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.

Bharring wrote:
*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?

Because the entire army is derived from the troop.

WIth half the armies in the game being Marines, though, doesn't that make all the other infantry auto-lose?

As for those other entries, shouldn't they also be statted to win the fight when fighting as Marines but not when fighting as Guardsmen?

And further because they have other weaknesses outside of just "winning the fight".

Even if Marines outperform Guardsmen when fighting as Guardsmen, their small footprint for screening, and increased vulnerability to enemy heavy and special weaponry balance out their higher performance at infantry vs infantry combat. Infantry have more than one job. Marines should be unquestionably better at fighting than guardsmen and should always beat them in a straight shoot out between equal points. However Guardsmen have other advantages to Marines that make them worth taking. They cover more ground making them far more effective at screening, each individual squad is far cheaper, making them ideal for claiming objectives, and heavy / special weapons currently are very cost ineffective against a guardsmen. These non infantry v infantry combat advantages have very important in game roles, and the only way to balance marines against these advantages inherant to the guardsman stateline is to make them unquestionably better at fighting.

You should not ask your self, would an army of vanilla tactical space marines beat an army of vanilla guardsmen, but look at them as a mix of infantry and tanks. Maybe 10 Marines would always beat 30 guardsmen, but 10 Marines and A Predator would not defeat 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner. Or it may be a fair fight, etc. You cannot balance marines vs guard in a vacuum, completely ignore the support available to both of them. Squads are allowed to have strengths and weaknesses. It makes the game interesting.

To put this another way, do Tacs need to be able to handle Guardsmen in a shootout using Guardsmen's preferred tactics, for ASM or Devs to be able to threaten them? Or threaten the HWTs or Basilisks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines take less transport cap for the same threat presence.

Marines have more cost-effective deployment and mechanization options.

Marines should be better at getting the majority of their force to engage a minority of IGs at a time.

There are benefits to smaller footprints.

Specials/heavies, and their equivelents in most factions, seem to be poor choices for engaging GEQ. That certainly should change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose I want Marines to be super-Marines first and super-Soldiers second, and you're looking for Marines to be super-Soldiers first and super-Marines second.

Bharring wrote:
To put this another way, do Tacs need to be able to handle Guardsmen in a shootout using Guardsmen's preferred tactics, for ASM or Devs to be able to threaten them? Or threaten the HWTs or Basilisks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines take less transport cap for the same threat presence.

Marines have more cost-effective deployment and mechanization options.

Marines should be better at getting the majority of their force to engage a minority of IGs at a time.

There are benefits to smaller footprints.

Specials/heavies, and their equivelents in most factions, seem to be poor choices for engaging GEQ. That certainly should change.

Yeah they should beat gaurdsmen in a gunline fight...

Gaurdsmen strength is weight of fire against targets with weak saves.
Marines strength resilience is against small arms with str 4 weapons which are the most efficient vs t3.

Marines are supposed to be the counter to units like guardsmen.

What I am saying is. Bringing tacs against gaurdsmen is supposed to produce results like using plasma russ on terminators - maybe not to that degree but you get what I am saying.

To show what I mean:
It wouldn't be a Pred + 10 Marines vs 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner.

It'd be a Drop Pod with 10 Marines with MG, combi, CC weapon on Sarge, and MultiMelta vs 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner.

Drop in next to to the executioner, hit it with the Melta, Guardsmen with the boltguns (7 boys + pod storm bolter), eat one turn of return fire from Guardsmen, light up another guard squad, and charge the unhurt one.

If the rules were "right", that's how Marines would fight. Unfortunately, the rules don't really make that a thing right now.

Bharring wrote:
To put this another way, do Tacs need to be able to handle Guardsmen in a shootout using Guardsmen's preferred tactics, for ASM or Devs to be able to threaten them? Or threaten the HWTs or Basilisks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines take less transport cap for the same threat presence.

Marines have more cost-effective deployment and mechanization options.

Marines should be better at getting the majority of their force to engage a minority of IGs at a time.

There are benefits to smaller footprints.

Specials/heavies, and their equivelents in most factions, seem to be poor choices for engaging GEQ. That certainly should change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose I want Marines to be super-Marines first and super-Soldiers second, and you're looking for Marines to be super-Soldiers first and super-Marines second.

I don't even consider transports in this game. Make them good and I might consider them (and i don't just mean a price decrease). As it stands nether guard nor marines have any need to put anything inside a rhino or a chimera.

I'm not saying Tac Marines shouldn't be the answer to Guardsmen. I'm saying that line-firing brainlessly shouldn't be the answer. Line-firing with Marines should be like taking a Combi-Melta to go after a tank, and using the Bolter profile only. Sure, you took the right tool, but you're doing it wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"As it stands" is the problem. Tac Marines should need their Rhinos/Pods.

You don’t need cost effective transport when you can cover the board with models and just be everywhere.

You do need to be able to use devastator, tactical, and assault squads to fight knight engines, as well as guard. They should overmatch guard infantry, point for point, the same way a line of leman russes should overmatch a line of infantry walking towards them, because they also have to assume they’ll use basic marines to fight super heavy tanks and take 80% casualties at least.

Rhinos aren't terrible now that they can charge things and be a general nuisance. As a transport they are terrible, but as a harassing unit that can be difficult for a non cc oriented squad to damage, and armed with 2 storm bolters they can be decent for many lists. I think Chaos synchs with Rhinos a bit better because they gain a lot more benefit from using them to soak overwatch, and tend to actually *want* to move their guys closer to the enemy. I would much rather push forwards inside a Rhino that can pop smoke than run marines across an open field.

Bharring wrote:
WIth half the armies in the game being Marines, though, doesn't that make all the other infantry auto-lose?

As for those other entries, shouldn't they also be statted to win the fight when fighting as Marines but not when fighting as Guardsmen?

Yes, the other infantry SHOULD be auto-lose, since that's the whole point to space marines. Marines should countered by crap like Riptides and Russes and stuff. As it stands, they are countered by everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
To show what I mean:
It wouldn't be a Pred + 10 Marines vs 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner.

It'd be a Drop Pod with 10 Marines with MG, combi, CC weapon on Sarge, and MultiMelta vs 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner.

Drop in next to to the executioner, hit it with the Melta, Guardsmen with the boltguns (7 boys + pod storm bolter), eat one turn of return fire from Guardsmen, light up another guard squad, and charge the unhurt one.

If the rules were "right", that's how Marines would fight. Unfortunately, the rules don't really make that a thing right now.

You know, IG players have learned how to space out their dudes pretty well, too.

I thought that was the whole point of Necron Warriors.

Or the whole point of Tyranid Swarms.

Or the whole point of Tau Firewarrior firelines.

Or the whole point of Boyz.

Or the whole point of a Swordwind detatchment.

Or....

m. Tac Marines should need their Rhinos/Pods

No, they shouldn’t, they should almost never use rhinos.

From the perspectives of a) modeling and b) price, they should barely use pods either woah, what a waste of life. I hate when my players cart in their pod armies.

Yes, the other infantry SHOULD be auto-lose, since that's the whole point to space marines. Marines should countered by crap like Riptides and Russes and stuff. As it stands, they are countered by everything.

Yes, riptides and russes.

As for spacing, perhaps I'm just geometrically impared, but how do you arrange 30 bodies such that nothing can get within 12" of a specific tank, yet there's no point within 12" of some that isn't within 18" of all of them?

I guess they can on the second turn, not on the initial drop.

Currently, they wouldn't survive the initial drop and would just give up a ton of points.

At this point, I don't count on assault from a unit for anything at all. Without the character rule to protect them, they likely won't make it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I thought that was the whole point of Necron Warriors.

Or the whole point of Tyranid Swarms.

Or the whole point of Tau Firewarrior firelines.

Or the whole point of Boyz.

Or the whole point of a Swordwind detatchment.

Or....

It shouldn't have been it it was.

Bharring wrote:
As for spacing, perhaps I'm just geometrically impared, but how do you arrange 30 bodies such that nothing can get within 12" of a specific tank, yet there's no point within 12" of some that isn't within 18" of all of them?

Well theres the fact that you can't walk through enemy troops. You also can't deepstrike within 9" of them. That alone is all you need.

The point is, if they're that spread out, you don't need to be able to take on all of them at once - take on only part of them.

Bharring wrote:
The point is, if they're that spread out, you don't need to be able to take on all of them at once - take on only part of them.

That completely depends on the circumstance. Guard is a poor example, because there's always the artillery timer on your list. After X turns, you have no army left, so the race is on to silence those guns. I've seen so many assault lists hosed by guardsmen just moving up to 2" and standing there.

In that regard, I miss how Pods worked in 6th/7th. Much harder to screen DS then, but much less charging from DS.

The charging doesn't even matter anymore because fallback. Especially vs IG.

 akaean wrote:
should always beat them in a straight shoot out between equal points.

Why? Aren't points a balance mechanism, between which you should have a relatively equal potential result between matched units.

Martel732 wrote:

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.

100% disagree. In most cases, it should be a fight dependent on position and opportunity. Because "game".

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

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.

100% disagree. In most cases, it should be a fight dependent on position and opportunity. Because "game".

You have to ignore Martel at times, mostly in Marine fix threads.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 akaean wrote:
should always beat them in a straight shoot out between equal points.

Why? Aren't points a balance mechanism, between which you should have a relatively equal potential result between matched units.

You would think.

I dunno about fallback not matter.

You've a 10-man Marine squad facing 3 10-man Guard squads. You let yourself get surrounded because reasons.

You shoot the 2nd closest squad, and charge the closest.

The remains of the closest falls back.

You're only shot by half of what they started with. Sure, not getting shot at all would be better, but the assault killed some Guardsmen and made the rest of that unit useless for the turn.

Bharring wrote:
I dunno about fallback not matter.

You've a 10-man Marine squad facing 3 10-man Guard squads. You let yourself get surrounded because reasons.

You shoot the 2nd closest squad, and charge the closest.

The remains of the closest falls back.

You're only shot by half of what they started with. Sure, not getting shot at all would be better, but the assault killed some Guardsmen and made the rest of that unit useless for the turn.

It's the rest of the army that kills you. No one cares if 10 random guardsmen can't fire. Which they CAN with a 100% reliable order. And they don't even get a penalty like Ultramarines. This is another reason balancing at just the troop level doesn't work. IG troops do their job in their list much better than marines do. IG aren't counting on the killing power of guardsmen at all. At least, they shouldn't be. They'd be a bargain with no lasguns at all at 4 ppm. They're just buying time for the big guns to kill everything.

So one of your arguments is that they use an Order to have the remains of a squad that ran away shoot at you instead of having something else FRFSRF? Isn't that a good thing? The Order isn't any more free than SM HQs or CP or rules.

On the other argument, the rest of the army shooting. Sure, if they have 30 guardsmen plus another army behind them they should beat your 10 Marines. But shouldn't the rest of their army be busy dealing with the rest of yours?

Bharring wrote:
So one of your arguments is that they use an Order to have the remains of a squad that ran away shoot at you instead of having something else FRFSRF? Isn't that a good thing? The Order isn't any more free than SM HQs or CP or rules.

On the other argument, the rest of the army shooting. Sure, if they have 30 guardsmen plus another army behind them they should beat your 10 Marines. But shouldn't the rest of their army be busy dealing with the rest of yours?

But they're not necessarily dealing with the rest of army. That's the weakness of marines. Most marine units are thoroughly ignorable. I know this, because I ignore most of them while using marines! They only have to care about the ones that are threatening to touch the big guns in CC. They can easily ignore most marine shooting for a turn or two if necessary because it is so cost ineffective.

Compared to other more expensive units that can NEVER shoot after falling back, it's not a good thing. IG orders are very much free compared to the price tag on marine characters. 30 pts is a joke.

So silence those big guns. ASM/VV can jump over small dudes. Devs can put LC shots downrange.

I'm not saying SM are balanced as is. Current rules make that impractical. What I'm saying is this:

The rules fixes should allow Marines to win if they can utilize their army to feel like Marines. If the Marine player fails to do so, their force should fail.

This is where we disagree:
-You (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" is put them down, move them forward, shoot the nearest thing (in simplest terms)
-I (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" means not engaging head-to head, but rather use force concentration and combined arms to control the matchup and flow.

"You (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" is put them down, move them forward, shoot the nearest thing (in simplest terms) "

No, I don't think that.

I just think marines should be the strongest troops, hands down. If you want to go through all their other slots one unit at a time, be my guest, but you can fix 10+ units by fixing one. Most marine vehicles are crap, and they have a mediocre transport group being generous. The transports would look at lot better if they were transporting nasty units instead of pure gak.

"Current rules make that impractical."

Your gift for understatement is impressive.