any rate, a 6ppm Kab at t3 5+ no FnP still gives up more points than a 13ppm Tac marine at t3 3+. Without considering cover. With considering cover, Tac Marines are scary good at tanking S4AP0. The no-FnP thing is kinda a stretch, though - which is why I listed them last.

There are a lot of GEQ that aren't Guardsmen. All the other GEQ on that list will typically give up more points per hit of S4 than Marines.

I have long argued that the imperial fist have one of the best chapter tactics in the codex - the message got lost somewhere inbetween people arguing that cover is useless when it is in fact more effective now than it has ever been.. Unfortunately - space marines don't get 3 in one chapter tactics like flayed skull...reroll 1's/ ignore cover/ plus bonus move speed. Like holy gak man. Why do I have to explain to people that getting 3 army traits (really 4 because power from pain is army wide too *don't even mention ATSKNF*) is better than getting 1. lol. Plus it applies to all their units! Like come on man.

Have you seen Urien Rakarths buff? The dude costs like 80 points and gives out a +1s +1t +1a bubble and his army trait is +1 to invo save...WHAT THE ACTUAL GAK? That's better than guillimans aura at that price.

Martel732 wrote:
Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about.

This. The point of the buff isn't to make MEQ's more resilient to anti-MEQ weapons. Anti-MEQs SHOULD be doing decent damage aginst MEQs - afterall, that's the point of those weapons.

But there's too many anti-meq weapons, too.

Martel732 wrote:
But there's too many anti-meq weapons, too.

And we'd agree that's a whole new can of worms

Yeah that's my point. Why would I ever take a primaris marine. It's 2 wounds are NEVER going to matter.

Does that count as moving goalposts or strawmen?

Specifically:
"Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about."

is what I was refuting. I was not claiming that Tacs are the best troops. I was correcting an inaccurate statement. Tacs take less damage from S4 AP0 than many GEQs. Even outside of cover. I've even listed a bunch of them.

This is why these threads always go so sideways. A claim gets made. It gets refuted. The refutation is assumed to claim any given person's favorite strawman, and that rebuttle supposedly reinforces the original claim.

It is indeed. This is why i advocate for keeping marines crappy but make them cheaper.

 skchsan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about.

This. The point of the buff isn't to make MEQ's more resilient to anti-MEQ weapons. Anti-MEQs SHOULD be doing decent damage aginst MEQs - afterall, that's the point of those weapons.

currently anything with -1 ap or more or ignore cover is an anti meq weapon.

Bharring wrote:
Does that count as moving goalposts or strawmen?

Specifically:
"Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about."

is what I was refuting. I was not claiming that Tacs are the best troops. I was correcting an inaccurate statement. Tacs take less damage from S4 AP0 than many GEQs. Even outside of cover. I've even listed a bunch of them.

This is why these threads always go so sideways. A claim gets made. It gets refuted. The refutation is assumed to claim any given person's favorite strawman, and that rebuttle supposedly reinforces the original claim.

So you are technically correct, but its such a moot point i moved past it. Sorry. I would also argue those aren't geqs. But semantics.

Bharring wrote:
Does that count as moving goalposts or strawmen?

Specifically:
"Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about."

is what I was refuting. I was not claiming that Tacs are the best troops. I was correcting an inaccurate statement. Tacs take less damage from S4 AP0 than many GEQs. Even outside of cover. I've even listed a bunch of them.

This is why these threads always go so sideways. A claim gets made. It gets refuted. The refutation is assumed to claim any given person's favorite strawman, and that rebuttle supposedly reinforces the original claim.

I agree with you. Marines do pretty well against other troops - primaris do great against other troops. The probelms is they don't ever get a chance to fight other troops because everything special kills them TOO EASY - lots of weapons treat a marine like a GEQ - THAT is the problem. I'm not suggesting that only tacticals get this fix ether - any 3+ or 4+ save model that is over 12 points needs to have something like this astrates built rule. It is a fundamental problem of point costs / and the d6 system being unable to really differentiate between 4 point models and 13 point ones - we have to cover the gaps with special rules.

Oh, yeah, escalation of firepower is probably the root of all evil in the game.

My "ideal" balance level would revolve around Marines and Boltguns. I feel like their stats and killiness are correct when compared against "basic humans" and "basic Eldar" and "basic Orkz". But you're never facing those - you're always facing "thing +1".

It's part of why I'm so resistant to "solving" the problem by just upping Marines' killiness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you were to nerf all those "anti-Meq" too-good weapons, wouldn't that inherently buff Tacs?

Bharring wrote:
Oh, yeah, escalation of firepower is probably the root of all evil in the game.

My "ideal" balance level would revolve around Marines and Boltguns. I feel like their stats and killiness are correct when compared against "basic humans" and "basic Eldar" and "basic Orkz". But you're never facing those - you're always facing "thing +1".

It's part of why I'm so resistant to "solving" the problem by just upping Marines' killiness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you were to nerf all those "anti-Meq" too-good weapons, wouldn't that inherently buff Tacs?

It would solve their defense problem - which is the main problem I have with marines - they still have a mobility problem too though.

Bharring wrote:
Oh, yeah, escalation of firepower is probably the root of all evil in the game.

My "ideal" balance level would revolve around Marines and Boltguns. I feel like their stats and killiness are correct when compared against "basic humans" and "basic Eldar" and "basic Orkz". But you're never facing those - you're always facing "thing +1".

It's part of why I'm so resistant to "solving" the problem by just upping Marines' killiness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you were to nerf all those "anti-Meq" too-good weapons, wouldn't that inherently buff Tacs?

Yes, it would, but it's FAR easier to just accept the fragility of marines and cost them accordingly. That, and make them more of a dpr unit. Remember marine troops have to take on heavies and elites from the specialist armies because those armies aren't spending on troops themselves.

Troop vs troop comparisons are largely useless. Guardsmen are just there to die, Kabalites are always in a boat, etc. Lists are designed to minimize troops and maximize offense very frequently.

Bharring wrote:
Only if you consider the cheaper GEQs, per point, and no cover.

Take an average GEQ or go per model or allow cover, and it's very different.

Once again, DAs give up nearly *twice* the points per hit from S4AP0.

It's just horde GEQs who's schtick is being points-efficient wounds who don't.

Per point is kinda the issue there, along with the offensive firepower they give as well. The bare bones Tactical Marine squad is 65 points. That's several configurations with an Infantry Squad.

65 points? Also known as "less than a Guardian squad"

Read further down the thread. The list of GEQs that lose more points per S4 hit than Marines outside cover isn't short.

Again, not claiming Tacs are in a good place. That comment was specifically discounting the idea that Tacs lose more points than GEQs per S4AP0 hit.

The whole point is, there are plethora of weapons that outright kill marines, both 1W and 2W versions - S4 and below should not be one of them.

DKoK example serves as a precedent for a particular rule that already exists that doesnt necessarilly break the game.

If tacs served as a meat shields against the plasma shots that were meant to be for something else, they would have done FAR MORE than the weight they carry now. Right now, tacs can be dealt with leftover S3/4 shots.

Also, s4 from a necron blob with thy will be done and tbe extra ap trait is terrifying for marines, and just another day for geqs. Not all s4 is the same.

Also note that eldar infantry is currenty awful as well.

Maybe I just don't run into a lot of Necron blobs with S4AP0 after popping the extra AP trait. But I suspect most people don't run into Necron blobs doing S4AP0. As in, that's not the rules.

I wasn't taking about AP 0. I was talking about AP -2. AP0 is becomingly rare, and increasingly a poor measuring stick. But I suppose we covered that, too.

The upgunning is real. Ignore cover is real (the vanilla guys are beginning to rethink Imperial fists after see how nuts Flayed skull is). Imperial lists having a guard battalion EVERY time is real. This makes guardsmen the measuring stick not other T3 dum dums. In this context, even what few "advantages" we are talking here for marines seem to be fading.

If Guardsmen are the only GEQ in your worldview, and SM are one of several MEQ, then why would you rebalance the SM instead of the Guardsman?

We both do agree the upgunning is real. And that Guardsmen are too common/too good.

I think we're going to continue to disagree on GEQ meaning only Guardsmen, and not others with similar statlines.

The other t3 models just aren't that relevant. I'm not counting kabalites, as they are always in a boat that they can shoot out of, so they are effectively t5.

Kabalites have crushed my hopes that guardsmen will be rebalanced, leaving cheap marines as the last option. When disintegrators are 15 pts, can you blame me?

As for eldar, i've seen many lists now that bring zero troops and roll with 6 cp.