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.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Leave your arm chair psychology at the door. I do not think i'm being persecuted.

You have said you still feel traumatized from 2nd, which was what, two decades ago? The fact that you complain about marines because of that trauma but seem to be completely unaffected by the amazing vanilla marines books that came after, not to mention specifically for you when BA had a very strong codex in 5th.

The 3rd ed codex was rocking as well.

To be fair, Lootas were absolute murder. If a 7th list was built with them and other threats like them, it would destroy things.

Unfortunately, nothing else in the book really synergizes with them or has a similar threat profile.

So Lootas were murder, but lists that included Lootas got murdered.

Bharring wrote:
To be fair, Lootas were absolute murder. If a 7th list was built with them and other threats like them, it would destroy things.

Unfortunately, nothing else in the book really synergizes with them or has a similar threat profile.

So Lootas were murder, but lists that included Lootas got murdered.

....Except against any vehicles with cover/armor saves Those 10 lootas average 20 shots, less then 7 hits and against AV12 they managed a grand total of 2 Pens/glances with no chance to explode. if they get a save of any kind its even lower. And what AV10-12 vehicles do you know of that cost 150pts? Rhinos (AV 11) were what? 40-50pts? A trukk was 35pts, so they were really good at killing 50pt vehicles. So 10 lootas (140pts) were able to reliably kill 50pts of a vehicle.

And against infantry like Space Marines? 10 lootas = 20 shots, 7 hits and 6 wounds for a grand total of 2 dead Space Marines. No, they were only good against AV10-11 and nothing else really...unless you had really expensive models with a 4+ save that needed to die


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And of course that isn't even touching on the fact that if any unit so much as sneezed at them and they weren't in cover they were dying in droves, or if they were in cover you just needed to hit them with any number of ignores cover weapons and watch them die.

SemperMortis wrote:

And of course that isn't even touching on the fact that if any unit so much as sneezed at them and they weren't in cover they were dying in droves, or if they were in cover you just needed to hit them with any number of ignores cover weapons and watch them die.

Or any number of anything to get them to fail morale

SemperMortis wrote:

Bharring wrote:
To be fair, Lootas were absolute murder. If a 7th list was built with them and other threats like them, it would destroy things.

Unfortunately, nothing else in the book really synergizes with them or has a similar threat profile.

So Lootas were murder, but lists that included Lootas got murdered.

....Except against any vehicles with cover/armor saves Those 10 lootas average 20 shots, less then 7 hits and against AV12 they managed a grand total of 2 Pens/glances with no chance to explode. if they get a save of any kind its even lower.

Which, if you look at the math, isn't bad at all, unless you're only comparing to the absolute most broken units.

Lets take a Trilas predator against an AV12 vehicle in 4+ cover, we get 2.2 hits, 1.48 glances/pen's, 0.74 HP's, and one explodes result about every 11 rounds of fire.

Ten Lootas against an AV12 vehicle in cover are averaging 20 shots, 6.66 hits, 2.22 glances/pens, 1.11HP's after cover.

So the Lootas are inflicting over 50% more HP damage in exchange for giving up one Explodes result every two games. The chance to explode is mostly a red-herring, most weapons couldn't explode vehicles, and of those that could, invariably the chance was so low, and the number of HP's most vehicles had was so low, that it rarely came up. With only 3HP's on most vehicles, and only 2HP's on many AV10/11 vehicles, Explodes results were too rare to count for much on any sort of consistent basis. Unless we're talking something like a drop podded Sternguard melta squad, but that's another matter. HP removal was the name of the game, and Lootas were really good at that.

And what AV10-12 vehicles do you know of that cost 150pts? Rhinos (AV 11) were what? 40-50pts? A trukk was 35pts, so they were really good at killing 50pt vehicles. So 10 lootas (140pts) were able to reliably kill 50pts of a vehicle.

These AV values compose 80%+ of the vehicles in the game. Everything from 35pt Rhinos to 200+pt Stormravens, and everything in between. Dreadnoughts, Basilisks, Hellhounds, Fire Prisms, Hunters, Raiders, Chimeras, Killa Kans, Defilers, Helldrakes, Taurox Primes, Stormravens, Ravagers Wave Serpents, Stalkers, Forgefiends, Devilfish, Wyverns, Manticores, Falcons, Night Scythes, etc.

And against infantry like Space Marines? 10 lootas = 20 shots, 7 hits and 6 wounds for a grand total of 2 dead Space Marines.

So, about as many as Leman Russ Exterminator sporting triple heavy bolters and a twin linked 4 shot autocannon for the same price (debatable whether a single AV14/13/10 tank or 10 T4 6+ infantry are more survivable in 7E), or one with an actual AP3 battlecannon given the variability involved in that thing

And of course that isn't even touching on the fact that if any unit so much as sneezed at them and they weren't in cover they were dying in droves or if they were in cover you just needed to hit them with any number of ignores cover weapons and watch them die.

Same thing applied to basically all infantry in 7E, there's nothing unique about Lootas there.

What I meant was that, if properly complemented and supported in the right army build, that's a scary threat, and should be one of many with a similar profile. Glass cannon, and can pack quite a punch over a long range. So if there are lots of threats, the opponent needs to pick which threats they would shoot at.

Unfortunately, Orkz don't/didn't have units that can complement the Lootas. So the enemy can just blast the one threat off the table. Well, 3, you could take 3 squads - which is small enough that the enemy could just blast them away. And nothing else in your list had anywhere near that threat potential.

S7 was scary for AV12 and below. It wounded almost everything but vehicles and MCs on 2s. Piled wounds even on high-T MCs (which typically had decend ++ saves, so spammed high-S bad-AP was great in those days).

But how are some glass cannon backfielders going to complement a durable mob of da Boyz or high-AV vehicles or high-T Bikes? They don't.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Lets take a Trilas predator against an AV12 vehicle in 4+ cover, we get 2.2 hits, 1.48 glances/pen's, 0.74 HP's, and one explodes result about every 11 rounds of fire.

Ten Lootas against an AV12 vehicle in cover are averaging 20 shots, 6.66 hits, 2.22 glances/pens, 1.11HP's after cover.

So the Lootas are inflicting over 50% more HP damage in exchange for giving up one Explodes result every two games. The chance to explode is mostly a red-herring, most weapons couldn't explode vehicles, and of those that could, invariably the chance was so low, and the number of HP's most vehicles had was so low, that it rarely came up. With only 3HP's on most vehicles, and only 2HP's on many AV10/11 vehicles, Explodes results were too rare to count for much on any sort of consistent basis. Unless we're talking something like a drop podded Sternguard melta squad, but that's another matter. HP removal was the name of the game, and Lootas were really good at that.

No, they are inflicting 50% more HP damage in exchange for giving up 1 explodes every 2 games AND durability, but that doesn't factor into your calculations because its drastically in favor of the pred right?

These AV values compose 80%+ of the vehicles in the game. Everything from 35pt Rhinos to 200+pt Stormravens, and everything in between. Dreadnoughts, Basilisks, Hellhounds, Fire Prisms, Hunters, Raiders, Chimeras, Killa Kans, Defilers, Helldrakes, Taurox Primes, Stormravens, Ravagers Wave Serpents, Stalkers, Forgefiends, Devilfish, Wyverns, Manticores, Falcons, Night Scythes, etc.

All the flyers you just named are also only being hit on a 6+, Nobody even took half the vehicles in competitive lists because they were crap, Kanz for example, and of the remainder, most were significantly long ranged and sat in cover all game OR had a built in invuln. Again, they were good at killing light vehicles....that didn't have a save, so those 30-60pt vehicles were dying turn 1. But so were the lootas.

So, about as many as Leman Russ Exterminator sporting triple heavy bolters and a twin linked 4 shot autocannon for the same price (debatable whether a single AV14/13/10 tank or 10 T4 6+ infantry are more survivable in 7E), or one with an actual AP3 battlecannon given the variability involved in that thing

How about versus a true anti-infantry weapon then instead of yet another example of a unit not taken in competitive lists that won tournaments. Hell, even IG guardsmen for the same points cost put out a lot more damage then that.

Same thing applied to basically all infantry in 7E, there's nothing unique about Lootas there.

Really? I don't remember space Marines, necrons or even eldar warriors folding nearly as rapidly as a 6+ save T4 model that costs about the same as a tactical Space Marine.


You keep comparing lootas to crappy units and then going "see they were awesome". yes compared to other crap they were ok. Compare them to a good unit and magically they suck. Compared to almost any other factions premier anti-vehicle weapons and they sucked, compared to almost any other factions premier anti-infantry weapons and they sucked. They were expensive and lacked meaningful damage output beyond a single turn or two, and even then only if they rolled average or above average and didn't die before they got a chance to shoot, and since there were no other long ranged threats, lootas tended to receive more then their fair share of dakka on turn 1.

How do they compare to Scat bikes for Eldar, how about sternguard for Marines or even centurions? how about necron infantry who could kill a Land raider faster then Lootas could kill a predator. How about vs tau broadsides? who wins those contests?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Lets take a Trilas predator against an AV12 vehicle in 4+ cover, we get 2.2 hits, 1.48 glances/pen's, 0.74 HP's, and one explodes result about every 11 rounds of fire.

Ten Lootas against an AV12 vehicle in cover are averaging 20 shots, 6.66 hits, 2.22 glances/pens, 1.11HP's after cover.

So the Lootas are inflicting over 50% more HP damage in exchange for giving up one Explodes result every two games. The chance to explode is mostly a red-herring, most weapons couldn't explode vehicles, and of those that could, invariably the chance was so low, and the number of HP's most vehicles had was so low, that it rarely came up. With only 3HP's on most vehicles, and only 2HP's on many AV10/11 vehicles, Explodes results were too rare to count for much on any sort of consistent basis. Unless we're talking something like a drop podded Sternguard melta squad, but that's another matter. HP removal was the name of the game, and Lootas were really good at that.

No, they are inflicting 50% more HP damage in exchange for giving up 1 explodes every 2 games AND durability, but that doesn't factor into your calculations because its drastically in favor of the pred right?

Well, again, my original statement was in regards to their ability to kill light and medium vehicles, but even getting into durability, a single AV13/11/10 3HP vehicle in 7E wasn't particularly more resilient than a unit of 10 T4 6+sv infantry. It's got decent front armor, but not so impressive side armor, only 3 "wounds", can be crippled or killed by damage table results, and has no armor or invul save, it's not exactly the sturdiest thing in a the universe, especially in 7E where so much stuff ignored AV or T or just had gobs of volume of fire. The tank doesn't have to worry about Morale and has higher Toughness. The Lootas have far more wounds and don't have to deal with a damage table or facing concerns. Neither has a meaningful armor or invul save. What's more durable in 7E? Broadly I think neither.

These AV values compose 80%+ of the vehicles in the game. Everything from 35pt Rhinos to 200+pt Stormravens, and everything in between. Dreadnoughts, Basilisks, Hellhounds, Fire Prisms, Hunters, Raiders, Chimeras, Killa Kans, Defilers, Helldrakes, Taurox Primes, Stormravens, Ravagers Wave Serpents, Stalkers, Forgefiends, Devilfish, Wyverns, Manticores, Falcons, Night Scythes, etc.

All the flyers you just named are also only being hit on a 6+

Sure, but that's mitigated much more in the Orks favor than for other factions, as being naturally built around BS2 they had a lot more shots than other units when they're all hitting on 6's.

, Nobody even took half the vehicles in competitive lists because they were crap, Kanz for example,

Sure, not all of those were great competitively, but many were.

and of the remainder, most were significantly long ranged

The Lootas were outranged by few vehicles in this list to be fair.

and sat in cover all game

Sure, the enemy gets a say in some things, but that's not unique to Lootas.

OR had a built in invuln

Sure, but these were also the more expensive vehicles, a Defiler's got 4HP and a 5+ invul, but it's also like 205pts, A Forgefiend's sporting around at 175-200pts, yeah that tricksy Eldar tank has a 5+/Jink4+, but it's 150pts and broken as **** anyway.


Either way, there's a lot of AV10-12 units in the game that aren't just 35pt Rhinos.

So, about as many as Leman Russ Exterminator sporting triple heavy bolters and a twin linked 4 shot autocannon for the same price (debatable whether a single AV14/13/10 tank or 10 T4 6+ infantry are more survivable in 7E), or one with an actual AP3 battlecannon given the variability involved in that thing

How about versus a true anti-infantry weapon then instead of yet another example of a unit not taken in competitive lists that won tournaments.

I ran exterminators almost exclusively in 7E, hell I even won a couple of podunk local events with them. They were better anti-medium-tank than the battlecannon as volume of fire mattered more than Strength and the Battlecannon's ability to hurt bigger things than the Autocannons could was bad enough to not be worth trying if there was *anything* else to shoot at in most cases. Between cover, scatter, multi-wound models, and coherency spread, it's not like Battlecannon Russ tanks were terribly threatening to most of the metagame, certainly not Demolishers either. To say nothing of the fact that an Ordnance weapon would preclude effective usage of hull/sponson weapons.

There's the Eradicator, which gets to ignore cover, but is half the range of a Battlecannon, less than the the Lootas, is worthless against vehicles, and still suffers all the rest of the Battlecannon downsides.

About the only other option is the Punisher, which yes is quite a bit more effective against infantry, but lacks the ability to engage and defeat medium vehicles with the main armament, and has only half the range of the Exterminator/Lootas, it's a much more specialized platform.

Hell, even IG guardsmen for the same points cost put out a lot more damage then that.

Hrm, 10 Lootas average 20 shots with 6.66 hits and 5.55 wounds and 1.85 failed saves. 30 lasgun wielding guardsmen shooting at up to 24" gets 15 hits and 5 wounds and 1.66 failed saves. Only when we're talking at 12" and under do we see the Guardsmen pull ahead, getting 30 hits and 10 wounds and 3.33 failed saves. So, basically, yes, the guardsmen put out more damage point for point...when within imminent assault range at 12" and under. Beyond that at up to 48" across the board, the Lootas are better, far beyond the range of what those guardsmen can threaten.

Same thing applied to basically all infantry in 7E, there's nothing unique about Lootas there.

Really? I don't remember space Marines, necrons or even eldar warriors folding nearly as rapidly as a 6+ save T4 model that costs about the same as a tactical Space Marine.

There were many threads bemoaning how worthless 3+ saves have become in 7E and how AP3 and Ignores Cover had become so widespread. Regardless, armor/cover or no, not much was going to emerge in a functional state after a blast from a full sized scatterbike squad

You keep comparing lootas to crappy units and then going "see they were awesome".

I've explained my choices and decisions and shown my work quite clearly, and you keep moving the goalposts.

yes compared to other crap they were ok. Compare them to a good unit and magically they suck.

Would you propose any to look at? I mean, unless we're only going to compare them to Scatterbikes....

Compared to almost any other factions premier anti-vehicle weapons and they sucked,

Such as? And against what kind of target? And why are we comparing a multirole unit like Lootas (equipped with a ubiquitously multirole Autocannon equivalent), to the game's best dedicated AT units in broad strokes without any context?

I'm not arguing that Lootas are "the best AT unit in the game evar!!!"

My point was that they're pretty rad at killing light and medium tanks, which they are.

compared to almost any other factions premier anti-infantry weapons and they sucked.

Again, same as above, why? I never claimed they were the best anti-infantry unit in the game. Even if we indulge this however We can go back to the Russ example. Sure, they're not as good as the most absolutely dedicated anti-infantry close-range specialist anti-infantry variant within it's ideal range, but the Lootas can engage from triple the distance and are effective against a wider array of targets, and they're equal to or better basically all the other Russ variants against infantry targets to boot.

How do they compare to Scat bikes for Eldar, how about sternguard for Marines or even centurions? how about necron infantry who could kill a Land raider faster then Lootas could kill a predator. How about vs tau broadsides? who wins those contests?

Oh...we've actually gotten here...we're now demanding the ridiculous Scatterbike comparison.

Lets to back to my original point, which was that Lootas were effective anti-light/medium AT. I believe I've shown their firepower is adequate to match my statement.

I'm not going to compare them to Scatterbikes in a pointless contest against what was possibly the most broken unit of all time, I'm not going to compare them to Sternguard with zero context, or how Necron Gauss infantry kill Land Raiders, or other absurd arguments with zero relation to that original argument, just as I'm not going to argue my opinions on the Schlieffen Plan or Chinese Monetary Policy of the 1990's.

 Billagio wrote:
I love how people saying that Marines are terrible is only comparing them against top tier armies like Guard and Eldar, and no the bottom feeders like orks, DE/nids (depending on edition), GKs outside of 5th

It was probably the worst written codex in history to be fair. Run a fluffy list under 2 CAD compared to a Battle Demi-Company Gladius and see how far that swings. It was pretty silly. Same way that Tyranids were competitive but only had 3 units at all worth using.

Gladius was definitely busted competitively until everyone starting countering Rhino-equivalent armor. Then they just became still super strong. If you need free models to compete, there's something a bit off with balance wouldn't you agree?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
You mean Marine players don't want to field Tacs, Devs, and ASM? Really?

We would like to without having to do it a particular way to get 400+ free points of stuff was the main complaint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
As I've said before, never has there been a Necron player who whined about how bad Necrons were in 7th because we relied on the Decurion to work.

I was pretty vocal about that, actually. Taking ANY of the troops in a CAD were basically super automatically bad. Nobody cares about giving up OS when you get a 4+++, Relentless, AND Move Through Cover instead. Then you get armies that don't need their troops shoved into a formation for them to work, and just use the formations on the other elite units to make them even better.

"It was probably the worst written codex in history to be fair. Run a fluffy list under 2 CAD compared to a Battle Demi-Company Gladius and see how far that swings. It was pretty silly."

Lets compare SM using demi-companies instead of Gladius to CWE using DAs instead of DAVU, as those are the two most comparable OP lists. Sure, the Battle Companies aren't great. They're very similar to the pre-codex Obsec Spam list, but the Devs and ASM don't bring ObSec. PA Marines might have been bad, but they were *much* better than CAD-spammed DAs. And that PA Marine list certainly had much more variety.

"We would like to without having to do it a particular way to get 400+ free points of stuff was the main complaint." And CWE players would like to play with things beside DAVU/WK/ScatBikes.

I really don't get the argument that the SM OP lists - some even with scads of different units, focusing primarily on what is the backbone of the SM book - is so much less of what SM players want to play than DAVU is what CWE want to play. Could you flesh out that argument there? I'm not getting it. It keeps getting said. Counterpoints get brought up, but no supporting points or discussion.

"I was pretty vocal about that, actually. Taking ANY of the troops in a CAD were basically super automatically bad."
Then how was ObSec spam such a good list pre-Gladius? Especially at the start of the edition?
How was White Scars (Bikes in a CAD) such a good list pre-Gladius?
Even Scouts had a winning build that spammed them, although not as common or successful.

Bharring wrote:

"We would like to without having to do it a particular way to get 400+ free points of stuff was the main complaint." And CWE players would like to play with things beside DAVU/WK/ScatBikes.

I really don't get the argument that the SM OP lists - some even with scads of different units, focusing primarily on what is the backbone of the SM book - is so much less of what SM players want to play than DAVU is what CWE want to play. Could you flesh out that argument there? I'm not getting it. It keeps getting said. Counterpoints get brought up, but no supporting points or discussion.

It's like this. There is weak army, Tyranids, which have super-weak unit, Pyrovore. How to make them good? Well, how about you get free Pyrovores for your army? Say you make this 1500p FOC and get 500 points of Pyrovores on top of it. Now, the army is suddenly effective and Pyrovores are major part of it! Great game design, no?

No.

I'm not disagreeing that Gladius was bad game design. I'm not seeing how it's worse game design than the Serpent Shield from the 6e codex.

It's because giving units free is poor idea on several levels. First, whole idea of points system is to 'equalize' armies to a degree which supposedly reflects the units real-world value. You want these infantry platoons to be veterans? Sure thing, but experienced veterans aren't so common. It's going to cost you. You want elephants to support that Punic army? Doable, but elephants are rare and hard to acquire even for Carthage.
You want these Space Marine squads to be supported by Rhino transports? Go nuts, Rhinos are common as dirt and cost Imperium practically nothing, totally throwaway equipment which the Space Marines couldn't care less for. Right...? No...

Also, whole idea of giving 'free' stuff for Space Marines particularly flies in the face of how the army is described in lore. Space Marines are few in number and most of their equipment is specialized and valuable for the Imperium. Now, suddenly, the way to make them effective is to make them a horde army which buries the enemy under waves of cheap, disposable units? That doesn't sound right either.

Backfire wrote:

Bharring wrote:

"We would like to without having to do it a particular way to get 400+ free points of stuff was the main complaint." And CWE players would like to play with things beside DAVU/WK/ScatBikes.

I really don't get the argument that the SM OP lists - some even with scads of different units, focusing primarily on what is the backbone of the SM book - is so much less of what SM players want to play than DAVU is what CWE want to play. Could you flesh out that argument there? I'm not getting it. It keeps getting said. Counterpoints get brought up, but no supporting points or discussion.

It's like this. There is weak army, Tyranids, which have super-weak unit, Pyrovore. How to make them good? Well, how about you get free Pyrovores for your army? Say you make this 1500p FOC and get 500 points of Pyrovores on top of it. Now, the army is suddenly effective and Pyrovores are major part of it! Great game design, no?

No.

I get the point you're trying to make and your right, but thats a terrible example. 500pts of free Pyrovores last edition would still have been absolutely worthless.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Lets to back to my original point, which was that Lootas were effective anti-light/medium AT. I believe I've shown their firepower is adequate to match my statement.

I'm not going to compare them to Scatterbikes in a pointless contest against what was possibly the most broken unit of all time, I'm not going to compare them to Sternguard with zero context, or how Necron Gauss infantry kill Land Raiders, or other absurd arguments with zero relation to that original argument, just as I'm not going to argue my opinions on the Schlieffen Plan or Chinese Monetary Policy of the 1990's.

They were decent at killing AV10-11. Against AV 12 they needed a lot of models or a great roll to kill one. So again, 14pt models means you need a great roll on 10 to reliably kill a AV12 vehicle, or 15 models and an average roll to kill the AV12 vehicle (based on 3HP and no saves of any kind)

So we can't use Scatbikes because they were great, we can't use sternguard because there's no context? the context would be them appearing by deepstrike and melta killing basically any vehicle in the game, Can't use Necron Gause because they can kill landraiders as easily as a AV12 vehicle. Those aren't "absurd arguments with zero relation to the original argument" they are examples of other factions doing THE EXACT SAME MISSION with different units which are either cheaper or far better at the job. We could also Talk about Tau with their plethora of better platforms and weapons that do the same job, hell even the Broadside was better last edition then Lootas, T4 2+ save 4 S7 shots that hit on 4s rerolling (without markerlight support) and 4 S5 shots that ignore cover and LOS that hit on 4s rerolling. Not to mention being immune to nightfighting and blind. Same thing for a Tau Commander, or even a riptide to not even touch on the tri riptide abuse which happened.

What about Chaos Marines which you wrote off completely. A unit of havocs armed with Autocannons were putting out 8 shots with about 5-6 hits a turn for 115pts, Orkz could get 8 Lootas for about the same price,they put out 16 shots on average for about 5 hits, so right off the bat they hit less, damage would be right about the same but the difference is that hose Lootas have a 6+ save the havocs have a 3+ and better leadership. So when shot those Havocs have a chance to survive and at least fight back another turn, the lootas need to lose 3 models and they are most likely running away.

We could bring up Grav weapons in general for Space Marine factions, nothing like watching a unit of centurions or even regular Devestators armed with Grav Cannons and amps just kill a vehicle with immobilization results, regardless of what kind of vehicle it is.

We could also bring up haywire weapons of which Tau Mechanicus and DE had lots of, they had the same effect as Grav weapons but even worse. Kataphron Breachers and Destroyers would just lay waste to ANY vehicle they looked at.

I can keep going if you want me to break down the lists further, but the point is obvious, compared to the HUGE number of units that did the same job, Lootas were crap.

However, don't Companies usually have enough transports - between Rhinos, Razors, and Drop Pods - to have one per squad? And isn't that what it worked out to?

Marines being spammed sure, it's unfluffy. But isn't a Wave Serpent being such a terrifying gunboat just as unfluffy?

Space Marines are few in number. Dire Avengers in DAVU are few in number. Bringing Space Marines to bring a Razorback, sure, it's unfluffy. How is it less fluffy than bringing an Aspect Shrine (DAs) to bring a Serpent? At least with Gladius, the Marines still did some of the lifting - far more so than DAs in DAVU.

I'm still not seeing how Gladius was wrong in ways DAVU was not? If it's just the 'free points', sure, that is different. The DAVU side of that equation was "basically free super-autocannon-battery" instead of "free razorbacks" - how is that any better?

Bharring wrote:
I'm not disagreeing that Gladius was bad game design. I'm not seeing how it's worse game design than the Serpent Shield from the 6e codex.

Ultimately it comes down to free points in both situations. If everyone is getting free points it will all balance out in the end. In a situation like gladius though - you don't have any list building freedom - which makes it pretty unfun - and also takes the most important factor in player skill out of the game too. List design is the most important part of the game.

Edit: I'm starting to see what you're saying about "free" being the problem. I agree it's a problem, although I don't see it as as much worse as some of the other offenders.

But why is the same logic used on the other SM power builds?
Skyhammer?
CentStars?
SuperBestFriends?
ObsecSpam?
GravBikers?

Synergies are another problem. 6 inch bubble buffs are impossible to balance because they scale exponentially based on whats in the bubble. Same thing the old characters joining units thing in 7th.

IMO all abilities/auras should only affect a given amount of units.
For example A Lieutenant could give a single marine unit reroll 1's to wound. A captain could give 3 units reroll 1's to hit. A chapter master could give 3 units reroll all hits. Guilliman could give 4 units access to his buff beit imperial or ultra marines. (not saying this is exactly how it should be or something like it)

Then you can cost them appropriately. Plus maybe give armies a little more freedom in movement.

Exponential scaling is very bad from a balance perspective. This is why spells like Invis and endurance were so freaking OP. You could make your whole army indestructible if you made it just 1 unit.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Synergies are another problem. 6 inch bubble buffs are impossible to balance because they scale exponentially based on whats in the bubble. Same thing the old characters joining units thing in 7th.

IMO all abilities/auras should only affect a given amount of units.
For example A Lieutenant could give a single marine unit reroll 1's to wound. A captain could give 3 units reroll 1's to hit. A chapter master could give 3 units reroll all hits. Guilliman could give 4 units access to his buff beit imperial or ultra marines. (not saying this is exactly how it should be or something like it)

Then you can cost them appropriately. Plus maybe give armies a little more freedom in movement.

Exponential scaling is very bad from a balance perspective. This is why spells like Invis and endurance were so freaking OP. You could make your whole army indestructible if you made it just 1 unit.

...but you can still do that if buffs only affect one unit.

Ok my one unit is 10 grots.

Ok well my one unit is a warlord titan.

How do you cost the guy that can give a buff to 10 grots or the same buff to a warlord titan in a balanced way?

It's still linear though - which is better than exponetial.True the buff is only as strong as the unit it is buffing - the way you balance this is by making sure all armies have viable ways to buff units. Or that other armies are capable of dealing with such buffs through other means at comparable point levels.

How do you do that?

Well - you can't have 2 armies where they have a similar ability for the same cost but one is clearly better. Like in the forwarned/auspex scan situation.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's still linear though - which is better than exponetial.True the buff is only as strong as the unit it is buffing - the way you balance this is by making sure all armies have viable ways to buff units. Or that other armies are capable of dealing with such buffs through other means at comparable point levels.

How do you do that?

Well - you can't have 2 armies where they have a similar ability for the same cost but one is clearly better. Like in the forwarned/auspex scan situation.

but sometimes the same thing for the same armies are even more imbalanced.

Riddle me this, xeno - the stygies VIII buff and the Alaitoc buff are completely identical. Every unit gets it, its exactly the same.

Does that make Alaitoc and Stygies identically balanced, or does the fact that the Eldar codex contains a shitton of units that also have built in -1s make Alaitoc way stronger?

Making the rules the same just makes the rules the same. it does not make them more balanced, just more rigid and difficult to change if they do become imbalanced, because suddenly if Brimstone Horrors are super busted because they have Daemon unit type and Tzeentch unit type giving them a 4++ while they're three points, you can't just decide "ehhhh they only get a 6++" unless you change those two unit types, which also nerfs a ton of other tzeentch or daemon units that aren't broken.

How did your Tactical Terminators and your Land Raiders and your Dreadnoughts like having their assault cannons nerfed because Razorbacks were strong with them?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Lets to back to my original point, which was that Lootas were effective anti-light/medium AT. I believe I've shown their firepower is adequate to match my statement.

I'm not going to compare them to Scatterbikes in a pointless contest against what was possibly the most broken unit of all time, I'm not going to compare them to Sternguard with zero context, or how Necron Gauss infantry kill Land Raiders, or other absurd arguments with zero relation to that original argument, just as I'm not going to argue my opinions on the Schlieffen Plan or Chinese Monetary Policy of the 1990's.

They were decent at killing AV10-11. Against AV 12 they needed a lot of models or a great roll to kill one.

Which goes for most units if you only run them at 2/3rd full strength, Scatterbikes included.

So we can't use Scatbikes because they were great,

Because theyre obscenely broken and nobody is going to argue the comparison. Just because Scatterbikes are insanely broken doesn't mean Lootas are bad at killing light/medium vehicles.

we can't use sternguard because there's no context? the context would be them appearing by deepstrike and melta killing basically any vehicle in the game

Which is an entirely different type of unit and engagement range. Those Sternguard arent killing squat from 48" away, theyre kitted out to be specialized for a one-use suicide antitank role at distance of 6" and even at minimum size cost more than a unit of 10 Lootas to boot (if Im remembering correctly, 5 melta sternguard in a pod should be 160pts in 7E, 20pts per dude, 5pts per combi, 35 for pod?).

Can't use Necron Gause because they can kill landraiders as easily as a AV12 vehicle.

Because Land Raiders werent what we were talking about...and theyre not doing it from up to 48" away. Against AV12 and lower vehicles, theyre at best matching the Lootas (and only against AV12), and even then only at 12" and under.

Those aren't "absurd arguments with zero relation to the original argument" they are examples of other factions doing THE EXACT SAME MISSION

Gaussing Land Raiders at close ranges isnt the same mission as engaging medium armor from across the table. Deep striking specialist melta units arent the same role either unless your taking an extremely expansive view of "AT".

with different units which are either cheaper or far better at the job.

So far you've proposed Scatterbikes, Sternguard, and Necron Warriors. Of these, the Sternguard arent cheaper, theyre better at AT but only get to try it once and have to be at point blank range and are largely useless for anything else. The Scatterbikes beat literally everything so Im not sure what their point is in the comparison. The Necron Warriors are cheaper than the Lootas but absolutely are not more effective in the light/medium AT role.

We could also Talk about Tau with their plethora of better platforms and weapons that do the same job, hell even the Broadside was better last edition then Lootas, T4 2+ save 4 S7 shots that hit on 4s rerolling (without markerlight support) and 4 S5 shots that ignore cover and LOS that hit on 4s rerolling.

Sure, at what, 60-70pts each IIRC? 1 per 5 Lootas? Theyre still not matching the anti-AV12 damage output (at least without Markerlight support), nor have the same 48" range, and are only superior against AV10/11 at 24" and under.


Are they more resilient than the Lootas? Again, debateable, particularly given the different threat ranges. At close ranges and against small arms fire, especially in the open, the Lootas are easier to kill, but they can stay out of range better and spend the game in a protected firing position, and arent gonna risk a single Lascannon blamming half the unit and forcing a Morale test either. Drones can shift that, but also increase cost.

I'd buy that they fit the rest of the army better and are able to be supported more effectively, that I'll grant.

What about Chaos Marines which you wrote off completely. A unit of havocs armed with Autocannons were putting out 8 shots with about 5-6 hits a turn for 115pts

Orkz could get 8 Lootas for about the same price,they put out 16 shots on average for about 5 hits, so right off the bat they hit less, damage would be right about the same but the difference is that hose Lootas have a 6+ save the havocs have a 3+ and better leadership. So when shot those Havocs have a chance to survive and at least fight back another turn, the lootas need to lose 3 models and they are most likely running away.

In a strict vacuum, sure. In practice, both units are generally going to be in cover and that durability gap will be greatly mitigated, and each casualty is costing the Havocs more firepower than the Lootas, and once that gets factored in the Lootas dont come out too bad. Nobody ran Havocs that way for a reason. Min/maxing like that is also about the only way to make the Havocs look good next to the Lootas.

We could bring up Grav weapons in general for Space Marine factions, nothing like watching a unit of centurions or even regular Devestators armed with Grav Cannons and amps just kill a vehicle with immobilization results, regardless of what kind of vehicle it is.

This is another super unit that just about everyone thought was super busted. However, even indulging this, how much do those Centurions cost, at what range are they engaging, and what *couldn't* they kill?

We could also bring up haywire weapons of which Tau Mechanicus and DE had lots of, they had the same effect as Grav weapons but even worse. Kataphron Breachers and Destroyers would just lay waste to ANY vehicle they looked at.

I can keep going if you want me to break down the lists further, but the point is obvious, compared to the HUGE number of units that did the same job, Lootas were crap.

If we're just going to scroll through a list of the most broken stuff in the game or units that have entirely different threat envelopes and functions, Im not sure what we're going to learn

Generally ive been trying to equate like ranges and engagements with like, not comparing weapons with fractions of the range against each other. Deffguns to Autocannons, Lootas engaging medium tanks from the same threat ranges as Lascannon equipped units, etc.

However, going back to my original statement again...

Lootas however were absolute murder to light and medium vehicles and tanks up until 8E however. If you werent AV13 or 14, even a depleted unit of Lootas stood a good chance of killing any vehicle they shot at and a full unit was almost guaranteed to.

I'm not sure where I'm so far off the mark here. Lootas will do exactly what I claimed here.

I did not claim that Lootas were the best AT unit in the game. I did not claim that Lootas were gonna deadlift Orks over the barrage of insane power creep of 7E. Only that they were effective light and medium vehicle killers. I dont see where the above is an inaccurate statement in such a light. A full unit will on average kill any AV12 or lower vehicle in one round of fire. A depleted unit stands a good chance of doing so with a little luck. I'm not seeing where my original statement was egregiously inaccurate here...

Perhaps I guess I could have added the caveat "at long ranges" in there, but I had figured that didnt need to be pointed out explicitly given the inherently long ranged nature of the unit. I didnt think we were gonna go down the rabbit hole of comparing 48" range weapons to Drop melta.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lootas however were absolute murder to light and medium vehicles and tanks up until 8E however. If you werent AV13 or 14, even a depleted unit of Lootas stood a good chance of killing any vehicle they shot at and a full unit was almost guaranteed to.

I'm not sure where I'm so far off the mark here. Lootas will do exactly what I claimed here.

I did not claim that Lootas were the best AT unit in the game. I did not claim that Lootas were gonna deadlift Orks over the barrage of insane power creep of 7E. Only that they were effective light and medium vehicle killers. I dont see where the above is an inaccurate statement in such a light. A full unit will on average kill any AV12 or lower vehicle in one round of fire. A depleted unit stands a good chance of doing so with a little luck. I'm not seeing where my original statement was egregiously inaccurate here...

Perhaps I guess I could have added the caveat "at long ranges" in there, but I had figured that didnt need to be pointed out explicitly given the inherently long ranged nature of the unit. I didnt think we were gonna go down the rabbit hole of comparing 48" range weapons to Drop melta.

Again, we just showed that Lootas could not murder AV12 in a "Depleted unit" they needed a full unit and they needed to roll average or above average to even get the kill...and even then only if the vehicle wasn't in cover or didn't have a save of some kind.

You can't claim that I am moving the goal posts when the original comment was that they were absolute murder and then I showed you how a bunch of other units were significantly better at that job then Lootas, and comparing like to like specifically Ranged 48 and/or Autocannons wasn't the original point so telling me not to compare Lootas to other faction units is ridiculous. If you want to talk about moving goal posts, you are the one who just said "Can't compare to Scat Bikes, Can't compare to Grav, Can't compare to Haywire" Basically you are saying that anything good can't be used as a comparison because it
ruins your point. Lootas were trash, they were good at killing AV10-11 vehicles IN THE OPEN and only if they didn't have a built in save or Jink. They were not good at killing infantry and were incredibly fragile. Trust me on this one, I don't remember if you play orkz or not, but I have 30 Lootas and they were sadly one of the better units in my 7th edition codex, but they were by no means good at what they did. Good being a relative term, one in which you compare it to other units in the game with a similar function...like haywire units....and grav.

As for "going down the rabbit hole" the entire point is comparing function not range. If you really want to compare Range things instead we can go down that road, of course I am sure you will limit me to only comparing Lootas to units with S7 weapons that don't have special rules.

If you really think Lootas were "good" then there isn't much I can do to change your mind since you keep coming up with all sorts of new rules to judge how good they are. But let me end it with this, how many top performing lists included lootas? I'll give you a hint, Not one ork player managed to break into the top 50 in ITC and the ones who came closest were using Trukk Boyz and Green Tide, not lootas.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's still linear though - which is better than exponetial.True the buff is only as strong as the unit it is buffing - the way you balance this is by making sure all armies have viable ways to buff units. Or that other armies are capable of dealing with such buffs through other means at comparable point levels.

How do you do that?

Well - you can't have 2 armies where they have a similar ability for the same cost but one is clearly better. Like in the forwarned/auspex scan situation.

but sometimes the same thing for the same armies are even more imbalanced.

Riddle me this, xeno - the stygies VIII buff and the Alaitoc buff are completely identical. Every unit gets it, its exactly the same.

Does that make Alaitoc and Stygies identically balanced, or does the fact that the Eldar codex contains a shitton of units that also have built in -1s make Alaitoc way stronger?

Making the rules the same just makes the rules the same. it does not make them more balanced, just more rigid and difficult to change if they do become imbalanced, because suddenly if Brimstone Horrors are super busted because they have Daemon unit type and Tzeentch unit type giving them a 4++ while they're three points, you can't just decide "ehhhh they only get a 6++" unless you change those two unit types, which also nerfs a ton of other tzeentch or daemon units that aren't broken.

How did your Tactical Terminators and your Land Raiders and your Dreadnoughts like having their assault cannons nerfed because Razorbacks were strong with them?

Let's get real. -1 to hit army traits should not be in the game and like you said it scales way to hard with other -1 to hit modifiers.

Brimstone's and blue horrors specifically reduce their invo save from 4++ pink to 5++ blue to 6++ brim. They did specifically fix these units. You can make concessions in individual cases. You have to if you want a balanced game. Otherwise - you have what we have now. Aliotoc flyers running around with 7th eddition invis for free every turn against the most common BS in the game and for 2 CP can actually be immune to damage from shooting.

The Pulse Rifle costs 0 pts. The Lasgun costs 0 points. Same cost. Same purpose. The Pulse Rifle is stronger. The Lasgun army is stronger.

weapon profiles that cost 0 are included in the base cost of the model. Unfortunately this is inconsistent accross the game - you even have the same weapon costing points in some armies and being free in others. I don't care what the reasoning behind it is. It is unacceptable.

GW even charges you points for having options like in the case of the predator vs rhino. Can't even explain the razorbacks base cost.

Also, Single unit vs area of units would be linear vs polynomial (most likely 2nd power) at most, you're a long way short of linear vs exponential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not so sure they shouldn't be different. If you gave the Rhino to CWE, it should go up in points, as they have a lot more uses for it. The Devilfish would have to cost a lot less to Tau to be worthwhile than it'd have to cost for SM to field it.

Bharring wrote:
Also, Single unit vs area of units would be linear vs polynomial (most likely 2nd power) at most, you're a long way short of linear vs exponential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not so sure they shouldn't be different. If you gave the Rhino to CWE, it should go up in points, as they have a lot more uses for it. The Devilfish would have to cost a lot less to Tau to be worthwhile than it'd have to cost for SM to field it.

I speaking more in the sense of unlimited vs limited and the look of the curve as you add more units into the bubble in terms of efficiency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Also, Single unit vs area of units would be linear vs polynomial (most likely 2nd power) at most, you're a long way short of linear vs exponential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not so sure they shouldn't be different. If you gave the Rhino to CWE, it should go up in points, as they have a lot more uses for it. The Devilfish would have to cost a lot less to Tau to be worthwhile than it'd have to cost for SM to field it.

While technically you are correct - units can not be costed in this way from a balance perspective. Some armies having better options to put into a transport is entirely on the units going inside of the transport not being worth their cost or being to good for their cost - or not needing/needing the function provided by a transport.

Look at it this way.

In 6e/7e, a Shuriken Cat would be better/worth more points on Tac Marines than a boltgun.

In 6e/7e, a boltgun would be better/worth more points on a Guardian than a boltgun.

How do you point it to make that appropriate?

Or again, lets look at old Commisar rule. You lose at most 1 model to Morale checks. How much is that worth to an army full of large Conscript squads? How much is that worth to an army full of 5-man LD8 units?

Clearly, there is no constant value that is fair to both forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And back on the "Some armies having better options to put into a transport is entirely on the units going inside of the transport not being worth their cost". I'm sure you'd say Fire Warriors are worth more value per point than Tac Marines. Don't Tac Marines get more out of transports than Fire Warriors?

Some units inherently have more value in different things even at the same value point. A glass cannon unit that focuses on shooting things inside 12" is going to get more mileage out of a transport than a fairly tanky unit that engages things at 48" range.

The game might be too simple as is, but you're oversimplifying the considerations.