Switch Theme:

Infantry, Elite Infantry, and 40k  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

the thing is we aren't playing with a 1000 marines on a table or more, and with a 50% chance to fail a safe at a cost higher then 50% comparing to a guant or an IG dude, the marines are very inefficient. And that is just normal marines, am not talking about real elite stuff that has t4 and 1 wound, and costs 20pts or higher.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight






 Insectum7 wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
jcd386 wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.


Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

Insectum7 wrote:I posted the idea earlier but it may have gotten lost due to another argument, but what about something like the inverse of the Grav mechanic for anti horde weapons:

This weapon has an AP of -1 against models with an save of 5+ or higher.

Give it to Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc. Anti-chaff modification that doesn't mess with anything else. The bonus could be a save modifier, extra hits or whatever, but having the mechanic dependent on armor save (like Grav) limits it to the sort of units we're looking to target, I think.


Don't a good number of Tyranid units as a whole have a 5+ save? I could be wrong on this, but I remember in the old 6th edition codex a number of units did. On the flip side, if a unit like Ork Boyz, which are a pretty Hordey unit, get back 'Eavy Armor and go to a 4+, then this wouldn't work. And what of weapons like Heavy Flamers? They already have AP -1, do they get bumped to AP -2 vs 5+ or higher? Or 4+ or higher? The idea can work, but there are too many variables on what constitutes a Horde, chaff, and so on, and just simplifying it to 5+ armor or worse could unfairly screw over other codices.


What you're missing is that the Marines are taking 50% more damage than they would if there wasn't AP, but 5+ models only take 25% more damage, and 6+ models are only taking 20% more. The worse your save is starting out, the less you care about AP.


Its why I specifically noted that if you simply alter the rate of fire vs the Horde units, they will be A) wounded more often and B) fail more saves than the Marines. If the Heavy Bolter did 3 shots vs Marines and 1d6+3 shots vs Horde units, guess which group is likely to take more wounds.

Make the weapons that are supposed to be filling anti-Horde duty, and actually give them the rules to do that while still being able to do something at least to the Elite units, and it will balance out somewhat. Yes, you can fire your plasma at Gaunts, but you don't want to unless there are better targets available - the same should be true of Flamers/Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters and their equivalents vs Elite units.


The problem with that solition is overlap between the units people complain about being OP, and the units people are trying to "protect". Both Guardsmen squads and Tactical Squads can come in groups of ten. Are guardsmen "horde" while marines are "elite", yet still the same squad size?


Its why I suggested using keywords to denote what type of unit they are. Every unit gets a keyword along the lines of Horde, Line, and Elite, and then some weapons that are supposed to be good at taking out hordes can get a buff vs units with the Horde keyword and a minor malus vs units with the Elite keyword. Horde units would be units that work largely by weight of numbers - Ork Boyz, Conscripts, Gaunts, etc, while Line units would be things like Fire Warriors, Skitarii, Space Marine Scouts and the like. Elites would be more expensive units, like Tac Marines, Chaos Marines, Stealth Suits, and so on.

I hate to lean on the fluff as an excuse, but on average, a unit of Tactical Marines is more heavily trained, battle experienced, and so on than your average squad of Guardsmen, so even if there is 10 of both of them, it would make sense that the Tactical Marine knows how to minimize the damage from some weapons compared to the Guard. Taking a Plasma round to the face will kill both regardless, but the Marine knows when to move, how to take quick cover in the surroundings, and minimize their profile enough to help them take less overall damage from the lighter weapons. That would translate to crunch with say a flamer dealing 1d3 hits vs Elites, 1d6 vs Line, and 2d6 vs Horde.

Giving everything a keyword, and deciding what gets what keyword would be difficult and take time, but after it is done, weapons and abilities can then be more easily balanced around their own niche, and a tac list would have to take a little of everything in order to cover its bases.
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Anti horde weapons are fine, don't touch them!

They work perfectly and kill hormagaunts and the like magnificently!

People here talk about hordes but actually think about a single model, which is so durable that it makes anti horde weapons look bad. Weapons are not the problem!

If you take guardsmen a the basis for hordes, you end up with overpowered anti horde weapons!

What existing anti horde weapons are you talking about?


Every weapon S3 or S4 without AP, except the ones in the hands of marines, because they suck.

A cultist/guardman with an autogun/lasgun scores 41% of it's value when shooting at a termagant, making it definitely an efficient anti horde weapon.
A termagant with a devourer scores the same.

If you score higher than 35% then by definition you are a counter, so yes, there are efficient answers to hordes. The fact that marines tend to suck with bolters or that they die horribly to small weapons, doesn't mean that we don't have those.


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think there are better options than keywords that counter each other, which feels more like a bandaid than a cure to these issues.

I think changing all the old template weapons to "can not do more hits than models in the unit" and then boosting the number of hits they get is the best option to fix those weapons. 2D6 should be the baseline. A flamer would then do an average of 7 hits but be terrible against vehicles and smaller units. This is just a quality of life change for those weapons.

Then something has to change with AP, which is the main offender when it comes to elite infantry being uneffective. I think the easiest change would be to allow certain armor types to ignore a point of AP that would effect their armor save. All marine units, for sure, but other factions could probably use it was well, such as necrons. This let's these units survive high rate of fire weapons better.

Then, cover shouldn't be something helps Marines more than it does guardsmen, so I'd remove the +1 to armor save and have it instead grant a 6+ FNP type roll to ignore damage. This is after any other saving rolls and sperate from other kinds of FNP. It increases any unit in cover's durability by the same percent. The only downside I see with this is it does sightly slow the game down.

To fix the wound/damage issue, I think I'd change the way we roll armor saves to "when a model takes a wound, roll a number of armor saves equal to the damage characteristic of the weapon that caused the wound. Unsaved damage reduces the wounds of that model, but does not roll over to other models." So if you shoot an auto cannon at a marine, he has to take 2 saves to survive each shot. If you shoot an auto cannon at a primaris marine, he also has to take two saves. This increases the ability of high damage weapons to kill models with fewer wounds than they do damage, and simultaneously increases the durability of multi wound models by making it less likely that they get one shotted by weapons with exactly the damage they have wounds, assuming they get an armor save against it. VS targets that have more wounds than the firing weapons the average damage is about the same on average, but is less spikey (like now when you can fair a single save and take 6 damage or make it and take none), which I think would be more satisfying than the current system since a few points of damage from high damage weapons would be likely to always go through. This does slow the game a bit, but not by much, since most high damage weapons have low rates of fire.

I think these changes would work well to fix the core issues with durability introduced in 8th without changing too much about how the game is played or feels to play.

They are less about nerfing hordes than they are buffing elite infantry and making high damage weapons more effective.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/11 13:39:12


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Spoiler:
kurhanik wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
jcd386 wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.


Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

Insectum7 wrote:I posted the idea earlier but it may have gotten lost due to another argument, but what about something like the inverse of the Grav mechanic for anti horde weapons:

This weapon has an AP of -1 against models with an save of 5+ or higher.

Give it to Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc. Anti-chaff modification that doesn't mess with anything else. The bonus could be a save modifier, extra hits or whatever, but having the mechanic dependent on armor save (like Grav) limits it to the sort of units we're looking to target, I think.


Don't a good number of Tyranid units as a whole have a 5+ save? I could be wrong on this, but I remember in the old 6th edition codex a number of units did. On the flip side, if a unit like Ork Boyz, which are a pretty Hordey unit, get back 'Eavy Armor and go to a 4+, then this wouldn't work. And what of weapons like Heavy Flamers? They already have AP -1, do they get bumped to AP -2 vs 5+ or higher? Or 4+ or higher? The idea can work, but there are too many variables on what constitutes a Horde, chaff, and so on, and just simplifying it to 5+ armor or worse could unfairly screw over other codices.


What you're missing is that the Marines are taking 50% more damage than they would if there wasn't AP, but 5+ models only take 25% more damage, and 6+ models are only taking 20% more. The worse your save is starting out, the less you care about AP.


Its why I specifically noted that if you simply alter the rate of fire vs the Horde units, they will be A) wounded more often and B) fail more saves than the Marines. If the Heavy Bolter did 3 shots vs Marines and 1d6+3 shots vs Horde units, guess which group is likely to take more wounds.

Make the weapons that are supposed to be filling anti-Horde duty, and actually give them the rules to do that while still being able to do something at least to the Elite units, and it will balance out somewhat. Yes, you can fire your plasma at Gaunts, but you don't want to unless there are better targets available - the same should be true of Flamers/Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters and their equivalents vs Elite units.


The problem with that solition is overlap between the units people complain about being OP, and the units people are trying to "protect". Both Guardsmen squads and Tactical Squads can come in groups of ten. Are guardsmen "horde" while marines are "elite", yet still the same squad size?


Its why I suggested using keywords to denote what type of unit they are. Every unit gets a keyword along the lines of Horde, Line, and Elite, and then some weapons that are supposed to be good at taking out hordes can get a buff vs units with the Horde keyword and a minor malus vs units with the Elite keyword. Horde units would be units that work largely by weight of numbers - Ork Boyz, Conscripts, Gaunts, etc, while Line units would be things like Fire Warriors, Skitarii, Space Marine Scouts and the like. Elites would be more expensive units, like Tac Marines, Chaos Marines, Stealth Suits, and so on.

I hate to lean on the fluff as an excuse, but on average, a unit of Tactical Marines is more heavily trained, battle experienced, and so on than your average squad of Guardsmen, so even if there is 10 of both of them, it would make sense that the Tactical Marine knows how to minimize the damage from some weapons compared to the Guard. Taking a Plasma round to the face will kill both regardless, but the Marine knows when to move, how to take quick cover in the surroundings, and minimize their profile enough to help them take less overall damage from the lighter weapons. That would translate to crunch with say a flamer dealing 1d3 hits vs Elites, 1d6 vs Line, and 2d6 vs Horde.

Giving everything a keyword, and deciding what gets what keyword would be difficult and take time, but after it is done, weapons and abilities can then be more easily balanced around their own niche, and a tac list would have to take a little of everything in order to cover its bases.


I get where this is coming from but I find it mechanically questionable as it's A: not particularly intuitive and B: I find the adding of keywords to be cumbersome. For a different type of game this would be good, but for 40K it feels not accessible enough. 8th is so streamlined with it's stats/datasheets and I'd hate to disrupt that.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




It would also end up with eldar getting some sort of ultra elite trait, which would make them negate almost all shoting and melee hits, because of how superior and fast they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:

Every weapon S3 or S4 without AP, except the ones in the hands of marines, because they suck.

A cultist/guardman with an autogun/lasgun scores 41% of it's value when shooting at a termagant, making it definitely an efficient anti horde weapon.
A termagant with a devourer scores the same.

If you score higher than 35% then by definition you are a counter, so yes, there are efficient answers to hordes. The fact that marines tend to suck with bolters or that they die horribly to small weapons, doesn't mean that we don't have those.

But that is not being anti horde, because your anti horde, but a horde vs horde mirror match. If two units of marines both in cover start shoting at each other with just bolters, you may get the feeling that marines are unkillable gods in 8th ed, and that the most efficient way to deal with meq is to melee them. By the way I had such a feeling when I was being tought the game. GK termintors in cover seemed to be able take on twice or three times as many points as they cost, and the only store unit that could do something to them was the store dreadnought. And yes I thought that a dreadnought was a bit OP, considering he costs less then termintors, but kills them in melee so easily

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/11 16:08:19


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut





I uses those 2 as examples, but there are elite units like aggressors and scout bikes who can do that, likewise there are vehicles and monstrous creatures that are good at it, like a dev fex.

The means are there, we don't lack them. If some dumb idea like increasing the number of hits caused by templates passes, you will feel good taking down guards and the same time removed regular light infantry from the game. That is a bad bad idea.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
I uses those 2 as examples, but there are elite units like aggressors and scout bikes who can do that, likewise there are vehicles and monstrous creatures that are good at it, like a dev fex.

The means are there, we don't lack them. If some dumb idea like increasing the number of hits caused by templates passes, you will feel good taking down guards and the same time removed regular light infantry from the game. That is a bad bad idea.

Except assuaalt cannons, HBC's etc arn't anti horde they are generalist anti everything weapons thats what they are supposed to be.
Lasguns remove more points of marines and Firewarriors than guardsmen. That does not make it anti horde, its anti elite anti line infantry not hordes of 4point models.

Also aggressors and scout bikes also kill more points of marines and Firewarriors than guardsmen they are just slight more points efficent due to firing 3 weapons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/11 17:40:18


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I uses those 2 as examples, but there are elite units like aggressors and scout bikes who can do that, likewise there are vehicles and monstrous creatures that are good at it, like a dev fex.

The means are there, we don't lack them. If some dumb idea like increasing the number of hits caused by templates passes, you will feel good taking down guards and the same time removed regular light infantry from the game. That is a bad bad idea.

Except assuaalt cannons, HBC's etc arn't anti horde they are generalist anti everything weapons thats what they are supposed to be.
Lasguns remove more points of marines and Firewarriors than guardsmen. That does not make it anti horde, its anti elite anti line infantry not hordes of 4point models.

Also aggressors and scout bikes also kill more points of marines and Firewarriors than guardsmen they are just slight more points efficent due to firing 3 weapons.


This doesn't mean anything.

Is the weapon good at killing hordes? Yes because by firing 3 times into an horde you made back your value in points, so you are shooting at an optimal target.

Does it also get to kill other things well? Nice! Doesn't mean that the weapon is not an anti horde weapon.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight






jcd386 wrote:I think there are better options than keywords that counter each other, which feels more like a bandaid than a cure to these issues.

I think changing all the old template weapons to "can not do more hits than models in the unit" and then boosting the number of hits they get is the best option to fix those weapons. 2D6 should be the baseline. A flamer would then do an average of 7 hits but be terrible against vehicles and smaller units. This is just a quality of life change for those weapons.

Then something has to change with AP, which is the main offender when it comes to elite infantry being uneffective. I think the easiest change would be to allow certain armor types to ignore a point of AP that would effect their armor save. All marine units, for sure, but other factions could probably use it was well, such as necrons. This let's these units survive high rate of fire weapons better.

Then, cover shouldn't be something helps Marines more than it does guardsmen, so I'd remove the +1 to armor save and have it instead grant a 6+ FNP type roll to ignore damage. This is after any other saving rolls and sperate from other kinds of FNP. It increases any unit in cover's durability by the same percent. The only downside I see with this is it does sightly slow the game down.

To fix the wound/damage issue, I think I'd change the way we roll armor saves to "when a model takes a wound, roll a number of armor saves equal to the damage characteristic of the weapon that caused the wound. Unsaved damage reduces the wounds of that model, but does not roll over to other models." So if you shoot an auto cannon at a marine, he has to take 2 saves to survive each shot. If you shoot an auto cannon at a primaris marine, he also has to take two saves. This increases the ability of high damage weapons to kill models with fewer wounds than they do damage, and simultaneously increases the durability of multi wound models by making it less likely that they get one shotted by weapons with exactly the damage they have wounds, assuming they get an armor save against it. VS targets that have more wounds than the firing weapons the average damage is about the same on average, but is less spikey (like now when you can fair a single save and take 6 damage or make it and take none), which I think would be more satisfying than the current system since a few points of damage from high damage weapons would be likely to always go through. This does slow the game a bit, but not by much, since most high damage weapons have low rates of fire.

I think these changes would work well to fix the core issues with durability introduced in 8th without changing too much about how the game is played or feels to play.

They are less about nerfing hordes than they are buffing elite infantry and making high damage weapons more effective.


Maxing out hits to the number of models in a unit would make certain weapons nearly useless against vehicles or monstrous creatures. The balancing act shouldn't make the weapon so bad as to be basically useless against certain targets, it should instead be to make it more effective vs its sweet spot targets. It would also encourage gamier acts such as always going for min sized squads - 5 Skitarii, 5 Fire Warriors, 5 Tactical Marines, etc, to specifically avoid taking the extra hits, basically making MSU the way to go.

Your other suggestions seem like things that would drag the game on. If every time a unit is in cover, it makes an extra saving throw, you could be rolling dozens of dice per attack. Same with the wounding system you want to implement, which would make taking down pretty much anything with an invulnerable save a measurement of tedium, and just drag the game on. A trio of Lascannons hit unit X, rolling 12 damage between them. It has a 3+ save, a 5+ invuln, and is in cover. It now gets 12 5+ saves, and then any failed saving throw gets a 6+ save.

Weapons like Lascannons SHOULD deal a good chunk of damage if they make it past the enemy's defenses - and muddling up stacked saves and invulns and so on will just slow the game down, and make it harder for dedicated anti-tank weapons to do their job. The problem with say Primaris is that weapons like Plasma are fairly cheap and easy to come by, and have little risk due to all the reroll shenanigans you can get.

Insectum7 wrote:
Spoiler:
kurhanik wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
jcd386 wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.


Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

Insectum7 wrote:I posted the idea earlier but it may have gotten lost due to another argument, but what about something like the inverse of the Grav mechanic for anti horde weapons:

This weapon has an AP of -1 against models with an save of 5+ or higher.

Give it to Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc. Anti-chaff modification that doesn't mess with anything else. The bonus could be a save modifier, extra hits or whatever, but having the mechanic dependent on armor save (like Grav) limits it to the sort of units we're looking to target, I think.


Don't a good number of Tyranid units as a whole have a 5+ save? I could be wrong on this, but I remember in the old 6th edition codex a number of units did. On the flip side, if a unit like Ork Boyz, which are a pretty Hordey unit, get back 'Eavy Armor and go to a 4+, then this wouldn't work. And what of weapons like Heavy Flamers? They already have AP -1, do they get bumped to AP -2 vs 5+ or higher? Or 4+ or higher? The idea can work, but there are too many variables on what constitutes a Horde, chaff, and so on, and just simplifying it to 5+ armor or worse could unfairly screw over other codices.


What you're missing is that the Marines are taking 50% more damage than they would if there wasn't AP, but 5+ models only take 25% more damage, and 6+ models are only taking 20% more. The worse your save is starting out, the less you care about AP.


Its why I specifically noted that if you simply alter the rate of fire vs the Horde units, they will be A) wounded more often and B) fail more saves than the Marines. If the Heavy Bolter did 3 shots vs Marines and 1d6+3 shots vs Horde units, guess which group is likely to take more wounds.

Make the weapons that are supposed to be filling anti-Horde duty, and actually give them the rules to do that while still being able to do something at least to the Elite units, and it will balance out somewhat. Yes, you can fire your plasma at Gaunts, but you don't want to unless there are better targets available - the same should be true of Flamers/Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters and their equivalents vs Elite units.


The problem with that solition is overlap between the units people complain about being OP, and the units people are trying to "protect". Both Guardsmen squads and Tactical Squads can come in groups of ten. Are guardsmen "horde" while marines are "elite", yet still the same squad size?


Its why I suggested using keywords to denote what type of unit they are. Every unit gets a keyword along the lines of Horde, Line, and Elite, and then some weapons that are supposed to be good at taking out hordes can get a buff vs units with the Horde keyword and a minor malus vs units with the Elite keyword. Horde units would be units that work largely by weight of numbers - Ork Boyz, Conscripts, Gaunts, etc, while Line units would be things like Fire Warriors, Skitarii, Space Marine Scouts and the like. Elites would be more expensive units, like Tac Marines, Chaos Marines, Stealth Suits, and so on.

I hate to lean on the fluff as an excuse, but on average, a unit of Tactical Marines is more heavily trained, battle experienced, and so on than your average squad of Guardsmen, so even if there is 10 of both of them, it would make sense that the Tactical Marine knows how to minimize the damage from some weapons compared to the Guard. Taking a Plasma round to the face will kill both regardless, but the Marine knows when to move, how to take quick cover in the surroundings, and minimize their profile enough to help them take less overall damage from the lighter weapons. That would translate to crunch with say a flamer dealing 1d3 hits vs Elites, 1d6 vs Line, and 2d6 vs Horde.

Giving everything a keyword, and deciding what gets what keyword would be difficult and take time, but after it is done, weapons and abilities can then be more easily balanced around their own niche, and a tac list would have to take a little of everything in order to cover its bases.


I get where this is coming from but I find it mechanically questionable as it's A: not particularly intuitive and B: I find the adding of keywords to be cumbersome. For a different type of game this would be good, but for 40K it feels not accessible enough. 8th is so streamlined with it's stats/datasheets and I'd hate to disrupt that.


Fair enough, I just find it more intuitive than several of the suggestions in this thread, but I do agree that it could get cumbersome and somewhat gamey.

Insectum7 wrote:Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.


Fully agreed here - some units are more about their ability to take up space and deny space than their damage output, while others are good at backfield support, being difficult to shift with just enough damage output that they can contribute to the fight, and so on.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.


Then it's no wonder why you'd be having problems.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.


Then it's no wonder why you'd be having problems.

It isn't my fault your opponents let morale checks happen nilly-willy. That's exactly what I'm talking about with your casual as all hell meta.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.


Sorry but... what?

I can sort of see what you mean with this - sniping a unit holding an objective is more valuable than just thinning a herd.

But at a certain point "points removed" equals threat removal. You will take less damage next turn as a result. This is valuable in any game that is competitive and isn't a duck hunt "Im going to hide on objectives and hope by some miracle you screw up the maelstrom".

As for Spoletta... you are kidding yourself.

Yes mass low S/AP shooting kills hordes. Yes a 35% return (if you actually get that without contrived units like Aggressors) is nice.
But there are units which get incredible returns versus MEQ. That utterly roast Primaris (see what a Ravager does to a unit of Aggressors as an example). That have a reasonable chance of getting their points back in one round of shooting versus vehicles etc.

There is nothing that comes close to doing that versus guardsmen. This is what we mean about a hard counter. A scissors to their paper. A "I have a thousand points worth of this, and you bought a massed Catachan/Straken list? Well your screwed mate". Now you might say this is bad for the game, and I might even agree with you, but right now you have a system where one set of units has a hard counter, and one does not. Its not surprising that those units dominate the meta.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare








Tyel wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.


Sorry but... what?

I can sort of see what you mean with this - sniping a unit holding an objective is more valuable than just thinning a herd.

But at a certain point "points removed" equals threat removal. You will take less damage next turn as a result. This is valuable in any game that is competitive and isn't a duck hunt "Im going to hide on objectives and hope by some miracle you screw up the maelstrom".


Funny you should mention that, because killing 6 guardsmen seems to remove more "threat" than killing 2 marines, even though the marines cost more. So right there, points do not translate too "threat".

Points removed is a shortcut for purposes of quantifying, but is not wholly accurate, nor useful for turn by turn choices. It's not a good representation for how the game is played.



There is nothing that comes close to doing that versus guardsmen. This is what we mean about a hard counter. A scissors to their paper. A "I have a thousand points worth of this, and you bought a massed Catachan/Straken list? Well your screwed mate". Now you might say this is bad for the game, and I might even agree with you, but right now you have a system where one set of units has a hard counter, and one does not. Its not surprising that those units dominate the meta.


Are hordes truly "dominating the meta"? Or are Guardsmen just an incredibly valuable speedbump taken in armies where other units are doing the heavy lifting?


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.


Then it's no wonder why you'd be having problems.

It isn't my fault your opponents let morale checks happen nilly-willy. That's exactly what I'm talking about with your casual as all hell meta.


Morale is a thing, especially for guardsmen. If you're not taking advantage of that I'm sorry you're wasting firepower, I guess.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





I agree that horde infantry is more powerful than elite infantry, but it seems that the problem is being somewhat overstated. Horde infantry like Chaos Cultists, Guardsmen, and little Tyranids are incredibly easy to kill. My entirely non-competitive Space Marine 1st Company army can trivially kill 40+ Guardsmen a turn, and my only slightly more competitive Steel Legion army can kill their fellow Guardsmen at an even faster rate. 30 Guardsmen might as well be 0 Guardsmen for all the impact they have once the dice start rolling.

Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.


Sorry but... what?

I can sort of see what you mean with this - sniping a unit holding an objective is more valuable than just thinning a herd.

But at a certain point "points removed" equals threat removal. You will take less damage next turn as a result. This is valuable in any game that is competitive and isn't a duck hunt "Im going to hide on objectives and hope by some miracle you screw up the maelstrom".

As for Spoletta... you are kidding yourself.

Yes mass low S/AP shooting kills hordes. Yes a 35% return (if you actually get that without contrived units like Aggressors) is nice.
But there are units which get incredible returns versus MEQ. That utterly roast Primaris (see what a Ravager does to a unit of Aggressors as an example). That have a reasonable chance of getting their points back in one round of shooting versus vehicles etc.

There is nothing that comes close to doing that versus guardsmen. This is what we mean about a hard counter. A scissors to their paper. A "I have a thousand points worth of this, and you bought a massed Catachan/Straken list? Well your screwed mate". Now you might say this is bad for the game, and I might even agree with you, but right now you have a system where one set of units has a hard counter, and one does not. Its not surprising that those units dominate the meta.


There are many many units who reach that 35%, aggressors are just the best of them and reach close to 75%.

What you are highlighting is not a problem with hordes, but a problem with anti elite fire being too efficent.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 Insectum7 wrote:

Funny you should mention that, because killing 6 guardsmen seems to remove more "threat" than killing 2 marines, even though the marines cost more.

Yes, because marines suck and are overcosted!
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Saber wrote:
I agree that horde infantry is more powerful than elite infantry, but it seems that the problem is being somewhat overstated. Horde infantry like Chaos Cultists, Guardsmen, and little Tyranids are incredibly easy to kill. My entirely non-competitive Space Marine 1st Company army can trivially kill 40+ Guardsmen a turn, and my only slightly more competitive Steel Legion army can kill their fellow Guardsmen at an even faster rate. 30 Guardsmen might as well be 0 Guardsmen for all the impact they have once the dice start rolling.


Well the thing is those horde dudes are always run with some custodes, knights, multiple tyrants or a shadowsword etc while an elite army, even if someone wanted, won't be able to fit those good units in. A horde army sacrifices nothing substential to take those options.

How do you clear 40 guardsman with termintors? You would have to go first, them to not have cover or LoS blocking terrain. You can't deep strike turn 1, and in cover have buffed save.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in dk
Fresh-Faced New User




The idea of using morale to help balance elites is interesting.

Maybe something as simple as breaking morale phase in two (morale after shooting and morale after fighting) would help marines tremendously.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Karol wrote:
Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

the thing is we aren't playing with a 1000 marines on a table or more, and with a 50% chance to fail a safe at a cost higher then 50% comparing to a guant or an IG dude, the marines are very inefficient. And that is just normal marines, am not talking about real elite stuff that has t4 and 1 wound, and costs 20pts or higher.

Wait, you mean the Tac Marine spam likely wasn't representative of anything outside of formation based play?

What a shocker!
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:


Tyel wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.


Sorry but... what?

I can sort of see what you mean with this - sniping a unit holding an objective is more valuable than just thinning a herd.

But at a certain point "points removed" equals threat removal. You will take less damage next turn as a result. This is valuable in any game that is competitive and isn't a duck hunt "Im going to hide on objectives and hope by some miracle you screw up the maelstrom".


Funny you should mention that, because killing 6 guardsmen seems to remove more "threat" than killing 2 marines, even though the marines cost more. So right there, points do not translate too "threat".

Points removed is a shortcut for purposes of quantifying, but is not wholly accurate, nor useful for turn by turn choices. It's not a good representation for how the game is played.



There is nothing that comes close to doing that versus guardsmen. This is what we mean about a hard counter. A scissors to their paper. A "I have a thousand points worth of this, and you bought a massed Catachan/Straken list? Well your screwed mate". Now you might say this is bad for the game, and I might even agree with you, but right now you have a system where one set of units has a hard counter, and one does not. Its not surprising that those units dominate the meta.


Are hordes truly "dominating the meta"? Or are Guardsmen just an incredibly valuable speedbump taken in armies where other units are doing the heavy lifting?


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.


Then it's no wonder why you'd be having problems.

It isn't my fault your opponents let morale checks happen nilly-willy. That's exactly what I'm talking about with your casual as all hell meta.


Morale is a thing, especially for guardsmen. If you're not taking advantage of that I'm sorry you're wasting firepower, I guess.

No morale isn't a thing. Quit acting like it is.
   
Made in gb
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Tyel wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.


Sorry but... what?

I can sort of see what you mean with this - sniping a unit holding an objective is more valuable than just thinning a herd.

But at a certain point "points removed" equals threat removal. You will take less damage next turn as a result. This is valuable in any game that is competitive and isn't a duck hunt "Im going to hide on objectives and hope by some miracle you screw up the maelstrom".


Funny you should mention that, because killing 6 guardsmen seems to remove more "threat" than killing 2 marines, even though the marines cost more. So right there, points do not translate too "threat".

Points removed is a shortcut for purposes of quantifying, but is not wholly accurate, nor useful for turn by turn choices. It's not a good representation for how the game is played.



There is nothing that comes close to doing that versus guardsmen. This is what we mean about a hard counter. A scissors to their paper. A "I have a thousand points worth of this, and you bought a massed Catachan/Straken list? Well your screwed mate". Now you might say this is bad for the game, and I might even agree with you, but right now you have a system where one set of units has a hard counter, and one does not. Its not surprising that those units dominate the meta.


Are hordes truly "dominating the meta"? Or are Guardsmen just an incredibly valuable speedbump taken in armies where other units are doing the heavy lifting?


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.


Then it's no wonder why you'd be having problems.

It isn't my fault your opponents let morale checks happen nilly-willy. That's exactly what I'm talking about with your casual as all hell meta.


Morale is a thing, especially for guardsmen. If you're not taking advantage of that I'm sorry you're wasting firepower, I guess.

No morale isn't a thing. Quit acting like it is.

Infantry Squads are leadership 7 by themselves, they need either a commisar or for CP to be spent on them for morale to become a non factor. Morale is very much a thing because if Guard lists didn't take steps to limit morale damage they would suffer heavily from it , if morale was really a non factor no one would even bother with those countermeasures and would just spend the points and CP on other things.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






"No morale isn't a thing. Quit acting like it is."

I could just quote the rulebook to prove that wrong, but it's not on me atm. You're going to need to do better than "nuh uhh" if you're trying to convince anyone other than yourself.

Morale can be sidestepped, sometimes easily, but almost always at a cost. The cost is greater for some than others, but morale remains a factor regardless, especially if you're trying to optimize for removing lots of models. Guardsmen with their min squad of 9/10 and lower Ld. Are easily affected by morale.

 Crimson wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

Funny you should mention that, because killing 6 guardsmen seems to remove more "threat" than killing 2 marines, even though the marines cost more.

Yes, because marines suck and are overcosted!


That's not a counterpoint. That's just a whine.

You could plink off the same "points worth" of a Razorback, and do nothing to mitigate it's threat level for the following turn. "Points removed" is a dumb metric for tactical decisions, with the partial exception of missions that score based on points removed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/12 17:20:14


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Karol wrote:
 Saber wrote:
I agree that horde infantry is more powerful than elite infantry, but it seems that the problem is being somewhat overstated. Horde infantry like Chaos Cultists, Guardsmen, and little Tyranids are incredibly easy to kill. My entirely non-competitive Space Marine 1st Company army can trivially kill 40+ Guardsmen a turn, and my only slightly more competitive Steel Legion army can kill their fellow Guardsmen at an even faster rate. 30 Guardsmen might as well be 0 Guardsmen for all the impact they have once the dice start rolling.


Well the thing is those horde dudes are always run with some custodes, knights, multiple tyrants or a shadowsword etc while an elite army, even if someone wanted, won't be able to fit those good units in. A horde army sacrifices nothing substential to take those options.

How do you clear 40 guardsman with termintors? You would have to go first, them to not have cover or LoS blocking terrain. You can't deep strike turn 1, and in cover have buffed save.


This is a tactic specific to my army, but what I do is drop in my Crimson Fist Terminators, play the Bolter Drill stratagem, give them +1 to hit from the Rhino Primaris, and maybe the benefits of my Land Raider Excelsior and Lieutenant. This generates roughly 30 kills from the Storm Bolters, plus whatever the Assault Cannon contribute, plus fire from my Sternguard. If I concentrate all of my fire on killing infantry I could probably kill 50 or more on average, plus whatever I get from morale and assault. Obviously it's dependent on terrain and deployment etc., but I've done it enough times that I know I easily overkill 40-man cultist squads.

Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight






gbghg wrote:
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Tyel wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.


Sorry but... what?

I can sort of see what you mean with this - sniping a unit holding an objective is more valuable than just thinning a herd.

But at a certain point "points removed" equals threat removal. You will take less damage next turn as a result. This is valuable in any game that is competitive and isn't a duck hunt "Im going to hide on objectives and hope by some miracle you screw up the maelstrom".


Funny you should mention that, because killing 6 guardsmen seems to remove more "threat" than killing 2 marines, even though the marines cost more. So right there, points do not translate too "threat".

Points removed is a shortcut for purposes of quantifying, but is not wholly accurate, nor useful for turn by turn choices. It's not a good representation for how the game is played.



There is nothing that comes close to doing that versus guardsmen. This is what we mean about a hard counter. A scissors to their paper. A "I have a thousand points worth of this, and you bought a massed Catachan/Straken list? Well your screwed mate". Now you might say this is bad for the game, and I might even agree with you, but right now you have a system where one set of units has a hard counter, and one does not. Its not surprising that those units dominate the meta.


Are hordes truly "dominating the meta"? Or are Guardsmen just an incredibly valuable speedbump taken in armies where other units are doing the heavy lifting?


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo "points removed" is not a very reliable metric. It's easily quantifiable but game-wise it doesn't translate linearly to "value". Killing 6 Guardsmen feels more valuable than killing 2 marines on the tabletop. You've gone through over half the squad, forced a decent morale check and you can knock the rest out with "secondary fire" or possibly ignore the squad. Killing two marines rarely achieves much in a tactical sense.

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.


Then it's no wonder why you'd be having problems.

It isn't my fault your opponents let morale checks happen nilly-willy. That's exactly what I'm talking about with your casual as all hell meta.


Morale is a thing, especially for guardsmen. If you're not taking advantage of that I'm sorry you're wasting firepower, I guess.

No morale isn't a thing. Quit acting like it is.

Infantry Squads are leadership 7 by themselves, they need either a commisar or for CP to be spent on them for morale to become a non factor. Morale is very much a thing because if Guard lists didn't take steps to limit morale damage they would suffer heavily from it , if morale was really a non factor no one would even bother with those countermeasures and would just spend the points and CP on other things.


Insectum7 wrote:
"No morale isn't a thing. Quit acting like it is."

I could just quote the rulebook to prove that wrong, but it's not on me atm. You're going to need to do better than "nuh uhh" if you're trying to convince anyone other than yourself.

Morale can be sidestepped, sometimes easily, but almost always at a cost. The cost is greater for some than others, but morale remains a factor regardless, especially if you're trying to optimize for removing lots of models. Guardsmen with their min squad of 9/10 and lower Ld. Are easily affected by morale.

.


You know, I have been mostly thinking about morale in terms of Guard, where it most definitely is a thing, but, some of the other Horde armies actually CAN ignore morale. Orks can basically make themselves fearless, and Tyranids in Synapse (which will be most Tyranids until the Synapse creatures have been killed) also lose nothing to morale. Space Marines are usually taken in small squads, where their reroll of morale means that they are unlikely to lose anything - and that is about half of the armies in the game. I'm not overly familiar with Necrons, but they have a high base leadership, though I don't know if they have any ways of buffing it.

I suppose in that context I can see why people think morale does nothing.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: