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.

Nobody is taking Guardians to not die. They're taking Guardians to kill things. 20-man blob WWP'ed in.

I'm not arguing that CWE aren't better than SM. I'm pointing out that, per point, they're typically more fragile. They're just better at other things (mostly, killing and moving).

It's not that I don't see the big picture. It's that I'm not disagreeing with the big picture. Marines need help. They've made it to the bottom half.

I'm attempting to help the big picture by steering the conversation away from fallacies. Pretending that Marines get removed top of 1 automagically every time doesn't help analyse the problem, or what should be done about it. To properly discuss the problem, we need to identify the problem clearly. Because, if we're trying to solve the problem based on faulty understandings (such as "Marines are the most fragile per point"), we're going to do the wrong things.

Bharring wrote:
"Gaurdians are a glass cannon unit. You are selling them short though. When used properly they are very hard to destroy even without stratagems"

You know what else has a 2+ save for it's first two wounds in cover and costs less than the Guardian squad with the platform? A Tac squad with a heavy weapon. Cheaper for the same firepower. More durable to most weapons in the game. Has that 2+ for the entire time. And doesn't lose it's heavy after two wounds the way Platform-tanking Guardians do.

If only Marines could field a Tac squad to have the same durability as a Platform-tanking Guardian squad! But, alas, they have to pay a full 65 points for the same thing CWE gets for only 95 points!

First of all - you are comparing a glass cannon unit to a unit that pays a premium for armor and toughness increase. The Marine unit should be significantly more durable per point. IT IS NOT. There is no question the gardian unit's firepower is significantly better than the tac squad. They also move faster with the ability to advance and shoot with no penalty so they move A LOT faster. The only place the tac squad is better defensively is in a 0 support situation (which does not exist in the game) If I am taking gardians - I am taking them in a 20 man unit and I am going to buff them to a 3++ save for a marginal investment of resources.

What are you going to do with your tac squad? Absolutely nothing - they do nothing in this game - they don't even survive well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Galef,
A Razorback *and* a Rhino are in the ~150 pt range.
A Serpent is marginally cheaper.

Razor/Rhino have 20 wounds total. Serpent has 13. Even with Shield, the Razor/Rhino is surviving a ton more outside contrived examples. Further, Razor/Rhino are two seperate vehicles, which helps against overkill and degradation.

Don't get me wrong, the Serpent is the better vehicle. Much better firepower. But both the Razorback and Rhino are more durable per point than the Serpent. Not as much more durable than most other SM vs CWE comparisons, though.

A razorback and a rhino is in the 200 point range.
A wave serpant is under 130 points....
Lets also not forget the serpent shield makes plasma useless and the army trait the serpent gains benefit from that SM vehicals do not. This is all included in the general statement. Space marines are the most fragile army in the game.

Its not fair to compare tacs to just troops when they are the template for all marine infantry slots.

Yeah, Xeno...no one is going to buy that argument.

I am just trying to adequately communicate why Marines, as an army, are far more fragile than Aeldari due to things far more complex than simple math.

Yes, A Marine is more durable than A Guardian. But considering a single failed save for either takes out far more points to the Marine that the Guardian, clearly the Marine "loses" more. A unit of Guardians also does more that a minimum Tac Squad, meaning they can remove threats better, thereby TAKING less damage in the course of the game.
This is why Marines need +1W. Because they are SUPPOSED to be more durable, but they are not due to so many other factors BESIDES simple mathhammer.

-

"First of all - you are comparing a glass cannon unit to a unit that pays a premium for armor and toughness increase." Of course.

"The Marine unit should be significantly more durable per point." Of course.

"IT IS NOT." Difference in 'significantly' here. I think T4 3+ vs T3 4+ is significant.

"I am taking them in a 20 man unit and I am going to buff them to a 3++ save for a marginal investment of resources."
-Black Guardians - Spending CP every turn to give them a 4++
-Protect - getting the same power off on the Warlock every time. Assuming no denies, you'll be spending CP every other turn to get it to happen ~80% of the time.

That many CP (~10 a game) is not what I'd call "marginal".

"What are you going to do with your tac squad? Absolutely nothing - they do nothing in this game" Hasn't been recently refuted. Not impactful.

"they don't even survive well." We have different ideas of 'survive well'. Sure, there are units that are designed to be even more immovable who outperform them per point. But they still outperform many armies in durability per point. Whether Marines can do enough to be worth their points even if they do survive is a completely different subject than whether they can survive better than units that can do things.

Martel:
About cover, it was in response to the idea that Guardians are super durable because they can tank 2 wounds on a 2+ in cover if they pay a bunch of points for it (weapons platform). Either the platform has a 2+ and the Marines have a 2+, or neither do.

As for "Its not fair to compare tacs to just troops when they are the template for all marine infantry slots."

When talking about durability, it is fair in this case for most of these. Tac durability informs Dev durability and ASM durability. Dire Avenger durability informs Reaper durability and Banshee durability. Harliquen Troop durability informs Harliquen Troop durability and Harliquen Troop durability. PAGK durability informs Strike Squad durability and... well, they're PAGK...

So, just looking at a durability/pt perspective, Marines aren't alone in the "This one profile informs the durability of my other units". Again, those other units (aside from PAGK) can do things Marines can't. And, to your more general point, Tac firepower does inform non-Tac Marine firepower (devs and ASM, for instance) whereas that's not as true in other factions. But the specific claim beign discussed is whether Marines are the most fragile army per point in the game.

Bharring wrote:
Nobody is taking Guardians to not die. They're taking Guardians to kill things. 20-man blob WWP'ed in.

I'm not arguing that CWE aren't better than SM. I'm pointing out that, per point, they're typically more fragile. They're just better at other things (mostly, killing and moving).

It's not that I don't see the big picture. It's that I'm not disagreeing with the big picture. Marines need help. They've made it to the bottom half.

I'm attempting to help the big picture by steering the conversation away from fallacies. Pretending that Marines get removed top of 1 automagically every time doesn't help analyse the problem, or what should be done about it. To properly discuss the problem, we need to identify the problem clearly. Because, if we're trying to solve the problem based on faulty understandings (such as "Marines are the most fragile per point"), we're going to do the wrong things.

There is no faulty information here. There is only deflection. Should guardians be anywhere near tac marines in terms of survivability? No...So why are we even talking about it?
Lets also just ignore the fact you can buff a 20 man gardian to be practically indestructible but a 10 man marine unit dies to any combination of low AP attacks no matter what you do?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.

Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.

Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.

Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.

You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.

"A razorback and a rhino is in the 200 point range." What? Sure, if you bling them out with everything. Extra Storm Bolters, Hunter Killers, etc. Unless somehow the Razorback now costs more than the Serpent alone - did I miss that FAQ?

"A wave serpant is under 130 points" Sure, naked.

If those were the points the Serpent would marginally win (same W, but Serpent Shield is really good. Two chasis is also very good, but not quite as good as Serpent Shield).

They seem like the most fragile in practice because they remove enemy threats so slowly. Eldar knock down incoming fire much more quickly. Forget grandiose claims about magnitude. Tac marines don't provide 13 points of value and this gets propagated through every unit based off it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.

Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.

Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.

Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.

You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.

It's very swingy durability. But it's something.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.

Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.

Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.

Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.

You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.

I really don't...Necrons have an ability with the potential to remove all losses from a shooting phase. Provided they can't sink the final wound.
In this situation - you are at the very least forced to shoot weapons you need to shoot somewhere else to make sure they don't get back up.

"Lets also not forget the serpent shield makes plasma useless" Still wounds on 4s not overcharged. Even against non-OC'ed Plas, the Serpent is 30% more durable per model than a Razorback. For more than 30% more.

A razorback and a rhino is in the 200 point range.
A wave serpant is under 130 points....

Is that with both loaded up with standard armaments?

Rhinos and razors, while not great, play better than marines.

Bharring wrote:
"Lets also not forget the serpent shield makes plasma useless" Still wounds on 4s not overcharged. Even against non-OC'ed Plas, the Serpent is 30% more durable per model than a Razorback. For more than 30% more.

Except you are shooting overcharged plasma at the razor...and not overcharged against the serpant. This means the serpant has 13 (4+ to wound) wounds to the razors 5 (3+ to wound) - they have the exact same toughness and saves. Plus - the serpant is likely -1 to hit OR 6+ FNP or both (this is significant because the razor does not get it's trait). Realistcally - this puts the serapnt at about 3x the number of plasma shots to kill...They aren't even close in durability.

how to fix terminators....hmmm

I agree that now primaris marines get 2 wounds anyway and fancy weapons Terminators have become a bit of an afterthought.


2 ways you can go about it I think.

1. Major points decrease. say around 20 points for a terminator


2. Increase stats as others have been saying.
I think the biggest thing you could give them would be a 4+ inv save.
should have ability to ignore wounds that aren't from power weapons..

All I'm sayin is I have played and watched games vs Marines and often they lose half their army by turn 3 in most games, whether they win or lose.
I can count on 1 hand the number of games I've played as Eldar in which I've lost more than 1/3 of my army by the end. Win or lose, doesn't matter, it is rare that I lose nearly as much of my army as I have seen Marines lose on a regular basis

-

 Mr Morden wrote:

A razorback and a rhino is in the 200 point range.
A wave serpant is under 130 points....

Is that with both loaded up with standard armaments?

Yes.
74 for a rhino with 2 storm bolters
116 for a razor TLAC with a storm bolter
=190 points

a 3 SC serpant is 134 lots of people play it at 129 with 2 SC and 1 TLSC too (which has better firepower vs a lot of targets)

That's because eldar neutralize the threats much more effectively.

"Yes, A Marine is more durable than A Guardian. But considering a single failed save for either takes out far more points to the Marine that the Guardian, clearly the Marine "loses" more."

A minimum unit of Guardians costs more than a minimum unit of Marines. 80pts vs 65 pts. It survives Lascannons better. But survives small arms worse per unit. Much worse per point.

Per model lost, Marines lose more. But Guardians lose models at a faster rate than Marines, and that rate is more than the points ratio between them.

'A unit of Guardians also does more that a minimum Tac Squad, meaning they can remove threats better, thereby TAKING less damage in the course of the game. " Arguing that you kill stuff therefore you're durable? It's a logical argument that they're probably more likely to survive. Not sure I'd disagree with that. But I thought I was being clear I was only talking about durability directly. Otherwise, we're just talking about what's better, not what's more durable. Still, no disagreement that Guardians are better than Marines.

"This is why Marines need +1W. Because they are SUPPOSED to be more durable, but they are not due to so many other factors BESIDES simple mathhammer. " I'd agree that other factors make them less viable despite being more durable than certain other armies as discussed here. I don't agree that being less viable therefore makes you inherently less durable, as per above.

"Lets also just ignore the fact you can buff a 20 man gardian to be practically indestructible but a 10 man marine unit dies to any combination of low AP attacks no matter what you do?"
Even if we accept that you can give your 20man a 3++ the whole game (Black Guardians + Protect). The 10 Marines are 130pts. The 20 Guardians are 160. Assumiing "Any combination of low AP attacks" is the S4AP0 profile:
(1/2)(1/3) = 1/6 hits kill 13pts, or just north of 2 pts a hit
(2/3)(1/3) = 2/9 hits kill 8pts, or just south of 2 pts a hit

CWE can spend a Warlock all game and multiple CP every turn to make Guardians as durable as Marines to small arms per point. That's not counting the Warlock points, even. So how are those Marines less durable to "any combination of low AP attacks no matter what you do" than Guardians, per point?

Martel732 wrote:
That's because eldar neutralize the threats much more effectively.

Exactly. So while a Marine might be more "durable" than a Guardian, it also takes about twice as much damage over the course of the game.

So to do a proper comparison between Tac Marines and Guardians, you need to allocate twice the damage to the Marines.
Do that math and see which is more durable.

Terminators, at minimum, need +1 wound, as do standard Marines.

-

 Galef wrote:
All I'm sayin is I have played and watched games vs Marines and often they lose half their army by turn 3 in most games, whether they win or lose.
I can count on 1 hand the number of games I've played as Eldar in which I've lost more than 1/3 of my army by the end. Win or lose, doesn't matter, it is rare that I lose nearly as much of my army as I have seen Marines lose on a regular basis

-

It's because a standard eldar army does not show Any infantry turn 1. Every infantry unit is going to be a serpant (which is really hard to kill in 1 turn for most armies).
2 Serpants (when I play eldar) Hides my 10 dire avengers and whatever infantry aspect I've decided to run that game and I deep strike 20 guardians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyways - none of this has to do with terminators.

Terminators weakness is well illustrated by their durability by IG shooting an IG batallion (220 points) at them. 4 infantry squads firing FRFSRF kills 100 points of terminators - mind you that is only 5 wounds. It just proves statement that they are immune to small arms fire is absurd. They are vulnerable to everything - they need to be more resilient to everything. +1 Wound is the best solution.

I had forgotten how many times the TLAC Razorback was upped in points. Sure, in that one case, the most glass-cannon SM transport is less durable than the least glass-cannon CWE transport, per point. You found an example in one of the CWE units built for durability vs one of the Marine units built for firepower.

TLLC Razorbacks are 115. TLBL Falcons are 150. Falcons have 12 wounds to Razors 10, but cost 30% more.

DAs less durable than tacs per points vs anything not S8+ *AND* AP-5.

Guardians less durable than tacs per points vs anything small arms.

Scorpions and Banshees less durable per point than ASM.

Reapers less durable (but otherwise much better) per point than Devs.

Serpent less durable per point than Rhinos.

Falcons less durable per point than Razorbacks.

And that's just CWE.

PAGK pay more for the same defenses as Marines. How are they less fragile per point?

Harlequins have some nice defensive abilities such that they're not removed by the bucketload, but even with -1 to hit or wound, most things remove t3 4++ faster than t4 3+.

I'm *still* not arguing that Marines don't need a buff. I'm not arguing that their durability means they're fine. I'm specifically refuting that they are the least durable army in the game.

"I'm specifically refuting that they are the least durable army in the game."

Once you equip them, it becomes a lot MORE true. Marine equipment costs are nuts.

Marines pay 65 for a min squad then 25 for a LasCannon.
Guardians pay 90 for a min squad then 25 for a Brighlance.

So you've got 90 points of Marines shooting a LC or 115 points of Guardians shooting a Brightlance. The Marine unit is still more durable outside heavy AT weapons, despite costing quite a bit less. And a LasCannon is better than a Brightlance.

There's equipment other than lascannons, however. Grav, melta, flamers. They are all outrageously costed for marines. Basically you've got overcosted models equipping with overcosted equipment. It's double trouble.

Given the defensive profiles of xeno units now, I'd even argue lascannons aren't worth 25 pts anymore.

Also, please quit using Eldar as the point of comparsion. Let's talk guardsmen and Drukhari. Eldar have many of the same problems as marines. The truly efficient infantry armies don't.

Martel732 wrote:
There's equipment other than lascannons, however. Grav, melta, flamers. They are all outrageously costed for marines. Basically you've got overcosted models equipping with overcosted equipment. It's double trouble.

Given the defensive profiles of xeno units now, I'd even argue lascannons aren't worth 25 pts anymore.

To add to your point, the basic Gaurdian has a better gun too, so they don't necessarily need the Weapon platform for the bulk of it's damage. It's really just there for wound allocation
Marines, otoh, can barely do jack with Bolters alone, so not only are you paying for the Lascannon or Heavy Bolter or whatever, you likely also want a Combi-weapon on the Sgt.

5 Marines with Plasma and Combi-plasma (an "optimum" build for a unit in a transport) is ~100pts (97pts, I think) for 5 wounds are 3+
10 Guardians with a Shuricannon platform (the "optimum" build to have in a serpent or the Webway) is 95pt for 2 wounds at 3+ and 10 wounds at 5+ (but really 4++)

But again, those Guardian will only be taking about half the damage that the Marine will take, because the Eldar player can use them more efficiently and place them where there are less threats.
Marines kinda have to take it on the chin. Marines will be force to take far more saves than the Guardians ever will.

-

Because "Marines are the most fragile army in the game" should only be discussed using armies that aren't more fragile than Marines?

Do Marine meltaguns at 17pts cost more than CWE meltaguns at 17pts? That's some funky math. How bout the 9pt flamer vs the 9pt flamer?

It costs 25pts for a Tac squad to add a ML. It costs 35pts for a Guardian squad. Heavy bolter costs 10. Scatter Laser costs 20. Shuriken Cannon costs 20.

I don't disagree that Marines are more fragile than Guardsmen in many situations. Or Kabs. Or many things. I disagree that there aren't armies that are more fragile than Marines.

Can we please drop this point? I think one guy claimed this. Maybe two?

Please quit using Eldar as the point for comparison. I don't consider their infantry strong, either.

Marines don't deliver 13 points of value. Hard stop. Meltaguns don't deliver 17 pts of value in the hands of said marine. Hard stop. Combining the two is how we get where we are with marines.

"many situations"

Nearly every.

Martel732 wrote:
Can we please drop this point? I think one guy claimed this. Maybe two?

Please quit using Eldar as the point for comparison. I don't consider their infantry strong, either.

Marines don't deliver 13 points of value. Hard stop. Meltaguns don't deliver 17 pts of value in the hands of said marine. Hard stop. Combining the two is how we get where we are with marines.

"many situations"

Nearly every.

Dop Meltaguns deliver at 17pts in the hands of anyone when Plasma guns exist?