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.

But not as plot armor - as being different from the squad.

Don't Orkz also have a bigger Ork who's 2W? But he's bigger.

Harlequin Troup Masters kinda fit this bill for a short period in 7th, but they're HQs now.

Edit - I'm curious where the precedence for +1W from plot armor on the squad leader is coming from. There's certainly precedence for leaders to have plot-armor wounds (see almost every HQ ever).

 Galef wrote:

bananathug wrote:

Spoiler:

I wonder if GW went/go through half the effort people are pouring into this discussion when coming out with marines?

It's hard to imagine that they did. I really wish I could take this whole thread and just send it to GW. This forum really never agrees on anything but some how we've gotten everyone (except Shuppet...) to agree that marines are over-priced.

The solutions range from 2+ saves, +1 wound or reducing the price to 10-11 points.

It also seem universal that their offensive out-put is too low and should be resolved with +1 A across the board. The shooting power doesn't seem to have the same universal solution but I think it depends on the durability solution. Increase the armor/+1w and they need from double the shots to exploding sixes.

The rest of the codex is still in a bad spot (paper thin "tanks", over costed transports, drop pods, slow as poop dreads, Guilliman, chaplins, deepstrike rule, flyers, vindicators, centurians, land raiders, terminators, psychic powers, strategems). But with the amount of work it's taken people to just come together on tacs I'm not sure if we have the collective willpower to even consider the rest of the issues.

Fair synopsis?

Close enough.
I will concede that 10-11ppm Marines present a better solution to the offense issue than having 2W. Getting more bodies on the table means more bolters and more melee attacks.

How does everyone feel about giving Marines the Exarch treatment? Keeping Marines at 1W. but unit leaders like Sgts and Champions get +1W?
You can hardly argue the precedence isn't there. Unit leaders are little mini-heroes afterall.

-

2W on the Sergeant I would be ok with, but it does dilute the Exarch a bit. Originally Exarchs were more like Autarchs are now. Incredibly customize-able heroes that functioned separately and independently. Not only have they fallen far, but Autarchs are now very limited in their builds because of the lack of currently sold models, which is sad.

On the offensive front, I'd rather marines stay 13ppm and have a shooting bonus, because I tend towards tradition. In 2nd, Marines had Rapid-Fire and nobody else did, which meant that they could fire twice with Boltguns and Storm Bolters if they didn't move. Personally I'd rather keep marines mobile, so I'd propose something like "Marines in Power Armor or Terminator Armor can fire an additional shot for every "shot" in a bolt weapons profile." At close range Bolters would fire 3 shots, and fire 2 at long range. Storm Bolters would fire 6 shots up close, and 4 at long range. Heavy Bolters would fire 6 shots in the hands of a Marine. The restriction on armor keeps Boltstorm Gauntlets on Aggressors from getting way outta hand. (Or adjust with whatever fine print you want to substitute.)

I say this to counter Galefs "durability issue from fluff." Fluffwise it seems more appropriate to me that Marines killed GEQ faster than they do currently, as they're already pretty tough up against Lasguns. Fictionally you sorta expect 10 marines to clear out GEQ types much faster than they do on the table. In general I don't trust "fluff=play", this is just how I lean on the issue.

Bharring wrote:
Out of curiosity, what unit leaders currently have 2W just for plot armor?

Skitarii used to. Now they don't because reasons.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Rerolls rerolls rerolls.

And more big guns.

Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).

Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.

Archons? Autarchs? Dominus? Ya know, the HQ's you're already taking, with the former two being cheaper than Captains?

Meanwhile Cadians get them just for sitting still, which really isn't hard when you ignore LoS and have a lot of range, or even both.

Do they get full re-rolls to hit (not just 1's) and any re-rolls to wound?

Do you get the same in your army without wasting 3CP?

I'll take your avoidance of answering the question as a "no".

More re-rolls are available to SM.

No it really isn't.
Marines currently have:
1. Captains
2. Wisdom Of The Ancient (which is redundant and a bad Strategem)
3. Named Chapter Masters (which you don't use, as that would clearly be too broken for your casual games obviously)
4. The Chapter Master Strategem, which is a whopping 3CP.

All those are bad outside the named Chapter Masters and Captains. So we can actually call it two sources of bonuses to hit, as much as you want to protest. I almost can't wait to see the follow up post on why Wisdom Of The Ancients is so great from you. You love defending horrid balance.
For wounding you have the Lt. and Killshot, the latter of which being horribly specific to the point it almost doesn't exist thanks to Rule Of Three.

So what do other armies have outside all the bonuses I named? Let's take a look.
1. AdMech have the Dominus (Captain), Cawl (named Chapter Master), Benediction Of The Omnissiah, and the Protector Doctrina Imperative. So the Dunecrawlers, on top of not receiving negative bonuses moving, get the same generic HQ dudes providing rerolls and don't have some stupidly specific Strategems. Then of course Benediction isn't hard to activate. There's a clear winner here whether you want to admit it or not. Rerolling to sound only matters if you can hit, and there's a clear value to modifying your hit rolls instead of an always varying Wound roll.
2. Eldar once again have the Autarch (Captain), Linked Fire, and Runes Of Witnessing. There's no full reroll, but Fire Prisms can fire twice without any penalty if they barely moved, making the bonuses for Autarchs and Runes Of Witnessing to come into play. More importantly is Linked Fire, as Wave Serpents don't need to even be near each other. You get full rerolls and Shred. That's much better than Killshot. Once again we have a clear winner.
3. I don't actually need to go into everything Russes get do I?
4. The only one you're correct on is Dark Eldar. You have Archons and there's some Warlord trait with a reroll of 1 to wound somewhere.

1. Maybe Admech have similar access to re-rolls. You'll have to be more detailed as I'm not too familiar with them. I don't think anybody's writing home about Admech as a competitive army though. They're still new and pretty low on choices, if I recall. Value for re-rolls is also dependent on the units that can get them.
2. Fewer re-rolls overall. Increased output on a few units doesn't equal increased output to every unit.
3. Russes are a single unit. Not even every weapon they have gets to fire twice. Unless your army is made entirely of Russes, the total bonus is still less.
4. No need to comment.

Chapter Master + Lt. can basically increase the damage output of the entire army by 50%. There's no rational way to ignore the impact of that.

1. AdMech doesn't have transports, and therefore you were stuck with gunline (which is Cawlbots) or using CP for either Infiltrate/Deep Strike (Stygies and Lucius respectively). Now that they have the drill available courtesy of FW, us AdMech players are figuring out new ways to play the army.
2. It's only fewer rerolls as long as you include the redundant Strategems you won't use. Luckily the Eldar codex doesn't have THAT much redundancy. More importantly, Linked Fire is an easier Strategem to activate and has better benefits compared to Killshot.
3. The important weapon is firing twice and either rerolling its number of shots or rerolling 1's to hit. You don't even need sponsons; they're just the icing on the cake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Corennus wrote:
So you're saying all marines except HQ should have 2 wounds.......interesting.

Would certainly make Tacticals more viable and an alternative again to Intercessors.

But I think Scouts should still be 1 wound. they're not fully inducted yet.

Yes, that is basically what I am saying. All current 1W MEQs should have 2Ws. So Tacs, Assault, Devs and their Chaos equivalents.
I am also saying Terminators and Bikes should have 3W. Assault Bikes 4W.

HQs already have plenty of wounds as well as Character protection, so they are fine as-is.
I agree, Scouts should stay at 1W, Scout Bikes at 2W

I am also ok with Necron Immortals having 2W, but due to their RP rule and vastly "better than Bolters" weapon options, they should be no less than 20ppm for this.
But I am also ok with Immortals staying as they are at 1W. Afterall, they do not have layered armour in the same way as a Marine. Their "armour" is their body.
So I'm 50/50 on Immortals. Either way Necron Warriors could drop a point or two. But this is all for a different thread

-

You seriously need to quit pricing out RP like it matters at all.

propose something like "Marines in Power Armor or Terminator Armor can fire an additional shot for every "shot" in a bolt weapons profile." At close range Bolters would fire 3 shots, and fire 2 at long range. Storm Bolters would fire 6 shots up close, and 4 at long range. Heavy Bolters would fire 6 shots in the hands of a Marine. The restriction on armor keeps Boltstorm Gauntlets on Aggressors from getting way outta hand. (Or adjust with whatever fine print you want to substitute.)

I say this to counter Galefs "durability issue from fluff." Fluffwise it seems more appropriate to me that Marines killed GEQ faster than they do currently, as they're already pretty tough up against Lasguns. Fictionally you sorta expect 10 marines to clear out GEQ types much faster than they do on the table. In general I don't trust "fluff=play", this is just how I lean on the issue.

Oh yes we tried this in fifth edition. At the time it didn’t really mean much because big models were more important.

It’s definitely important for marines to punch harder at short range shooting, and punch harder per point, so I was only humoring people when they wanted to try extra wounds, at the time.

Well sure, although much of the "grounds for complaint" comes from the marines vs. Guard scenario. Also, Bolters are more effective against big models in this edition, so that'd play out slightly differently.

The other "back to 2nd Ed roots" idea would be to give all marine heavy weapons a targeter again for +1 to hit. That would be broke as ----- without point adjustments.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well sure, although much of the "grounds for complaint" comes from the marines vs. Guard scenario. Also, Bolters are more effective against big models in this edition, so that'd play out slightly differently.

The other "back to 2nd Ed roots" idea would be to give all marine heavy weapons a targeter again for +1 to hit. That would be broke as ----- without point adjustments.

The Bolters aren't more effective for the points. What's gonna cause more damage: 1 BS3+ S4 shot, or 3 BS4+ S3 shots? The number of shots matters here.

You're missing the context. Bolters being more effective against larger models than prior editions. A bolter can hurt the equivalent of AV 11+ now. They also wound T6 and 7 on a 5+.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You're missing the context. Bolters being more effective against larger models than prior editions. A bolter can hurt the equivalent of AV 11+ now. They also wound T6 and 7 on a 5+.

If you really want to look at it that way...the Lasgun got WAY more benefits from the new sounding chart...

Not relevant to the conversation being had.

WARNING MATHS
(everything to 3 decimal places)
For Firepower


For Durability


So it takes 2x as many IG to equal the firepower of SM; but it takes 3x as many guard to equal the durability of SM. If IG outnumber SM 2:1 IG lose; but if IG outnumber SM 3:1 IG win. We can average it ((2+3)/2=2.5) to find the tipping point.

If SM have 2 wounds each we straight up double their durability. And when we average it ((2+(3*2))/2=4), to find IG will need to outnumber SM 4:1 just to be even.

If SM have an additional single shot


So SM will have 3x the firepower and 3x the durability than IG. So IG will need to outnumber SM 3:1 for an even chance.

I am actually surprised about how the maths on the suggestions turned out.

What ratio do you think SM should be at. 4pt IG and 16pt 2 wound SM; 4pt IG and 12pt increased firepower SM; 4pt IG and 10pt current SM; 5pt IG and 20pt 2 wound SM; 5pt IG and 15pt increased firepower SM; 5pt IG and 12.5pt current SM. Something else?

Personally I would prefer 10pt IG and 25pt SM; but that's another discussion.

I'd be for points that high if the system were on D8 or D10. That allows so much more granularity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Not relevant to the conversation being had.

It's going to always be relevant. Being able to hit Rhinos on the front side with Bolters finally doesn't do anything when it isn't great mathematically. 10 shots rapid fire is only 0.75 wounds. 19 Lasgun shots (silly Sarge doesn't get a Lasgun!) is instead 0.52.
That makes it SEEM like the Bolter is better and got the most out of the new edition, until you actually incorporate cost. This is the minimum of each squad, AKA 65 points of Marines and 40 points of Infantry. Pretending we can get more Infantry in a squad for whatever reason with only Lasguns (so that's 6 more dudes in Rapid Fire) they inflict 0.83 wounds.

So that's why when you say the Bolter got buffs...did it really? It did if you ignore any other weapon that somehow didn't get buffed. Then they once again lag behind like usual.

Tygre wrote:
WARNING MATHS
(everything to 3 decimal places)
For Firepower

Spoiler:

Target Space Marines
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.111

Ratio = 0.111/0.055 = 2.018 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines

Target Imperial Guard
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.296

Ratio = 0.296/0.167 = 1.772 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard

For Durability

Spoiler:

against IG with Lasguns: IG=0.167 SM=0.055 Ratio=0.167/0.055 =3.036 SM 3.036x more durable than IG against IG
against SM with Boltguns: IG=0.296 SM=0.111 Ratio=0.296/0.111=2.666 SM 2.666x more durable than IG against SM

So it takes 2x as many IG to equal the firepower of SM; but it takes 3x as many guard to equal the durability of SM. If IG outnumber SM 2:1 IG lose; but if IG outnumber SM 3:1 IG win. We can average it ((2+3)/2=2.5) to find the tipping point.

If SM have 2 wounds each we straight up double their durability. And when we average it ((2+(3*2))/2=4), to find IG will need to outnumber SM 4:1 just to be even.

If SM have an additional single shot

Spoiler:

Target Space Marines
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.111
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.333
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.222

Averages IG: (0.111+0.055)/2=0.083 SM: (0.333+0.222)/2=0.276
Ratio = 0.276/0.083 = 3.209 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines

Target Imperial Guard
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.333
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.889
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.593

Averages IG: (0.333+0.167)/2=0.25 SM: (0.889+0.593)/2=0.741
Ratio = 0.741/0.25 = 2.964 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard

So SM will have 3x the firepower and 3x the durability than IG. So IG will need to outnumber SM 3:1 for an even chance.

I am actually surprised about how the maths on the suggestions turned out.

What ratio do you think SM should be at. 4pt IG and 16pt 2 wound SM; 4pt IG and 12pt increased firepower SM; 4pt IG and 10pt current SM; 5pt IG and 20pt 2 wound SM; 5pt IG and 15pt increased firepower SM; 5pt IG and 12.5pt current SM. Something else?

Personally I would prefer 10pt IG and 25pt SM; but that's another discussion.

I don't think we should be balancing anything around 4ppm guardsmen as that's less than they should be its widely acknowledged that they're more 5ppm than 4ppm. Again doubling points would allow for much more granularity but as is they need to be 5ppm.
0x of a point isn't really an option.
Personally I think 5ppm guard 12 ppm marines but with 2A they really need the second attack to be viable generalists.

I like how people suggest an additional A is going to make marines into generalists, when infact melee is to most stupid manoeuvre you can pull off on a regular unit.
Why? Because the enemey either:
A)dies off completely/ falls back. Welcome to the firing Squad, judgment will be served.
B) The unit get's to fight back and severly hurts you, then it is falling back. Again Firing Squad is ready, judgement will be served.

The only marine unit that is used in mellee often are the Khorne Berzerkers. Mind you double fighting phase is really good but they are played in Alpha Legion, which gives them first a cheap way to be close enough to reach the enemy lines and secondly gives them some more durability by lowering the ammounts of hits. They are also a glass cannon unit.

Additionally if we scale this up, do you really want even more attacks on Khorne berzerkers? I mean Terminators could do well with that but more attacks from a unit that allready has 2+1 per fighting phase and doubles that each time it fights? I mean all you have really done is, giving a stat to a unit that does not really want to melee, scaled up Raptors and Warptalons in the might be usefull realm allong with assult marines, and maybee even made Terminators better at melee but did nothing to fix their pricing? whilest making Khorne Berzerker completely insane. Additionally Devastors and Havocs are still not better with that stat.
We still have not solved the fact that a Anti-Infantery Predator costs 146 pts and does not really profit from stratagems aswell as beeing comparatively low on the damage output whilest not beeing particulary durable.

The additional A isn't meant to suddenly make CC with Tacs great. It's to marginally improve it to where they'll out-cc non-CC units more comfortably.

Imagine many of the 'Marines vs IG' mathhammer writeups we see. They start out with one side shooting the other. They continue adnausium.

What's more likely is that, even if they start shooting it out at equal points (which Marines shouldn't try), if they're within 12", those Marines are moving 6" closer, tossing a grenade, then charging in.

Currently, 4pt Guardsmen make this not as viable point-for-point for Marines. Now, Marines can still do this to almost any other shooty troop. And Marines should not be going head to head with equal points. But the numbers are closer than we'd like.

2A Tac Marines still won't beat Zerkers or most CC units in CC (although Banshees are in trouble, they're in trouble anyways). However, it does give the Marine player more lattitude in unit matchups. Suddenly, other troops trading fire for multiple rounds with them isn't possible.

They still won't be worth 13ppm in the current meta (although I still think the problem is other books, not them). But they get to play their part better. And, hopefully, other changes happen too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for CC not mattering because the unit can fall back, I assure you that my Aspect Warriors, Guardians, Rangers, Fire Warriors, and Pathfinders don't necessarily just die off in large numbers to Tacs, even if they had 2W. And what does fall back, if it survives, loses a turn. While Guardians/Fire Warriors/Pathfinders might be cheaper, the Aspect Warriors are not. And certainly not cheap enough to consider it a win.

As for fighting back, few non-CC infantry do more damage to Tacs than Tacs do to them. Whether they strike first or second.

I see what you mean about CC units suddenly getting an extra attack. Perhaps only increase the A:1 models to A:2. Some finetuning could be done. But Raptors/ASM/Termies/etc aren't OP right now.

Devs and Havocs with +1A are suddenly less suceptible to Swooping Hawks or Spiders or ASM or Suits charging in. Not by a ton, but we're looking for improvements on the margins here. Also, have you never charged anythign with your Devs?


"We still have not solved the fact that a Anti-Infantery Predator costs 146 pts and does not really profit from stratagems aswell as beeing comparatively low on the damage output whilest not beeing particulary durable. "

Totally agree.
I like the idea of SM not having Tactics on their vehicles, but it's really hard to balance. In that regard, I'd certainly accept Tactics on their vehicles.

Either way on that, here are some suggestions I floated earlier:
Reinforced Rhino chasis: As per Rhino, but 2+ Sv
-Pred and Vindi use this chasis
-Stalker and Whirlwind could go either way
-Rhino and Razor unchanged in stats
-Rhino down to 55ppm
It's hard to make the Rhino chasis beefy enough for a battle tank like the Pred, but light enough to be cheap enough to keep Marines mobile as a Rhino

Heavy Bolters:
-Heavy 5
-5pts
This gives IoM an anti-GEQ high-ROF weapon.
While this also buffs Tacs, the purpose of this section is specifically the Pred. It'd drop the dakka pred by 10 points, and give it more shots.
It also serves to indirectly nerf Marines, so should be considered carefully (it's AP-1 - one of the reasons I don't like AP-1 boltguns is because they hurt Marines too easily)

Not necessarily a comprehensive list, but what do you think?

A.T. wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I remember an edition in which Marines were 15ppm and DA were 12ppm. Can't remember which.

4th edition
Marines had no grenades or pistols and half the cost of their heavy weapon baked into their points - actually worked out 11pts a model if you discounted a full lascannon from an MSU squad.
DA had assault 2 bolters. Bladestorm was a 27pt squad upgrade to shoot twice in a turn followed by not shooting the next turn.

Totally different game back then.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've done a complete breakdown in another post of all the infantry that need adjustments if we are just going to keep the same stats and adjust points to the Infantry/Kabalites/Firewarriors/battle sister.

You seem to be missing those four units from your list, unless you are suggesting they are priced correctly.

Yeah exactly. They seem to be the baseline we have to work from now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

A.T. wrote:
You seem to be missing those four units from your list, unless you are suggesting they are priced correctly.

Yeah exactly. They seem to be the baseline we have to work from now.

Then move onto stage two - field 1000+ pts of these newly re-costed marines against their closest comparable unit (battle sisters in this case) and against a common 'competitive' target such as craftworld eldar.

Ensure that you take the best selection of wargear available to each side to face the other, make full use of stratagems, relics, chapter tactics, and avoid units that are not like for like - stick to the troops and units you are changing or comparing to where ever possible

Play several games, switch players, optionally run with a guard CP detachment in each. Determine if your new 10 point marine is, point for point, the equal of your 9 point baseline comparison. And then adjust up and repeat until your two compared armies share the victories and defeats at an even pace.

Tygre wrote:
WARNING MATHS
(everything to 3 decimal places)
For Firepower

Spoiler:

Target Space Marines
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.111

Ratio = 0.111/0.055 = 2.018 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines

Target Imperial Guard
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.296

Ratio = 0.296/0.167 = 1.772 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard

For Durability

Spoiler:

against IG with Lasguns: IG=0.167 SM=0.055 Ratio=0.167/0.055 =3.036 SM 3.036x more durable than IG against IG
against SM with Boltguns: IG=0.296 SM=0.111 Ratio=0.296/0.111=2.666 SM 2.666x more durable than IG against SM

So it takes 2x as many IG to equal the firepower of SM; but it takes 3x as many guard to equal the durability of SM. If IG outnumber SM 2:1 IG lose; but if IG outnumber SM 3:1 IG win. We can average it ((2+3)/2=2.5) to find the tipping point.

If SM have 2 wounds each we straight up double their durability. And when we average it ((2+(3*2))/2=4), to find IG will need to outnumber SM 4:1 just to be even.

If SM have an additional single shot

Spoiler:

Target Space Marines
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.111
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.333
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.222

Averages IG: (0.111+0.055)/2=0.083 SM: (0.333+0.222)/2=0.276
Ratio = 0.276/0.083 = 3.209 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines

Target Imperial Guard
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.333
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.889
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.593

Averages IG: (0.333+0.167)/2=0.25 SM: (0.889+0.593)/2=0.741
Ratio = 0.741/0.25 = 2.964 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard

So SM will have 3x the firepower and 3x the durability than IG. So IG will need to outnumber SM 3:1 for an even chance.

I am actually surprised about how the maths on the suggestions turned out.

What ratio do you think SM should be at. 4pt IG and 16pt 2 wound SM; 4pt IG and 12pt increased firepower SM; 4pt IG and 10pt current SM; 5pt IG and 20pt 2 wound SM; 5pt IG and 15pt increased firepower SM; 5pt IG and 12.5pt current SM. Something else?

Personally I would prefer 10pt IG and 25pt SM; but that's another discussion.

Something that doesn't show up in the math.
IG infantry and company commanders are basically a combined entry. They are taken together in 2:1 ratio to fill battalions. This means that every analysis of infantry should include firing twice.
Sure - give marines reroll all hits...I promise you firing twice is better...they all also get it for a lot cheaper than marines get reroll all hits.

Another thing is battle field roll.
Infantry take up more space - their job is to take up space and they do it 3 times better than marines do. So what do marines get for taking up less space? Nothing - they get to be inferior with no benefit - they aren't even harder to kill in a points comparison. If you include in game scenarios - the math shows they are actually EASIER to kill.
For more expensive troops to be viable they have to do something 2-3 times better than IG infantry to because they take up less space - this should be ether killing power or resilience.

So it's totally okay for a 10 point marine to crush 4 point infantry. That would be good game design. It's called using the right tool to do the right job. Just like when you wipe those marines with basically any heavy/ assualt weapon of your choosing - you get more value out of killing them than infantry squads.

But not everything the Marine fights is a 4 point Infantryman.

Also, Marines crushing Infantry point-for-point when used as Infantrymen is bad game design. Marines should need to be played as Marines to crush Infantry.

I disagree. I think marines strength needs to be their troops. Instead of an across-the-board weakness.

Also, I don't think 40K is detailed enough of a game for the distinction of marines vs infantry.

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. I think marines strength needs to be their troops. Instead of an across-the-board weakness.

I think what he meant is that if you smash a blob of marines into a blob of guard, the guard should win. Whereas if you concentrate your marines you should be able to overwhelm the same guard blob a piece at a time with local superiority while much of the guard are too far away or too cumbersome to contribute.

As soon as you get to 100pts of marines == 100pts of guard in a straight face to face fight you've failed at balance, since that's the marines worst case scenario.

Bharring wrote:
But not everything the Marine fights is a 4 point Infantryman.

Also, Marines crushing Infantry point-for-point when used as Infantrymen is bad game design. Marines should need to be played as Marines to crush Infantry.

They do - they have to move up to increase their damage and utilize their assault profile. this in turn makes them even easier to kill.

I mean if you do the math on marines and infantry shooting at each other from 24" it is pretty pathetic.

@AT,
Yes, that's what I meant. Fighting in ways beyond line troop formations is what I meant by 'fight like Marines'.

It's also why I view a large cost reduction on Rhinos and Pods to be a buff to Tacs.

 skchsan wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Out of curiosity, what unit leaders currently have 2W just for plot armor?

All exarch's have +1W.

It's another legacy of the Eldar super cheese dex of yesteryear.

Indeed, Marines *should* be played as infantry. In an Guard vs Marine battle the Space Marine should be played as a general ground unit similar to an Guardsman unit, however the Marine unit should be unquestionably superior to the Guardsmen unit in a one v one situation. Marines should be elite infantry which are capable of defeating other infantry when played as infantry. Marines need to be able to do this because their higher per model cost makes them take up less space (making them less capable of acting as screens), and their vulnerability to heavy and special weapons (meaning more weapons can fully make use of their profiles against them).

Remember, a game of 40K is not all about Lasguns facing off against Bolters, even though these weapons are being thrown around. In a standard SM vs IG battle, even if the Marines are statistically better than 6 Guardsmen with lasguns, in terms of durability and firepower, the Marine's comparative weakness to plasma averages those numbers down. The game is not fought in a vaacume of Marine and Guardsmen Squads squaring off. Take a Leman Russ Executioner, and calculate its points effectivness shooting at Guardsmen, then shooting at Tactical Marines, then shooting at Primarus. The Marine units lose considerably more points than the guardsmen units and this increased vulnerability to special and heavy weapons absolutely needs to be reflected in the price of the marines as well. If not, then the individual price of special and heavy weapons needs to be drastically increased to bring its comparative effectiveness against Marines down to the same level. Or anti horde weapons- such as Flamers or Heavy Bolters, need to be drastically increased in effectiveness for dismantling hordes- and any large Blasts, such as battle cannons, should be reworked to be less effective against Marines and drastically more effective against large mobs.

I do agree that Marines should be more effective per point when facing AP0 weaponry, certainly.

But if you take 100pts of Marines and 100pts of Guardsmen, put them all within 12" of eachother and don't allow any charging/shenaningans, who should win?

In other words, Redcoat style line infantry lining up and trading shots.

Shouldn't that go to the faction(s) designed for that (Tau Fire Warriors and IG Guardsmen)?

 akaean wrote:
Or anti horde weapons- such as Flamers or Heavy Bolters, need to be drastically increased in effectiveness for dismantling hordes

Now this is something that needs to be looked at, and the general loss of anti-horde firepower was a notable change from 7th to 8th.

Stand a squad of guard in a shrubbery patch in 7th and you weren't going to have much of a unit left if a flamer came by. Same guard squad in 8th will lose one model on average. Anti-infantry weapons just aren't very good at killing light infantry.

And are too good at doing damage to single models. Former templates make great anti-air! Former blasts make great anti-tank!

There have been a number of proposed fixes for that (my favorite, cap hits from those on model count of target unit and up the shots). But it certainly feels like it just adds insult to injury for more elite armies/units.

Bharring wrote:
I do agree that Marines should be more effective per point when facing AP0 weaponry, certainly.

But if you take 100pts of Marines and 100pts of Guardsmen, put them all within 12" of eachother and don't allow any charging/shenaningans, who should win?

In other words, Redcoat style line infantry lining up and trading shots.

Shouldn't that go to the faction(s) designed for that (Tau Fire Warriors and IG Guardsmen)?

Not in the case of marines. Marines should lose shootouts to crisis suits and wraithguard and heavy tanks, not any regular infantry. Ever.

*Why* not?

If Marines could win the fight fighting as Marines (which would require buffs), why should they also win the fight fighting as Guardsmen?