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.

Imagine if the answer to Commisars, when they were OP, were to be giving Marines their own Commisars. Would Marines players have been happy with that 'fix' instead of what GW did do?

Bharring wrote:
I disagree that h2h stats on a model that isn't great at h2h is worthless.

Consider Rangers in cover and Marines in cover. Both are hard to shift with shooting. Against the rangers, a SoB squad of equal numbers, or even a Guardsmen squad of slightly greater numbers can shift the Rangers easily via Assault. They cannot shift the Marines that way unless they *greatly* outnumber them.

So, if your marines are in cover trading shots with Sisters or Guardsmen <12" away for a couple rounds, is it really accurate to say their CC stats did nothing? Sure, they didn't actually apply them directly to dice rolls, but did it not impact the game?

(As for the Titans made of Adamantium, how does that cover the squared/cubed problem? Unless I'm missing a gakton of lift on every Titan, they'd only be functional when walking on surfaces made of Adamantium.)

Your theoretical you gave doesn't exist for me. No one shifts marines like that. There's no reason to in games against 14+ dissy cannons, 18 necron destroyers and 20 dark reapers. Where is your str and ws against that stuff? If the ig want to shift you, they'll use plasma scions, battle cannon, basilisk or manticores.

So yes, its still accurate to say that. You can't deter assaults that were never coming in the first place.

That was his point. People don't because it's far more effective to shoot them. Marine's combat stats make them harder to fight off in melee, by at least enough that people avoid trying to do it.

I guess everything's happened to someone at some point, but I don't think I have ever seen guardsmen charge Eldar Rangers.

I guess if there was 1 ranger left and you wanted the kill point you have better odds than killing 1 remaining tactical marine, but this is incredibly niche stuff.

Anything that wants to assault is going to be chew up marines.

The real issue with offense versus defence is that offense (shooting anyway) tends to come up every turn. Defence only comes up when you are targeted. Doing 50% more damage is therefore typically better than taking 33% less damage because the game isn't a sequence of theorcrafted one unit vs one unit engagements.

 Mmmpi wrote:
That was his point. People don't because it's far more effective to shoot them. Marine's combat stats make them harder to fight off in melee, by at least enough that people avoid trying to do it.

People are for the most part just building shooting armies in the first place rather than actively avoiding combat because Marines. They're avoiding melee with everyone in general. Then of course you just fall back and then shoot that unit so who cares?

Yeah, but when you do get shot at, it usually isn't by just one unit, but several combining fire, which increases the value of the defensive stats. So, your 33% defense improvement only comes up one turn a game, but three times in that turn. It's the same overall value as three turns of shooting.

In a perfect world units would be priced based on their on some kind of equation rather than just the sum of their stats.

For shooting units it would be something like:
(Shooting damage vs a range of intended targets + effective range + mobility + synergy with other units * durability vs a range of weapons) + secondary stats at a discount based on likelihood of relevance.

Most stats rely on other stats and factors to increase their effectiveness, so when those are missing the initial stat just isn't worth the same as it would be with it's multiplier present. Devastators aren't getting anything out of their S and WS stats, but they are paying for them.

Let's do a thought experiment. If you could pay 1 point to buff each of your sisters T, S, WS, and LD stats individually, how many of them would you buy? I could see the T perhaps being worth it for 10 points per model as it does help their durability a little. Can you make good arguments for wanting to pay for the other stats? I really can't.

No one can deconvolute this from shooting just being way better in 8th.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, but when you do get shot at, it usually isn't by just one unit, but several combining fire, which increases the value of the defensive stats. So, your 33% defense improvement only comes up one turn a game, but three times in that turn. It's the same overall value as three turns of shooting.

I either don't understand you, or this seems wrong. The number of units killing you doesn't really matter. Some armies have big units, others have small units.

What is relevant is how much damage from what % of the enemy army the unit can take before dying, how many times they can act before that happens, and what effect that actually has.

Dying in one turn to three units is the same as dying in one turn to one similarly costed unit, and dying slowly over three turns to one unit is going to be better than either of the other two because the unit that dies gets three while turns worth of doing stuff.

Well, there are no Marines in games with 14+ dissy cannons, 18 necron destroyers and 20 dark reapers, unless its a 3+ person game.

I have certainly seen Rangers charged by threats that wouldn't shift Tac Marines of equal points. Many times. It's not as common now because Rangers are either screens (where they get charged right away by CC threats that'd kill either), or they're backfield because even a shooty troop will destroy them in CC for far fewer points.

Did you miss upthread where a SoB player wants to shift Marines in cover? "Anything that wants to assault" is selection bias: a Sister wants to Assault a Fire Warrior or Kab or Guardian or Ranger or Reaper. But it doesn't want to charge a Marine *because* it can't chew them up.

Wanting to assault is about whether or not you can win the fight. It's not about whether you have Zerker rules or Termie stats. It's about whether you are better at CC than the poor sod on the other side. I've successfully assaulted things with *fire warriors* before (super rare when that's a good idea).

Bharring wrote:
Well, there are no Marines in games with 14+ dissy cannons, 18 necron destroyers and 20 dark reapers, unless its a 3+ person game.

I have certainly seen Rangers charged by threats that wouldn't shift Tac Marines of equal points. Many times. It's not as common now because Rangers are either screens (where they get charged right away by CC threats that'd kill either), or they're backfield because even a shooty troop will destroy them in CC for far fewer points.

Did you miss upthread where a SoB player wants to shift Marines in cover? "Anything that wants to assault" is selection bias: a Sister wants to Assault a Fire Warrior or Kab or Guardian or Ranger or Reaper. But it doesn't want to charge a Marine *because* it can't chew them up.

Wanting to assault is about whether or not you can win the fight. It's not about whether you have Zerker rules or Termie stats. It's about whether you are better at CC than the poor sod on the other side. I've successfully assaulted things with *fire warriors* before (super rare when that's a good idea).

Oh absolutely. That is the true sign of a good player - when they utilize assault with units that aren't designed for it.

Martel732 wrote:
No one can deconvolute this from shooting just being way better in 8th.

Has shooting ever NOT been way better in 40k?

jcd386 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, but when you do get shot at, it usually isn't by just one unit, but several combining fire, which increases the value of the defensive stats. So, your 33% defense improvement only comes up one turn a game, but three times in that turn. It's the same overall value as three turns of shooting.

I either don't understand you, or this seems wrong.

In theory it might hold up.

13 Sisters shoot 3 times = 39 BS3+ S4 shots.
9 Tactical Marines shoot 3 times = 27 BS3+ S4 shots.
(If we have them rapid fire from turn 2 or 3 this gets more pronounced.)

Killing 13 sisters = 156 B 4+ S3 shots. (Theoretically, obviously it doesn't really work out this way statistically.)
Now if 156 BS4+ S3 shots only killed say 4 marines (rather than 8-9, wiping the same points out) those remaining Marines could potentially shoot again, getting close to the same damage output as the sisters before dying.

As we can see here however the sisters do more damage and point for point are as tough.

Which is the real issue with basic MEQ. They deal crap damage output with bolters. A single S4 attack in assault is also crap.
Compare to Fire Warriors or Kabalites and this just gets worse.

Tyel wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, but when you do get shot at, it usually isn't by just one unit, but several combining fire, which increases the value of the defensive stats. So, your 33% defense improvement only comes up one turn a game, but three times in that turn. It's the same overall value as three turns of shooting.

I either don't understand you, or this seems wrong.

In theory it might hold up.

13 Sisters shoot 3 times = 39 BS3+ S4 shots.
9 Tactical Marines shoot 3 times = 27 BS3+ S4 shots.
(If we have them rapid fire from turn 2 or 3 this gets more pronounced.)

Killing 13 sisters = 156 B 4+ S3 shots. (Theoretically, obviously it doesn't really work out this way statistically.)
Now if 156 BS4+ S3 shots only killed say 4 marines (rather than 8-9, wiping the same points out) those remaining Marines could potentially shoot again, getting close to the same damage output as the sisters before dying.

As we can see here however the sisters do more damage and point for point are as tough.

Which is the real issue with basic MEQ. They deal crap damage output with bolters. A single S4 attack in assault is also crap.
Compare to Fire Warriors or Kabalites and this just gets worse.

Its better than a single S3 attack in assault. Wounds most opponents on a 3+ not a 4+.

Martel732 wrote:No one can deconvolute this from shooting just being way better in 8th.

Way better than close combat you mean? Then what's the deal with all these plaguebearer heavy Nurgle daemon armies with little to no shooting at tournaments? And wasn't the winner of the LGT a CC orientated Catachan list?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its better than a single S3 attack in assault. Wounds most opponents on a 3+ not a 4+.

Yeah but you are paying 13 points rather than 6 on a Kabalite. Or 4 on a Guardsman (with lower WS, but whatever.)

Tyel wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its better than a single S3 attack in assault. Wounds most opponents on a 3+ not a 4+.

Yeah but you are paying 13 points rather than 6 on a Kabalite. Or 4 on a Guardsman (with lower WS, but whatever.)

Paying more than 6pts for a Sister with WS4+ and Strength 3?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Tyel wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, but when you do get shot at, it usually isn't by just one unit, but several combining fire, which increases the value of the defensive stats. So, your 33% defense improvement only comes up one turn a game, but three times in that turn. It's the same overall value as three turns of shooting.

I either don't understand you, or this seems wrong.

In theory it might hold up.

13 Sisters shoot 3 times = 39 BS3+ S4 shots.
9 Tactical Marines shoot 3 times = 27 BS3+ S4 shots.
(If we have them rapid fire from turn 2 or 3 this gets more pronounced.)

Killing 13 sisters = 156 B 4+ S3 shots. (Theoretically, obviously it doesn't really work out this way statistically.)
Now if 156 BS4+ S3 shots only killed say 4 marines (rather than 8-9, wiping the same points out) those remaining Marines could potentially shoot again, getting close to the same damage output as the sisters before dying.

As we can see here however the sisters do more damage and point for point are as tough.

Which is the real issue with basic MEQ. They deal crap damage output with bolters. A single S4 attack in assault is also crap.
Compare to Fire Warriors or Kabalites and this just gets worse.

Its better than a single S3 attack in assault. Wounds most opponents on a 3+ not a 4+.

It's better but it's not better for the price you are paying for it.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No one can deconvolute this from shooting just being way better in 8th.

Has shooting ever NOT been way better in 40k?

CC was better in 3rd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nurgle5 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:No one can deconvolute this from shooting just being way better in 8th.

Way better than close combat you mean? Then what's the deal with all these plaguebearer heavy Nurgle daemon armies with little to no shooting at tournaments? And wasn't the winner of the LGT a CC orientated Catachan list?

Shooting is still way better. Nurgle tourney wins don't change this.

I think its kind of cool that Marines are supposed to shoot and charge in and finish things off in melee. It's unfortunate that this really doesn't in any way translate into a viable playstyle.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think its kind of cool that Marines are supposed to shoot and charge in and finish things off in melee. It's unfortunate that this really doesn't in any way translate into a viable playstyle.

Indeed:

Rather than 2W - Would it make a difference with 2A base?

Some games. But most games, they die before they can swing.

 nurgle5 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:No one can deconvolute this from shooting just being way better in 8th.

Way better than close combat you mean? Then what's the deal with all these plaguebearer heavy Nurgle daemon armies with little to no shooting at tournaments? And wasn't the winner of the LGT a CC orientated Catachan list?

The Catachan list is the one people should have been running this whole eddition. I don't play IG but the straken buff on catachan infantry is just insane. 2 Str 4 attacks on each 4 point model with straken buff is absolutely isnane. Plus - it's not like these guys still don't have lasguns and cost 4 points - because they do have lasguns and cost 4 points.

Nurgle lists aren't really CC oriented - they are defensively oriented (which is defense against shooting) that has always been effective.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think its kind of cool that Marines are supposed to shoot and charge in and finish things off in melee. It's unfortunate that this really doesn't in any way translate into a viable playstyle.

Indeed:

Rather than 2W - Would it make a difference with 2A base?

I think that's the idea behind the Chainsword rules. Ultimately I think the issue is just that they don't have a means of reliably getting the alpha strike (nor do I think they should) but a lot of the things that end up assaulting them cut through power armor like butter. More attacks is probably the answer, but having played with 2A DW Vets for a while, it doesn't exactly make them good in melee. Vets cost a lot more though, so it might work out well on the cheaper Tacs.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think its kind of cool that Marines are supposed to shoot and charge in and finish things off in melee. It's unfortunate that this really doesn't in any way translate into a viable playstyle.

Indeed:

Rather than 2W - Would it make a difference with 2A base?

The change I'd like to see.
Secondis marines 14 points - 2W 2A
Primaris marines 20 points - 3W 3A (terminators and gravis armor would also get this profile with perhaps a 3-5 point increase)

S4 WS3+ is only half the CC equation. They're also T4 Sv3+.

That might not seem as big a deal, but CC between non-CC units is about attrition, not just damage. So, sure, you only kill about twice as many GEQ as a Fire Warrior (2/3*2/3*2/3 vs 1/2*1/2*2/3: works out to be nearly twice as much, and for nearly twice the points). But you also take about half as much in return (1/2*1/3*1/3 vs 1/2*1/2*1/2 - same ratio). So you kill twice as fast for twice the points, yet also survive twice as long. Now you're fighting twice per game round (both players' turns), and they're likely to start losing some bodies to Morale, while your Marines aren't going to.

Bharring wrote:
S4 WS3+ is only half the CC equation. They're also T4 Sv3+.

That might not seem as big a deal, but CC between non-CC units is about attrition, not just damage. So, sure, you only kill about twice as many GEQ as a Fire Warrior (2/3*2/3*2/3 vs 1/2*1/2*2/3: works out to be nearly twice as much, and for nearly twice the points). But you also take about half as much in return (1/2*1/3*1/3 vs 1/2*1/2*1/2 - same ratio). So you kill twice as fast for twice the points, yet also survive twice as long. Now you're fighting twice per game round (both players' turns), and they're likely to start losing some bodies to Morale, while your Marines aren't going to.

Never seen this play out really.

Typically a 5 man in CC is lucky to get a single kill. Where I feel I can get real mileage out of primaris if I can utilize both their profiles - sadly - at 18 points and most every unit in the game has a gun that does flat 2 damage or d3 damage. These guys don't live very long.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think its kind of cool that Marines are supposed to shoot and charge in and finish things off in melee. It's unfortunate that this really doesn't in any way translate into a viable playstyle.

Indeed:

Rather than 2W - Would it make a difference with 2A base?

The change I'd like to see.
Secondis marines 14 points - 2W 2A
Primaris marines 20 points - 3W 3A (terminators and gravis armor would also get this profile with perhaps a 3-5 point increase)

the issue with 3W 3A is thats basically the custodes profile.
It degrades the separation.

Martel732 wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So you're saying +1 S, T, BS, and LD are worth 0 points?

}

WS, not BS. And in the majority of games, this is accurate. So make it 10 pts for the minority of games where those stats matter.

Why don't these stats matter in the majority of games?

Because my squads are getting shot to death at range before they can use most of them.

sounds like they need to decrease the points cost of Martel's to compensate for how badly they do on the tabletop.

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Nope ithe 18 shots is an inherent ability for a riptide
That's what he should have done turn 1, really no overwatch casualties I've murdered bloat drones with tau overwatch the firewarriors alone should have been enough to kill the remaining 10ish marines in overwatch

Just to be clear rhinos don't block LOS in 8th edition you can see under them. Only landradiers, Leman Russes and Chimeras block line of sight parked sideways.

Yeahhh... we're not shooting under Rhinos, even if technically you might be able too.

I'm not familiar with the nova charge move for Riptides, but I'm guessing he wasn't shooting 18 times with everything because he was giving them a 3++.

If your going to house rule that vehicals blovk los etc etc no wonder rhino rush works for you, your need that house rule to make it work.

Again bad play on his part HBC riptides always tek the extra shooting. It effects shooting and overwatch and a 3++ is irrelevant if the opponent has nothinf to shoot you with.

He definitely wanted the 3++ because I had Plasma and Grav for days. 6 extra shots wouldn't have changed that.

I'll defend not shooting under Rhinos for days if you like. In fact it's possible the Rhinos blocked LOS anyways because they were tilted on a crater, and the marines were in the crater.

Grav isn't all that scary to a riptide moving grav does 1.33 wounds to a riptide, you need a lot of grav to down a riptide. Not to mention drones can tank anything too scary looking.
It also means your not shooting anything at missilesides etc etc.

Though I also suspect his deployment was pretty bad by the sounds of it as he couls have quite easily just side stepped the right in your face assualt units with some side stepping. Make you charge thr riptides and fly away, you'd been in real trouble. From then on.

Just to clarify I'm impressed your having sucess with marines but I do wonder if your not having an amount of sucess duw to big fish small pond syndrome. IE you have a beter understanding of 8th than your usual opponents so your winning matchups due to wrong footing them. As I know a lot of 40k players who have a game plan and can't react on the fly.

Storm Bolters and the Bolters from the first Tac squad clear the rest of the drones (because some had already died the first turn) at 10.7 wounds
The Four Grav Cannons, (one of which didn't move) comes to 6.8
Eight Plasma Guns rapid firing comes to 14.7
Backfield Lascannons come to 3.6
Flak Missile for 1.92
Sternguard with Strat comes to 5.5
The rest of the Bolters vs. Riptides at 2.66ish

Total wounds vs Riptides had he not charged shields comes to 35.18 with some mish-mash in there depending on how the drones held up to the initial bolters. Not including subsequent charge by 9 units including 2 Characters with Powerfists. Vs. an extra 3 marines dead if he fired extra nova shots via Heavy Burst Cannons, by my calculations. Imo, the shields were the way to go.

He had deployed in his corner and could not sidestep.

I'm not saying I beat some expert player now, it's pretty clear I had more experience. We both didn't have the best armies, etc. etc. But what the above points out to me is how much people seem to underestimate the amount of damage marines can do if they focus their efforts.

Now I'm genuinely curious as to how much a typical competetive Tau army can do to the wall of Rhinos. I think my opponent didn't expect the bum-rush and didn't have all his resources on the table (having kept a command suit and some drones in reserve). I'm sure they could tear it up pretty good. But another thing that stands out to me is things like the Heavy Burst Cannon, which look nasty, but is still hampered by that base BS of 4 and doesn't kill Marines as quick as people seem to think.

Edit: If someone is really gonna do the math, the Rhinos have a -1 to hit.