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.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Just from skimming over the last couple of pages, here's my input on how some particular issues could be approached.

1: Particular units such as Custodes Jetbikes and Slamguinius get a points hike, or a 0-1/detachment limit similar to Coldstar Commanders.

2: You only get your +3CP bonus if you are not running soup.

3: CP Regen abilities are either killed off entirely, or are limited to one CP per try, or you can only regen CP used on that particular army's Strategems.


I don't want to cut out soup completly, as this completly screws over fluffly armies. I like the allies concept; I can take a couple of squads of Deathwatch with my Guard, or some Custodians with my Marines, but there's a few repeat offenders that could be dealt with in their own way, rather than a blanket "No soup" rule.

Let's get back on topic and agree with this guy.

Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

So AM = 18x3 = 54 54x.5x.333x.333 = 2.99 - 39 points destroyed
Marines = Bolters 8x.666x.666x.666 = 2.36 Plasma gun 1x.666x.83 = .54. Rocket = frag .77. For a total of 3.67 under 16 points destroyed.

In what word do marines beat IG infantry...not this one.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I can confirm that is BS with simple quick math.
FRFSRF IG squads have 37 shots each x3 = 111 shots.

FRFSRF changes your Lasguns to Rapid Fire 2 meaning it would go from 9 shots to 18 shots, outside of half(12") of their 24 inch range.
In Rapid Fire range, that gives you 36 shots.

All getting very pedantic and nothing to do with the topic, but for clarity...
IG squad, 1 las pistol, 9 lasguns

Unordered
1"-12" - 19 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (0.5 dead tactical marines)
12"-24" - 9 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (1.1 dead tactical marines)

FRFSRF
1"-12" - 37 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (1.0 dead tactical marines)
12"-24" - 18 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (2.1 dead tactical marines)

Which still doesn't do anything highlight that Xenomancers fudges the numbers. He didn't disclose that he was showcasing the numbers at Rapid Fire range, nor did he disclose that he was counting the Laspistol.

And THAT is why any and all arguments where he is involved tend to go this way. He throws out garbage about the math while not actually showcasing the math that he's doing. He hides it.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We have seen countless evidence that top players believe Infantry units to be incredibly efficient.

But only take the bare minimum? Why don't they take more? Say 400 points worth?

Because, even if a unit is OP, you don't take just that one unit. You take what you need. Nothing less, nothing more.

But I see this thread has become another dumpster fire of discussion about Imperial Guard with the same posters. Time to abandon the thread.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

The 10 marines are staying in cover then? LOL. I win. I take the objective and you can't even kill me in 6 turns. Game set match.

If only the table had board edges or objectives that required units to actually commit to an area. Maybe if GW adds something like that, Guardsmen won't be able to super-kite Marines anymore...

That was sarcasm.

As for the math vs experimentation: do some math, then experiment. If they agree, you're more likely right. If they disagree, you're likely missing something.

 stonehorse wrote:
Remember when GW said that the new edition was heavily playtesting and balanced?

Remember how we all laughed?

Honestly, those lists highlight how bad a system the current edition is. At the very least try out One Page Rules Grimdark, can use your 40k models and terrain, and the rules are free.

People really need to go play different systems to just see how much of a hot mess 8th is. It does come close to being a good game, but sadly has a lot of the old GW design mentality dragging it down.

Hot mess indeed!

CP is just a broken mechanic right now. What do you think tournament lists would look like WITHOUT CP?

Bharring wrote:
If only the table had board edges or objectives that required units to actually commit to an area. Maybe if GW adds something like that, Guardsmen won't be able to super-kite Marines anymore...

That was sarcasm.

As for the math vs experimentation: do some math, then experiment. If they agree, you're more likely right. If they disagree, you're likely missing something.

Pretty sure we play on 4x6 tables and start 24" apart in typical games. Some games you even have 24" of deployment zone to fall back into.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Two lists took 1 and 2 more than minimum infantry squads in their brigades.

That's it. Two out of the 7 lists that had Guard Detachments had more than the minimum Infantry Squads in their Brigades.

I know man, I read all of the lists in the OP and you've said it multiple times.

To me it is telling and significant, as I said earlier to you directly.

Right I'm at home now so I can easier edit my posts so there aren't reams of quotations from us all.

Let me put it to all of you who believe *certain units* (not necessarily Infantry) are fine but they appear in these top 11 lists multiple times - what happens in a MOBA or online Strategy game when a particular unit, or hero etc is picked way, waaaaaaaaaaaay more than others? What happens when that unit, or hero etc is generally on the winning team? It's a rhetorical question of course, we know the unit or hero etc get's smashed in the face with the nerf bat.

The meta then shifts, another unit or hero etc is used way more than others and on the winning team and it is later smashed with the nerf bat. So on and so forth ad infinitum.

Conversely, what happens when a unit or hero etc is never picked? What happens to those units that, when picked, are generally on the losing team?

We can see, evidently, that *certain units* feature more heavily than others at the top tables. These *certain units* need to be hit with the nerf bat so the meta evolves. The units that don't feature much at the top tables need to be stroked with the buff brush so they see more play.

Soup is only a problem where a game is imbalanced. If there was no difference between the relative strength of units, the army stratagems and relics etc players would have no need to soup. Or, to be precise, soup would have no impact on the result of the game. Unfortunately we don't live in this utopia. 'Imperium' units are far too strong because so many of their units have a codex unto themselves, if not multiple. There is no Codex: Wraithknights. There is no Codex: Stompa. Yet there is a Codex: Imperial Knights. How can a WK or Stompa ever dream of being balanced against an equivalent unit that has a codex worth of rules?

Soup needs to be balanced for matched play, no question. Otherwise we might as well be playing Imperiumhammer 40k.

Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

The 10 marines are staying in cover then? LOL. I win. I take the objective and you can't even kill me in 6 turns. Game set match.

That depends on where the objective is. If those marines are sitting on it, then...well, you are gak out of luck. I didn't even include the plasma and missile launcher above that was included in the original scenario. Sure, you could try to run up and fight in close combat with the marines...but they are armed with bolt pistols, too, and can stay locked in combat pretty much the whole game. If the objective is in the middle somewhere, you will be forced to advance towards it eventually. As long as it is in charge range, and they don't give you the opportunity to use FRFSRF at 12 inches, then Marines can still contest it. The more guard the marines kill at range, the FAR less likely it will be for the guardsmen to kill the marines. The statistics are not in their favor. 2+ saves over time win out against 4+/5+ saves, and 3+ saves by themselves are still decent.

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

This is maybe the most boring simulation I've ever seen but the marine are even losing this battle of attrition. Marine will average 3-4 kills for 14 average points destroyed while the gaurds will average 1-2 kills 19 point average destroyed. It really is very simple. Plus this is also the most auto win situation for IG. This is exactly what IG armies want you to do - stay in your deployment zone and trade shots with them.

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

You want to explain how your maths is a fair example when you have baised the game state so heavily.
The marines magically get to be in cover
The Marines don't have to move out of cover for objective etc.
Yet your guardsmen are being played by a moron who's deployed them in clear line of sight, out of cover and it going to walk slowly towards the dug in enemy? Not to mention that those guard arn't use any of their 8 CP on strategums in your example. Whike the marines would have 0

Ice_can wrote:

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

You want to explain how your maths is a fair example when you have baised the game state so heavily.
The marines magically get to be in cover
The Marines don't have to move out of cover for objective etc.
Yet your guardsmen are being played by a moron who's deployed them in clear line of sight, out of cover and it going to walk slowly towards the dug in enemy? Not to mention that those guard arn't use any of their 8 CP on strategums in your example. Whike the marines would have 0

I included cover for both sides, if you look...and the point was to compare strict points on the battlefield. If you throw in strategems, and Cadian re-rolls, and Dark Angel -1 to hit, then it all becomes very different, and plays different. Stop trying to be 'right' and have some nuance. Marines with all their toys are just as capable of doing things as everyone else in a one-on-one mashup. They can make it happen if you just played the game rather than trying to 'game' the game.

The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.

So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.

Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

The 10 marines are staying in cover then? LOL. I win. I take the objective and you can't even kill me in 6 turns. Game set match.

That depends on where the objective is. If those marines are sitting on it, then...well, you are gak out of luck. I didn't even include the plasma and missile launcher above that was included in the original scenario. Sure, you could try to run up and fight in close combat with the marines...but they are armed with bolt pistols, too, and can stay locked in combat pretty much the whole game. If the objective is in the middle somewhere, you will be forced to advance towards it eventually. As long as it is in charge range, and they don't give you the opportunity to use FRFSRF at 12 inches, then Marines can still contest it. The more guard the marines kill at range, the FAR less likely it will be for the guardsmen to kill the marines. The statistics are not in their favor. 2+ saves over time win out against 4+/5+ saves, and 3+ saves by themselves are still decent.

I think it's safe to assume that objectives in your deployment zone probably have 3-4 units on them. The ones you fight for are in the middleish of the table and you have to move out to get them. Or if you are like me and you get to place objectives. I put them as out in the open as I possibly can. In a tournament they probably will be in cover though so I'll give you that. In any case - killing 2+ armor marines in the back lines doing nothing is very low on any list of priorities I've ever had in a game. Objectives in your zone will be yours all game most likely. they can have it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.

So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.

Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.

Trying to stack deck in favor of marines (ignoring army traits - ignoring CP) 10 man tac with rocket and plasma vs IG batallion shooting at each other from 24" in cover - still results in 14 point average dead infantry vs 19 points average dead marine. Marines run out of points first.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

This is maybe the most boring simulation I've ever seen but the marine are even losing this battle of attrition. Marine will average 3-4 kills for 14 average points destroyed while the gaurds will average 1-2 kills 19 point average destroyed. It really is very simple. Plus this is also the most auto win situation for IG. This is exactly what IG armies want you to do - stay in your deployment zone and trade shots with them.

Well, what do you expect lone tac marines to do? The purpose of both of them is to sit in one spot - they are troops. One is more shooty, the other is more tanky. The Space Marines have far more options, unit and model wise, which is why you don't see these guys more. As long as you let people choose outside their original codexes, they will bring guard. It's that simple - even if guardsmen went up to 8 points, and surpassed skitarii in price, people would still take guard for the relics and such. That's where the problem is. The fact that Tac marines and Guardsmen can shoot each other and last all 5 turns means that they are fine. It's all the other gak that has broken the game.

Tyel wrote:
The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.

So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.

Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.

Yeah we don't even need to get into the fact that a priest plus straken give each 4 point catachan 6 str 4 attacks per turn..or in other words - the offensive CC power of a 5 man tactical squad. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

You guys are amazing, you reaffirm my faith in the utterly repetitive toxicity of these boards. Thank you, seriously, you put a smile on my face. I really do appreciate pattern and routine.

The same posters devolving into the same argument making the same points they've been screaming about for the past year and achieving the same results, futility, thy name is dakka!

Sorry, I'll return to lurking and reading, please continue.

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

This is maybe the most boring simulation I've ever seen but the marine are even losing this battle of attrition. Marine will average 3-4 kills for 14 average points destroyed while the gaurds will average 1-2 kills 19 point average destroyed. It really is very simple. Plus this is also the most auto win situation for IG. This is exactly what IG armies want you to do - stay in your deployment zone and trade shots with them.

Well, what do you expect lone tac marines to do? The purpose of both of them is to sit in one spot - they are troops. One is more shooty, the other is more tanky. The Space Marines have far more options, unit and model wise, which is why you don't see these guys more. As long as you let people choose outside their original codexes, they will bring guard. It's that simple - even if guardsmen went up to 8 points, and surpassed skitarii in price, people would still take guard for the relics and such. That's where the problem is. The fact that Tac marines and Guardsmen can shoot each other and last all 5 turns means that they are fine. It's all the other gak that has broken the game.

No - that is not the purpose of a 180 point troop unit. That is the purpose of 35-40 point troop units. Spending 4 times more than a chaff unit - you need to kill things - or you lose. As I've pointed out - the 180 point troop unit is worse at killing things than multiple 40 point units. It does nothing better - takes up less space - offers less utility. It's a worthless pile of garbage.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.

So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.

Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.

Yeah we don't even need to get into the fact that a priest plus straken give each 4 point catachan 6 str 4 attacks per turn..or in other words - the offensive CC power of a 5 man tactical squad. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

"Man, that unit with its extra points in buffed characters sure is much more powerful than the naked unit in the specific scenario I have in my mind, excepting all other realistic possibilities. LULUL."

Seriously, conversations like this are why I'm convinced Xeno is just (an admittedly effective) troll on these boards, making arguments he clearly knows he can't defend and then trying to do so.

Can you please stop discussing specific instances of x unit vs the same points worth' of y unit? It just devolves into ridiculously niche examples that try to prove one point over another. We've also had it all before so it brings nothing new to the discussion.

What this OP does show us, is that certain units are selected more often than others and that soup is (obviously) strong. Not just Imperium soup either. Aeldari soup is at the top tables too. Chaos isn't really showing but this is only one tournament after all.

I'd be interested to know the top mono-list and where they placed, if anyone could get that information?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
You guys are amazing, you reaffirm my faith in the utterly repetitive toxicity of these boards. Thank you, seriously, you put a smile on my face. I really do appreciate pattern and routine.

The same posters devolving into the same argument making the same points they've been screaming about for the past year and achieving the same results, futility, thy name is dakka!

Sorry, I'll return to lurking and reading, please continue.

Hey bud! You just changed my life!

Pancakey wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Remember when GW said that the new edition was heavily playtesting and balanced?

Remember how we all laughed?

Honestly, those lists highlight how bad a system the current edition is. At the very least try out One Page Rules Grimdark, can use your 40k models and terrain, and the rules are free.

People really need to go play different systems to just see how much of a hot mess 8th is. It does come close to being a good game, but sadly has a lot of the old GW design mentality dragging it down.

Hot mess indeed!

CP is just a broken mechanic right now. What do you think tournament lists would look like WITHOUT CP?

Honestly I think it wouldn't look that different. When the game is played at that level of competitiveness, balance is always going to be off. As GW do their usual heavy handed FAQ/Errata we see new meta lists rise to exploit the fundamentally flawed core system. We saw Hive Tyrant spam be effective, then it was addressed, by both a points increase and the rules of 3.

I've been playing GW games since Battle Master (1988 I think), so have played most of the editions for their various game systems. So have seen the trends in their strategy emerge.

What we have to remember is that GW's aim isn't to write good balanced rules. Their aim is to sell miniatures and books that promote their sales.

One way of doing this is intentionally write bad rules for units/models, so their goal posts of what is good and bad are in a constant state of flux. Buy X because it is good, then X is now bad, so buy Y, Y is now bad so buy Z.

Plus it allows them to do the whole, 'this edition is now fixed' justification for a new edition. Why else would we need 8 editions of 40k, and WHFB, and 2 editions of AoS?

It is similar to modern day capitalism, sell a product that has inbuilt redundancy, so people have to buy replacements.

I really like the models and setting, the rules leave a lot to be desired, the ease of finding an opponent is all that is keeping me.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ravemastaj wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.

When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.

Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.

Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?

54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.

9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.

This is maybe the most boring simulation I've ever seen but the marine are even losing this battle of attrition. Marine will average 3-4 kills for 14 average points destroyed while the gaurds will average 1-2 kills 19 point average destroyed. It really is very simple. Plus this is also the most auto win situation for IG. This is exactly what IG armies want you to do - stay in your deployment zone and trade shots with them.

Well, what do you expect lone tac marines to do? The purpose of both of them is to sit in one spot - they are troops. One is more shooty, the other is more tanky. The Space Marines have far more options, unit and model wise, which is why you don't see these guys more. As long as you let people choose outside their original codexes, they will bring guard. It's that simple - even if guardsmen went up to 8 points, and surpassed skitarii in price, people would still take guard for the relics and such. That's where the problem is. The fact that Tac marines and Guardsmen can shoot each other and last all 5 turns means that they are fine. It's all the other gak that has broken the game.

No - that is not the purpose of a 180 point troop unit. That is the purpose of 35-40 point troop units. Spending 4 times more than a chaff unit - you need to kill things - or you lose. As I've pointed out - the 180 point troop unit is worse at killing things than multiple 40 point units. It does nothing better - takes up less space - offers less utility. It's a worthless pile of garbage.

Then continue souping guard instead of using your own codex, then cry until they are nerfed, and you find the next troop choice to complain about, until everyone costs the same as space marines...instead of just dropping their cost. I guarantee if you dropped space marine costs, you would see much more of them in tournaments - if that's even possible.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.

So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.

Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.

Yeah we don't even need to get into the fact that a priest plus straken give each 4 point catachan 6 str 4 attacks per turn..or in other words - the offensive CC power of a 5 man tactical squad. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

"Man, that unit with its extra points in buffed characters sure is much more powerful than the naked unit in the specific scenario I have in my mind, excepting all other realistic possibilities. LULUL."

Seriously, conversations like this are why I'm convinced Xeno is just (an admittedly effective) troll on these boards, making arguments he clearly knows he can't defend and then trying to do so.

I can easily defend it.
Man..."more powerful"?
1 str 4 attacks compared to 4 str 4 attacks? 400% more effective standing next to straken in CC. Lets see...Guilliman costs 400 points and makes a marine about 40% more effective in CC. Pretty sure that's not trolling - that is just facts. Pretty sure you are the biggest eldar fanboy on dakka too. I wrote you off the second you said shinning spears were a balanced unit. LOL.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can you please stop discussing specific instances of x unit vs the same points worth' of y unit? It just devolves into ridiculously niche examples that try to prove one point over another. We've also had it all before so it brings nothing new to the discussion.

What this OP does show us, is that certain units are selected more often than others and that soup is (obviously) strong. Not just Imperium soup either. Aeldari soup is at the top tables too. Chaos isn't really showing but this is only one tournament after all.

I'd be interested to know the top mono-list and where they placed, if anyone could get that information?

Sorry if this sounds pedantic but do you mean mono codex or mono subfaction?
Just some people obviously have different views on what mono means with the CP changes they keep suggesting.

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can you please stop discussing specific instances of x unit vs the same points worth' of y unit? It just devolves into ridiculously niche examples that try to prove one point over another. We've also had it all before so it brings nothing new to the discussion.

What this OP does show us, is that certain units are selected more often than others and that soup is (obviously) strong. Not just Imperium soup either. Aeldari soup is at the top tables too. Chaos isn't really showing but this is only one tournament after all.

I'd be interested to know the top mono-list and where they placed, if anyone could get that information?

Sorry if this sounds pedantic but do you mean mono codex or mono subfaction?
Just some people obviously have different views on what mono means with the CP changes they keep suggesting.

Mono-codex would likely be easier to find.

Also good to know Kal is pulling the same mental gymnastics Eldar players did the last two editions.

Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.

>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z

repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter

 Galas wrote:

But I see this thread has become another dumpster fire of discussion about Imperial Guard with the same posters. Time to abandon the thread.

Good to know. I was checking back after like... page 3. Glad I didn't miss anything.