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.

No no no Martel I want you to commit, no weaseling out of this one.

If the only thing marines do is get shot to death and additional melee stats don't count for anything, and acts of faith are better than any chapter tactic, then Khorne Bezerkers are functionally identical to Tactical Marines when it comes to the comparison between them and a sister of battle.

Is this justified by your own reasoning here?

Sure it is. Is that want you want to hear?

Of course you did cherry pick khorne berserkers. But I'd rather them be undercosted than every other power armor unit overcosted. So, yes, it's justified the way the game currently plays.

Especially we wave a magic wand and get rid of RG and AL. Berserkers only function in the context of AL anyway.

There is a large difference is payoff if berserkers make it to CC, but they are only power armor unit I'm aware that is cost effective in CC.

Martel732 wrote:
Sure it is. Is that want you want to hear?

Of course you did cherry pick khorne berserkers. But I'd rather them be undercosted than every other power armor unit overcosted. So, yes.

Yes, I'm satisfied by that. And of course I picked Khorne Bezerkers. You've reached the point in your "melee sux' mental gymnastics where you actually made the claim that all melee stats are worth 0 points, so I'm going to go to the most extreme example available in the game for a model that's defensively identical to a tactical marine but offensively far superior...but only in melee.

It's a useful example for anyone who might be reading as to how deep you're willing to go to justify your own dogma in spite of any and all evidence available in the form of the actual competitive meta.

Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

I just drove accross the table and punched a bunch of Tau last night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Because the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

I think Martel is doing one of those "moving the goalpost" bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Uhhh...they haven't been. Have you so quickly forgotten things like the Fire Raptor or ass-can razorbacks and their subsequent points changes? You're coming across as if to say, "I need my faction to always and forever be OP now, and I will selectively ignore any time they were in the past so I can be angry now."

Sure. That's it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just drove accross the table and punched a bunch of Tau last night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Because the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Nope, can't do it, impossible, can't exist, LALALALALALALALALALALA

Evidence from competitive play is inadmissible for the Church of Marines Need Buffed because every competitive event either falls under the category of A) designs somewhat their own missions or applies other "house rules" or B) isn't big enough or enough rounds or with enough games to satisfy.

Evidence from local playgroups or batreps is inadmissible because Thats Just Anecdotal.

The only admissible evidence is from the games that the CMNB themselves play in THEIR local playgroups, in which all marines always lose all the time and everything is a gunline the end end of story I have all the evidence its the best evidence and no other evidence exists.

Wow, Martel just got absolutely dismantled in here lol that was painful to witness

So what's your evidence that tac marines are worth 13 ppm compared to guardsmen, kabalites, and sisters? The math supporting the opposite has been posted on here many times.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just drove accross the table and punched a bunch of Tau last night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Because the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Nope, can't do it, impossible, can't exist, LALALALALALALALALALALA

Evidence from competitive play is inadmissible for the Church of Marines Need Buffed because every competitive event either falls under the category of A) designs somewhat their own missions or applies other "house rules" or B) isn't big enough or enough rounds or with enough games to satisfy.

Evidence from local playgroups or batreps is inadmissible because Thats Just Anecdotal.

The only admissible evidence is from the games that the CMNB themselves play in THEIR local playgroups, in which all marines always lose all the time and everything is a gunline the end end of story I have all the evidence its the best evidence and no other evidence exists.

To be fair, I have also seen evidence from hastily-constructed mathematical models that either outright get data wrong or are so shoddily constructed that any reasonable analysis of the model itself proves it's lie.

For evidence, I cite the arguments about conscripts, where they were all simultaneously in rapid-fire range of the enemy, surrounding a commissar from all directions while also having a string of only a few dudes back to the commissar while also spreading out enough to screen the entire army and remaining at full strength the entire time.

Martel732 wrote:
So what's your evidence that tac marines are worth 13 ppm compared to guardsmen, kabalites, and sisters?

damn, I could have sworn the goalposts were over there a minute ago.

What was that claim that scotsman made about marines? Was it "marines are perfectly fine at 13ppm"? I'm sure we could find it somewhere in the thread...

"marines could be fairly easily fixed by relatively minor balance changes like a shift from 13ppm to 11ppm and a few QOL adjustments to stratagem costs and traits applying to all models."

Oh THERE it is!

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

I think Martel is doing one of those "moving the goalpost" bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

Uhhh...they haven't been. Have you so quickly forgotten things like the Fire Raptor or ass-can razorbacks and their subsequent points changes? You're coming across as if to say, "I need my faction to always and forever be OP now, and I will selectively ignore any time they were in the past so I can be angry now."

Yeah, that seems a long time ago after the trio of killer Xeno codices.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

Martel732 wrote:
So what's your evidence that tac marines are worth 13 ppm compared to guardsmen, kabalites, and sisters? The math supporting the opposite has been posted on here many times.

He literally said they needed a points reduction. Stop trying to use misdirection to backpedal on your statements and own them for a second. This strawman is not going to work.

jcd386 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

I didn't even bother, but thank you. Only GW's view on the matter really matters anyhow.

Martel732 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

I didn't even bother, but thank you. Only GW's view on the matter really matters anyhow.

...except that his claim *was* that extreme. Not that he'll admit it, but that's where we're at.

Why is it extreme to not want to pay for melee stats that don't get used 80% of the time?

jcd386 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

That's true, but don't design your game around general statements as though they ARE absolute. Understand and aknowledge where the limits of the generalized statements are, because that can help you better place your arguments in context, and find an appropriate solution.

Well this thread has certainly gone down the rabbit hole.

Let me try this a little differently. Say we did go yup, everybody is now Primaris, +1 Wound and Attack for all Astartes of any kind, -1 AP on all their standard chainswords/combat knives/Bolt pistols/bolters/Stormbolters, no more restrictions on Primaris getting in transports, your basic 2W/2A AP-1 Bolter Tactical Marine costs 16 or 17 points. I’ve now got every buff I’ve been campaigning for. And it looks... kinda like 1-2pt cheaper Primaris Marines.

So I ask you this: does the prospect of having to face an all-Primaris, slightly cheaper army frighten you? Is that an army you wouldn’t want to face because it’s too powerful? I’d be shocked if that were the case.

By comparison, let’s say we gave Ork Boyz an extra wound each and bumped them up a point or two. Does the prospect of facing a 2W Ork army frighten you? Because it scares the crap outta me.

I haven't been here that long but it seems pretty well established that Martel is a bit prone to hyperbole. I'm not sure if that's what we should be going on about here.

I'm not sure if Martel went as far as saying "literally everything that wears power armor is terrible in CC." But if we look at it, giving him the benefit of the doubt instead of like 12 year old girls trying to make someone feel/look bad, most marine units are pretty bad in CC outside of those with really good special rules and even those aren't meta defining (but that takes a long time to type/read).

It seems like most, if not all, posters agree that marines are a bit under powered. People vary as to what the solution is. Be it reducing their points (easy fix), redefining their place in the meta (codex 2) or adjusting everything else in 8th to be on par with marine power levels (the worst approach).

I'm not a fan of just reducing their points as thematically it doesn't to seem like their shtick. I doubt there will be a point level where marines can out-guard guard and if we do get there mechanically, thematically it doesn't work (which is where the fluff tangent came from I guess.)

But I take Scotsman's point that it would be the easiest way to clean up the mess (along with his concession that the stratagems need a fix) and am having a hard time coming up with an argument besides "muh feels" about turning tacs into hordes. I still think a lot of other things need to be addressed in the marine book besides the costs of tacs, but that change will filter through the rest of the book and we'll likely need to mess around with the new points of the models before we get into an entire re-design of the codex.

8th is just seeming more like beta 9th at this point. At least GW is trying. What I fear is that GW will revert to their true nature and take the opportunity to release a bunch of mini-dexes at $40 (campaign books or what have you) to address the balance issues and maybe we're better off with just marines sucking for a couple of years rather than buying into a classic GW cash grab....

Either that or a new wave of primarchs are coming to the rescue in a thematic and heroic rush and will prevent the Xeno scum from kicking power armor butt all across the multi-verse...

jcd386 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Glad to be of service.

The majority of the evidence is still on my side, since you had to dig up the most extreme example. And as I said, them being undercosted would be small price to pay. Why should undercosted models be only for Xenos?

All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a generalization, no matter how extreme that counter-example is.

"All swans are white!"
*here's a black swan*
"Well, the majority of swans are white, so the majority of evidence is still on my side, so all swans are white."

That's not how arguments work, Martel.

It's still correct to say that generally swans are white, normal swans are white, and most swans are white, or that the non white swans are a vast minority. Finding one obcsure example doesn't invalidate all of the other evidence supporting a claim unless that claim is so extreme that it allows for no exceptions.

I mean, he outright admitted he'd like to see Berzerkers at 10 pts, because his point is that melee stats don't matter.

That sounds like a pretty extreme generalization to me...

Most power armor units don't pay off in CC compared to the effor to get them there. Yet, they are paying top points for their CC stats. That's my problem.

I can't be made to feel bad, as I'm a grad student.

Martel732 wrote:
Most power armor units don't pay off in CC compared to the effor to get them there. Yet, they are paying top points for their CC stats. That's my problem.

I can't be made to feel bad, as I'm a grad student.

Ok. I agree that is a problem.

Now, you'll recognize there's a gap between "top points" and "no points" so I'll ask you: How much is +1 to a melee stat worth? Is it free?

I think you're arguing different points.

Martel et al are arguing that Marines are in a bad spot.
Scotsman et al are arguing that specific claims are factually incorrect.

They are not mutually exclusive. Both core thesises appear true to me.

The problem comes from how it's being argued. Martel et al are using grandiose claims/hyperbole to attempt to elicit passion about this slight. So their claims go too far.

Claims like "CC stats are worth 0 points" or "Marines are no more durable than other infantry" or "Tacs are the worst troop in the game" are super common. Each one of those is factually false. Each one is easily proven false.

So, when a member of Team Scotsman sees these arguments, they attempt to correct the incorrect claim. That team then tries to apply as well-reasoned and unemotional a construct to do so. Typically, this comes from a desire to better analyze, better discuss the finer technical points.

Team Martel then sees this correction as a refutation of their thesis: that Marines are bad. And so we have an argument where we talk past eachother.

Wait a day or two, then we do the same thing all over again, sometimes even in the same thread.

Martel732 wrote:
Most power armor units don't pay off in CC compared to the effor to get them there. Yet, they are paying top points for their CC stats. That's my problem.

I can't be made to feel bad, as I'm a grad student.

If you're a grad student why are you so prone to hyperbole? Shouldn't we be getting a little more rigor and nuance?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Most power armor units don't pay off in CC compared to the effor to get them there. Yet, they are paying top points for their CC stats. That's my problem.

I can't be made to feel bad, as I'm a grad student.

Ok. I agree that is a problem.

Now, you'll recognize there's a gap between "top points" and "no points" so I'll ask you: How much is +1 to a melee stat worth? Is it free?

Depends on the stat and the situation IMO. I can totally accept that a tactical marine gets only nominal use out of his melee stats, and that combined, +1WS and +1S are probably only worth 1 point. 11pt marines would be totally acceptable in my eyes, and combined with a fair costing of their upgrade weaponry and vehicles, would most likely fix anything wrong with them. I would also apply CTs to all models, despite the probable internal balance issues that would cause (it mattering a whole lot in the case of the already strong CTs and not mattering all in the case of the weakest ones) because screw it, everyone else gets that and we can balance the individual cases out later.

That would get the army to usable, and unlike many people seem to be fearing, would not turn marines into a horde army. With 11pt marines you'd likely be outnumbered 2 to 1 by a real horde of orks, nids, whatever. A Space Marine, in terms of size and scale and comparison to other models present in the game, is a medium infantry model, not a walking tank. If you want them to seem incredibly powerful, you should probably not play 2000pt games of 40k with formations of huge tanks, knights, phalanxes of necrons, whole shrines of aspect warriors etc.

Like it or not, plenty of marine-comparable units exist for many of the other factions in the game already, even without getting into the super duper heavy stuff like baneblades.

Just so the record is clear here, a TLDR:

-Does changing marine point costs from 13 to 11 instantly fix them?

NO

-Do all other marine point costs suddenly make sense at 11ppm for basic power armor

NO, they need to have the balance pass other factions got post-indexes to their weaponry and vehicles

-does this mean every other faction, weapon, whatever in the game is fine and doesn't need adjustment

NO, obviously things in other factions will most likely need nerfs

I'm not imaging 80% of my marines never getting to swing.

80% of my boyz never get to swing. I think they should be 4 ppm now. Does that sound ok? Great!