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.

That's true, but the guardsmen still kill guardsmen in cover better than they kill marines in cover. So the talk of guardsmen being more durable winds up being quite conditional.

Once things are conditional, you just try to make the condition right for you.

Plus, did you account for morale?

Also, that's a model where 60 odd Guardsmen are in rapid fire range, which is something I've never encountered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%

260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead

In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.

Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced

Actually I have a second and probably more important response to that mathematical model and that is: It' a stupid model. The model that I gave is a straight representation of points per hit killed, extremely confined, no positioning or gameplay required. The model you gave is actually incredibly arbitrary, posing a scenario that in all liklihood will never exist, and then drawing the conclusion that it's somehow proof of imbalance. When really, it's more like the story:

Patient: "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that."

So my second response is: "So don't do that."

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The main point is, aside from IG, and at least one of the tyranid codexii, when an army is in the center of the story, or in their codex, they kick ass. And xenos, particularly eldar, and orcs, because they've been around for eight editions have plenty of fluff, that taken at face value make them broken. Nothing I posed isn't in fluff somewhere. The scorpion one is one of the more mild examples. But if a space marine can rip a turret off of a tank in a space marine novel, why can't an eldar with centuries of experience do similar feats of skill. BTW, if a scorpion can't do what was described, why would a space marine be able to move faster then the eye can follow? We're talking about a species that's militia makes marines seem as if they were moving in slow motion. Seriously.

When I said "faster then the human eye can see" I didn't mean running, that would be stupid. I mean coarse reflexes like swinging a sword. Considering that even normal humans can move faster than the human eye can see UNAUGMENTED I don't think this is much of a stretch. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5WjkI5FuP0 <----- Skip the intro and go to 0:55

As for ripping the turret off of a light tank, that isn't much of a stretch either. ~5,000 pounds of force could probably do it. Again, we have actual strongmen TODAY that can deadlift 1,000 pounds. Why is it such a stretch that a genetically modified human wearing a suit of power armor that greatly enhances his strength could do the same at 5,000 pounds?

It's COMPLETELY different than slaughtering 10 space marines with a sword within a fraction of a second, which would be impossible from a physics standpoint because the directional changes at that speed would rip an organic body apart.

I highly doubt that ANYWHERE in the lore there is a howling banshee slaughtering 10 marines in between heartbeats, or a firewarrior headshotting marines like it is nothing.

So what you're saying is that the fluff for your faction that says you're super special and awesome should be reflected in the stats of the game, while the fluff for other groups that has them be super special and awesome shouldn't, on the grounds that you're willing to ignore physics for marines, but not for anyone else?

You doubt it exists anywhere in lore, but it exists. It's been existing from third edition through the present.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

That's true, but the guardsmen still kill guardsmen in cover better than they kill marines in cover. So the talk of guardsmen being more durable winds up being quite conditional.

Once things are conditional, you just try to make the condition right for you.

Plus, did you account for morale?

Also, that's a model where 60 odd Guardsmen are in rapid fire range, which is something I've never encountered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%

260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead

In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.

Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced

Actually I have a second and probably more important response to that mathematical model and that is: It' a stupid model. The model that I gave is a straight representation of points per hit killed, extremely confined, no positioning or gameplay required. The model you gave is actually incredibly arbitrary, posing a scenario that in all liklihood will never exist, and then drawing the conclusion that it's somehow proof of imbalance. When really, it's more like the story:

Patient: "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that."

So my second response is: "So don't do that."

I would say that assuming that their is 20 marines with boltguns within 12 inches of anything in cover is a flawed starting point too, I just don't ever see people investing points into marines these days.

I was purely use the equivalent points worth of shooting to show the disparity in damage output as fairly as possible when compaired to the exsisting example.

Moral is a sketchy mechanic to be relying on to even the field, it relies on you being able to do the perfect amount of damage to a unit to make that moral test fail a guarantee but without just outright wiping the squad. Also with multiple ways to mitigate moral it's rarely a thing in games units are either just staight dead or lose like 1 dude.

Run the maths with 5 bolter marines which are 65 points against that 40 point infantry squad.

Marines shoot first at range
5x.666x.666x.666=1.47 2*x4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm =4 points 6%
7x.5x.333x.333=0.388 1*x13ppm =13 32% or 0 0%

9x.5x.333x.333=.499 1*x13ppm=13 32% or 0 0%
4x.666x.666x.666= 1.18 2*4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm 6%

Marines shoot first in rapid fire range
10x.666x.666x.666=2.95 3*x4ppm=12 points of Guard 18%
13x.5x.333x.333=0.72 1*x13pp.=13 points of marines 32%

Guard shoot first in rapid fire range
19x.5x.333x.333=1.05 1*x13ppm =13 32%
8x.666x.666x.666=2.36 3*×4ppm =12 18%or 2*×4ppm =8 12%

You could add a special and heavy weapon to the IS and still end up cheaper than the marine squad while having more damage output.
Marines can't out shoot or out fight most things in 8th while costing more than those models.

*As you can't kill a % of a model

Is this accounting for FRFSRF? That doubles the firepower of the guard.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Is this accounting for FRFSRF? That doubles the firepower of the guard.

Nope it's just squad vrs squad as otherwise you get into arguments about the cost of the officer etc etc. It also doesn't include Chaptor Tactics or regiment doctirins. Though most of those just push the blance more in favour of Guard.

Guard don't need FRFSRF to be amazing. They don't even really need weapons. Just stand there and get in the way.

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

That's true, but the guardsmen still kill guardsmen in cover better than they kill marines in cover. So the talk of guardsmen being more durable winds up being quite conditional.

Once things are conditional, you just try to make the condition right for you.

Plus, did you account for morale?

Also, that's a model where 60 odd Guardsmen are in rapid fire range, which is something I've never encountered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%

260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead

In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.

Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced

Actually I have a second and probably more important response to that mathematical model and that is: It' a stupid model. The model that I gave is a straight representation of points per hit killed, extremely confined, no positioning or gameplay required. The model you gave is actually incredibly arbitrary, posing a scenario that in all liklihood will never exist, and then drawing the conclusion that it's somehow proof of imbalance. When really, it's more like the story:

Patient: "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that."

So my second response is: "So don't do that."

I would say that assuming that their is 20 marines with boltguns within 12 inches of anything in cover is a flawed starting point too, I just don't ever see people investing points into marines these days.

I was purely use the equivalent points worth of shooting to show the disparity in damage output as fairly as possible when compaired to the exsisting example.

Moral is a sketchy mechanic to be relying on to even the field, it relies on you being able to do the perfect amount of damage to a unit to make that moral test fail a guarantee but without just outright wiping the squad. Also with multiple ways to mitigate moral it's rarely a thing in games units are either just staight dead or lose like 1 dude.

Run the maths with 5 bolter marines which are 65 points against that 40 point infantry squad.

Marines shoot first at range
5x.666x.666x.666=1.47 2*x4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm =4 points 6%
7x.5x.333x.333=0.388 1*x13ppm =13 32% or 0 0%

9x.5x.333x.333=.499 1*x13ppm=13 32% or 0 0%
4x.666x.666x.666= 1.18 2*4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm 6%

Marines shoot first in rapid fire range
10x.666x.666x.666=2.95 3*x4ppm=12 points of Guard 18%
13x.5x.333x.333=0.72 1*x13pp.=13 points of marines 32%

Guard shoot first in rapid fire range
19x.5x.333x.333=1.05 1*x13ppm =13 32%
8x.666x.666x.666=2.36 3*×4ppm =12 18%or 2*×4ppm =8 12%

You could add a special and heavy weapon to the IS and still end up cheaper than the marine squad while having more damage output.
Marines can't out shoot or out fight most things in 8th while costing more than those models.

*As you can't kill a % of a model

No, you're missing the point. All you're doing is doubling down on a poor mathematical model and drawing a poor conclusion from it. There are waaay too many variables in the game which make the usefulness of that model crude at best. The best way to say this really is if we abstract it slightly to this:

"Equal points of unit A beats unit B in this constrained scenario, therefore unit B sucks and needs to be fixed."

It should be self evident why that's a faulty model. Units in the game don't have to have the same performance in a constrained scenario to achieve balance. As long as there is any other possible factor which can affect the outcome, the premise and conclusion are flawed. And the other possible factors are many, including:

Concentration of force
Special weapons
Supporting units
Potential for assault
Alternate unit choices (aka, there may be a unit that puts up great numbers vs. Guardsmen)
Chapter Tactics
Morale
Stratagems
Aura Buffs

To illustrate in a really crude way:
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead

Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead

What we can conclude from this model is that Reapers suck and need to be buffed, or that Tactical marines are OP and need to be nerfed.

^That should illustrate how flawed the model is from a design perspective.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

That's true, but the guardsmen still kill guardsmen in cover better than they kill marines in cover. So the talk of guardsmen being more durable winds up being quite conditional.

Once things are conditional, you just try to make the condition right for you.

Plus, did you account for morale?

Also, that's a model where 60 odd Guardsmen are in rapid fire range, which is something I've never encountered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%

260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead

In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.

Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced

Actually I have a second and probably more important response to that mathematical model and that is: It' a stupid model. The model that I gave is a straight representation of points per hit killed, extremely confined, no positioning or gameplay required. The model you gave is actually incredibly arbitrary, posing a scenario that in all liklihood will never exist, and then drawing the conclusion that it's somehow proof of imbalance. When really, it's more like the story:

Patient: "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that."

So my second response is: "So don't do that."

I would say that assuming that their is 20 marines with boltguns within 12 inches of anything in cover is a flawed starting point too, I just don't ever see people investing points into marines these days.

I was purely use the equivalent points worth of shooting to show the disparity in damage output as fairly as possible when compaired to the exsisting example.

Moral is a sketchy mechanic to be relying on to even the field, it relies on you being able to do the perfect amount of damage to a unit to make that moral test fail a guarantee but without just outright wiping the squad. Also with multiple ways to mitigate moral it's rarely a thing in games units are either just staight dead or lose like 1 dude.

Run the maths with 5 bolter marines which are 65 points against that 40 point infantry squad.

Marines shoot first at range
5x.666x.666x.666=1.47 2*x4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm =4 points 6%
7x.5x.333x.333=0.388 1*x13ppm =13 32% or 0 0%

9x.5x.333x.333=.499 1*x13ppm=13 32% or 0 0%
4x.666x.666x.666= 1.18 2*4ppm =8 12% or 1*x4ppm 6%

Marines shoot first in rapid fire range
10x.666x.666x.666=2.95 3*x4ppm=12 points of Guard 18%
13x.5x.333x.333=0.72 1*x13pp.=13 points of marines 32%

Guard shoot first in rapid fire range
19x.5x.333x.333=1.05 1*x13ppm =13 32%
8x.666x.666x.666=2.36 3*×4ppm =12 18%or 2*×4ppm =8 12%

You could add a special and heavy weapon to the IS and still end up cheaper than the marine squad while having more damage output.
Marines can't out shoot or out fight most things in 8th while costing more than those models.

*As you can't kill a % of a model

No, you're missing the point. All you're doing is doubling down on a poor mathematical model and drawing a poor conclusion from it. There are waaay too many variables in the game which make the usefulness of that model crude at best. The best way to say this really is if we abstract it slightly to this:

"Equal points of unit A beats unit B in this constrained scenario, therefore unit B sucks and needs to be fixed."

It should be self evident why that's a faulty model. Units in the game don't have to have the same performance in a constrained scenario to achieve balance. As long as there is any other possible factor which can affect the outcome, the premise and conclusion are flawed. And the other possible factors are many, including:

Concentration of force
Special weapons
Supporting units
Potential for assault
Alternate unit choices (aka, there may be a unit that puts up great numbers vs. Guardsmen)
Chapter Tactics
Morale
Stratagems
Aura Buffs

To illustrate in a really crude way:
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead

Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead

What we can conclude from this model is that Reapers suck and need to be buffed, or that Tactical marines are OP and need to be nerfed.

^That should illustrate how flawed the model is from a design perspective.

Just because a specific example doesn't include every variable doesn't mean that it doesn't have some value, or that it isn't a piece of the equation.

Coming up with a terrible cherry picked comparison doesn't really prove anything.

Go ahead and include as many variables as you want. Your list of them is a pretty good start. Marines fall short pretty much every time.

"Coming up with a terrible cherry picked comparison doesn't really prove anything."

Correct. That's exactly the point.

It has some value, like tactical value. It says don't put your tac marines in that situation, for example. But to claim it as proof of a bad unit is poor.

"Go ahead and include as many variables as you want. . . Marines fall short pretty much every time."

So far, we have shown that t4 3+ 13ppm is in fact more durable than t3 5+ 4ppm in cover vs. Small arms. That's without any additional variables, so that's a start. And like I've already pointed out, morale pushes things further in favor of marines.

The question ought to be "What math explains what we see actually playing out in the game." Once you figure that out, then you can think about what changes to that math would work.

For example, if you have a situation where 1 type of unit is being spammed to shoot down lots of other units (like dark reapers), then we don't need a model to consider every possibility. We just need to know their shooting is too strong. It may be difficult to determine how much to nerf them by to achieve balance, but it's not hard to determine that they need to be nerfed, and why.

The same situation applies to marines and guard. The math isn't here to prove that marines are getting mowed down by guard infantry. That can be readily seen on the tabletop if you play this matchup. The math is illustrating why this issue that we know exists, exists. It does not need to be modeling every variable.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Coming up with a terrible cherry picked comparison doesn't really prove anything."

Correct. That's exactly the point.

It has some value, like tactical value. It says don't put your tac marines in that situation, for example. But to claim it as proof of a bad unit is poor.

"Go ahead and include as many variables as you want. . . Marines fall short pretty much every time."

So far, we have shown that t4 3+ 13ppm is in fact more durable than t3 5+ 4ppm in cover vs. Small arms. That's without any additional variables, so that's a start. And like I've already pointed out, morale pushes things further in favor of marines.

So your point is that because marines in cover are slightly more durable per point than guardsmen vs two of the weakest guns in the game (lasguns and bolters), it means they aren't weak, and people are just playing them wrong?

I think you are ignoring a lot of the other variables. Such as:

Most marines do not die to bolters and lasguns.
Cover is something that you can't really count on always being in, especially if the unit is expected to be doing some heavy lifting as many marine squads are.
As soon as a gun gets even slightly better than a bolter (such as the necron or tau basic weapons) marines in cover are worse again.
Against anything that is significantly better than a bolter, such as an assault cannon or heavy bolter, marines simply evaporate compared to guardsmen.
Morale is largely irrelevant to marines since if the quad is wiped out it doesn't matter how good at morale you are.
Guardsmen also have and use numerous ways to avoid morale losses.

Do you just think these data points aren't relevant? I guess I find it hard to understand how you'd be able to think so.

I will be the first to agree that any one point doesn't validate the argument, but the evidence is simply overwhelming, both from simple math-hammer, reports from anyone who actually plays marines, and tournament results.

He was throwing an example, not basing a freaking diploma on it.

Marines are not nearly as "bad" as people in the interwebz like to make them appear to be.
They really are not.

Especially when your go-to comparison is freaking GUARDS who are notorious as the hands-down best infantry in the game right now, without any contest.

The "problem" of marines just not measuring up to guards is more rational to solve by making the guards less attractive than overhauling the marines (and that requires you to overhaul SM, BA, DA, SW, GK, DW, CSM, DG and TS. because they all build on the mairne), especially given the know facts guards remain a problem even if marines gets overhauled.

And you know how you solve guard attractiveness?

Two simple, and often noted paths.
1-Make guards cost a tiny bit more. (1 more point for a dude, 5-10 more points for a character-problem mostly solved.)
2-bring back the platoon system to make guard have to actually field a ton of troopers for their CPs (who they rather rely on.)

Sure, guard are just the most glaring example, and you could probably nerf them down to the level of marines, but then you'd have to do the same to all of the other non-marine factions like Eldar and Tau too.

Also it seems pretty apparent that marines actually are pretty bad if you look at tournament army composition and results. Any source of competitive 40k information will tell you that marines aren't very good right now. It's not just an opinion, it's the general consensus.

There is a grand canyon of difference between "aren't very good" and "need a massive overhaul"

Had guards been fixed (easy), marines would be alright by that alone.
Not amazing, but alright.
Give them (and variants) a tiny point reduction (1 point for regular PA, 2 point for "advance PA" (like deathwatch, rubrics, etc) and about 3-5 points for termie variants-and they are actually pretty darn good.

 BoomWolf wrote:
There is a grand canyon of difference between "aren't very good" and "need a massive overhaul"

Had guards been fixed (easy), marines would be alright by that alone.
Not amazing, but alright.
Give them (and variants) a tiny point reduction (1 point for regular PA, 2 point for "advance PA" (like deathwatch, rubrics, etc) and about 3-5 points for termie variants-and they are actually pretty darn good.

Sure, sounds okay to me as a starting point. That's much different than pretending there isn't a problem.

I really hope they don't release a second SM codex in one edition as that would take the mick a bit. People have had to buy one codex already along with the other extras only to find they release a new one that people would have to buy all over again. It would also add to major confusion to a newcomer in terms of points costs, which codex to get etc.

Not only that but you end down a slippery road where it's not just SM that would need to be redone but also BA, DA, SW, Chaos, GK etc. I could see Chapter Approved adding some revised datasheets or amendments which I think would be the best way as you can cover all the factions at once with one book.

 Mmmpi wrote:

So what you're saying is that the fluff for your faction that says you're super special and awesome should be reflected in the stats of the game, while the fluff for other groups that has them be super special and awesome shouldn't, on the grounds that you're willing to ignore physics for marines, but not for anyone else?

You doubt it exists anywhere in lore, but it exists. It's been existing from third edition through the present.

I am a guard player, not a marine player. I'm not sure where you get this idea I'm trying to massively buff marines up to ridiculous levels from. I merely stated that 2W and 2A on basic marines would be a nice buff and be consistent with the lore.

I'm not ignoring physics for marines. Marine fluff is a little over the top sure, but still somewhat believable as it is still within the realms of physical possibility. I can definitely see a 8 foot tall genetically modified super-soldier wearing mechanically assisted power armor being able to deadlift 5,000 pounds.

A howling banshee slaughtering 10 space marines in a fraction of a second is literally physically impossible, as in it breaks physics. The accelerations involved in moving that fast and changing directions at that speed would be roughly equivalent to hitting pavement going 1,000 KM/H. Unless howling banshees have some sort of weird eldar magic that lets them ignore the laws of motion?

Marines have ven dreads, leviathans, and ba captains. They're fine.

Are you guys seriously trying to take real world physics into 40k?

 BoomWolf wrote:
He was throwing an example, not basing a freaking diploma on it.

Marines are not nearly as "bad" as people in the interwebz like to make them appear to be.
They really are not.

Especially when your go-to comparison is freaking GUARDS who are notorious as the hands-down best infantry in the game right now, without any contest.

The "problem" of marines just not measuring up to guards is more rational to solve by making the guards less attractive than overhauling the marines (and that requires you to overhaul SM, BA, DA, SW, GK, DW, CSM, DG and TS. because they all build on the mairne), especially given the know facts guards remain a problem even if marines gets overhauled.

And you know how you solve guard attractiveness?

Two simple, and often noted paths.
1-Make guards cost a tiny bit more. (1 more point for a dude, 5-10 more points for a character-problem mostly solved.)
2-bring back the platoon system to make guard have to actually field a ton of troopers for their CPs (who they rather rely on.)

I would just like to point out that plenty of actual IG players (such as myself) do run lots of support characters and Command Squads to basically flesh out most of the traditional Infantry Platoon structure. Also keep in mind that traditionally, the minimum requirement was a single Command Squad and two Infantry Squads. These days that's 134pts before upgrades. This whole outrage about how good Guardsmen are is because every single Imperial player hamfists a CP farm into their list. It's not for fluff or any other reason, because if so, they'd have been doing that in previous editions.

It sure as feth ain't for fluff when the lowly Guard Commander is the "Warlord" while the Custodes Shield Captain on jetbike or Blood Angels Capt Smashf-er is around.

Thank god for the ignore button. First time I've even bothered to use it. Sick of reading the same incredibly badly reasoned logic repeated ad nausea in every single thread.

 Billagio wrote:
Are you guys seriously trying to take real world physics into 40k?

I'm not. I'm just trying to point out that the fluff from the novels really can't be used as a guide for the tabletop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

So what you're saying is that the fluff for your faction that says you're super special and awesome should be reflected in the stats of the game, while the fluff for other groups that has them be super special and awesome shouldn't, on the grounds that you're willing to ignore physics for marines, but not for anyone else?

You doubt it exists anywhere in lore, but it exists. It's been existing from third edition through the present.

I am a guard player, not a marine player. I'm not sure where you get this idea I'm trying to massively buff marines up to ridiculous levels from. I merely stated that 2W and 2A on basic marines would be a nice buff and be consistent with the lore.

I'm not ignoring physics for marines. Marine fluff is a little over the top sure, but still somewhat believable as it is still within the realms of physical possibility. I can definitely see a 8 foot tall genetically modified super-soldier wearing mechanically assisted power armor being able to deadlift 5,000 pounds.

A howling banshee slaughtering 10 space marines in a fraction of a second is literally physically impossible, as in it breaks physics. The accelerations involved in moving that fast and changing directions at that speed would be roughly equivalent to hitting pavement going 1,000 KM/H. Unless howling banshees have some sort of weird eldar magic that lets them ignore the laws of motion?

I'm trying to say that you can't use fluff in 40K as a guide for unit stats. As for physics, I don't care what physics says. We're not talking about the real world. In the 40K universe, it says a banshee can kill 10 space marines before they blink, so in universe that's an actual possibility. Same with the WS/decapitation thing. The writers say eldar can do it, so eldar can do it.

But the crunch says they can't. What the author writes is meaningless.

Martel732 wrote:
But the crunch says they can't. What the author writes is meaningless.

That was his point.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But the crunch says they can't. What the author writes is meaningless.

That was his point.

Yes, I just took a more (unnecessarily) round about way for my example.

 Mmmpi wrote:
In the 40K universe, it says a banshee can kill 10 space marines before they blink...

Please show me where it says this in any serious lore book and I will eat my shoe.

Anyways, my original argument was against someone saying that 2W marines was inconsistent with the lore because "marines aren't that tough". My response was basically "yes they are" and listed a bunch of lore examples that I thought were actually pretty plausible.

3rd ed eldar codex, chapter approved 2000 and 2002, any novel where the main character is an Eldar.

Done.

 Mmmpi wrote:
3rd ed eldar codex, chapter approved 2000 and 2002, any novel where the main character is an Eldar.

Done.

I mean an actual quote please. I've read a lot of lore where the eldar clown on guardsmen pretty hard, but space marines are a different beast entirely. As I said before, killing 10 in a fraction of a second literally defies the laws of physics. This is 40k, not an anime, we try to keep to suspension of disbelief here.

All this talk of fluff is largely irrelevant. All of the factions just need to work in the game while loosely reflecting the fluff if possible. The exact details aren't particularly important as long as the game is balanced and playable.

jcd386 wrote:
All this talk of fluff is largely irrelevant. All of the factions just need to work in the game while loosely reflecting the fluff if possible. The exact details aren't particularly important as long as the game is balanced and playable.

"Anyways, my original argument was against someone saying that 2W marines was inconsistent with the lore because "marines aren't that tough". My response was basically "yes they are" and listed a bunch of lore examples that I thought were actually pretty plausible."