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.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

And those scions are only T3 with a 4+, and unless you're buying them a chimera, you can either make them walk and shoot them at long range, or control where they drop.

Hot-shpot las guns make marines turn into gibblets Ap -2 effectively removes their save and have better deployment options and hit at the same BS as a marine. I can t ake a squad of 10 for 100pts or 5 power. For a squad of 10 marines for a tactical squad its 165pts with maybe two special weapons / and a heavy weapon. or 9 power. so in total tempestus's have 1 less strength, 1 less toughness, but deal 80% more damage per a model.

If they manage to wound.

They still only wound on 5's, and marines still get a save. Actually, they get the very same save you've been claiming is too strong for IG to get. Hmmm

As for that 80% more damage? Nope. Three dead marines. Marines shooting back? Three dead scions. That's the same number in models, and 12 less in points for the marines. Of course this all assumes naked for both squads. Adding in special weapons changes things a bit. Particularly as both are lobbing 4 special weapons at each other.

Finally, You can take APC's and Drop pods for marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Well, you're simply wrong. Do the math.

This is subjective.

Math, in fact, is not subjective.

It's not, if you're using it right. And there are definitely factors that don't get crunched well in a calculator. Such as line of sight, deployment, actual tactics, ect.

You know those 3 things dont disprove him right? An acolyte is still a worse guardsmen even if I abuse all of those things, because I could of abused those things just as easily but with better models.

Your arguement is literally "you can still win if you handicap yourself" which is true, but you are still handicapping yourself.

If the original point is about un-reinforced marines vs. Guard, that's one way of doing it, and it's nice and concise. The moment you escalate beyond that is the moment the Marines bring Storm Ravens and strafe them all to death, or whatever. You've sabotoged your basic premise for your argument.

Check post.

Aboslutely people build to avoid morale issues. I'm shocked you would claim otherwise. (though not really, at this point.)
. . .
On the one hand you've made the claim "marines don't do enough damage to force morale", on the other hand you're saying "most people just wipe the whole squad". It sure seems like you're avoiding something.

What that knight titans ruin that meta? No I agree they are used to force morale... But marines can't they do not do effective enough damage at 24" to matter or to force a leadership check or morale check as effectively as a guardsmen squad can in terms of WPP


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If they manage to wound.

So math... with rapid fire...
18 s3 ap-2 D1

5 dead marines


4 plasma

2.2 dead scions

hmmmm Intensifies

 Asherian Command wrote:

If the original point is about un-reinforced marines vs. Guard, that's one way of doing it, and it's nice and concise. The moment you escalate beyond that is the moment the Marines bring Storm Ravens and strafe them all to death, or whatever. You've sabotoged your basic premise for your argument.

Check post.

Aboslutely people build to avoid morale issues. I'm shocked you would claim otherwise. (though not really, at this point.)
. . .
On the one hand you've made the claim "marines don't do enough damage to force morale", on the other hand you're saying "most people just wipe the whole squad". It sure seems like you're avoiding something.

What that knight titans ruin that meta? No I agree they are used to force morale... But marines can't they do not do effective enough damage at 24" to matter or to force a leadership check or morale check as effectively as a guardsmen squad can in terms of WPP

Yeah. . . you're not even showing up to the discussion anymore. So we're done.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

If the original point is about un-reinforced marines vs. Guard, that's one way of doing it, and it's nice and concise. The moment you escalate beyond that is the moment the Marines bring Storm Ravens and strafe them all to death, or whatever. You've sabotoged your basic premise for your argument.

Check post.

Aboslutely people build to avoid morale issues. I'm shocked you would claim otherwise. (though not really, at this point.)
. . .
On the one hand you've made the claim "marines don't do enough damage to force morale", on the other hand you're saying "most people just wipe the whole squad". It sure seems like you're avoiding something.

What that knight titans ruin that meta? No I agree they are used to force morale... But marines can't they do not do effective enough damage at 24" to matter or to force a leadership check or morale check as effectively as a guardsmen squad can in terms of WPP

Yeah. . . you're not even showing up to the discussion anymore. So we're done.

More like I misread your comment actually :(

So no I do think Morale issues can happen its just not common for them to happen as by marines effecting a squad of guardsmen because they do not do enough damage for that guardsmen squad to feel those effects. Unless the marines are specifically targeted for anti-infantry. Then maybe they could force the check, but tactical squads are horrible, overpriced, and the worst troop choice out of the three choices for marines. So why use them at all? If it was say an intercessor squad vs a guardsmen squad... sure! Guardsmen are dead because the intercessors have twice the wounds, ap-1 weapons and +1 attack in close combat.

The intercessors are a better tactical squad. But Tacticals are worse cause of their cost effectiveness in terms of morale. They cannot reliably do enough damage to force a morale check for the guardsmen.

Guardsmen do have worse LD and less options for a morale check, but marines have less effectiveness per a model compared to guardsmen even with that in mind.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

There are many ways to mitigate morale. The problem for you here is that the basic Marine has his morale-mitigation built in. They can be in units of 5, and have ATSKNF. It's intrinsically part of the valuation of the unit. Guardsmen don't have mitigation built in, and come in squads of ten. They are intrinsically more suspect to morale than marines, and that's a part of their points value. Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about efficiency/durability per point, morale can't be ignored.

ATSKNF is a great rule... if it was used more often. But its not. If marines could use it to determine if they can retreat in combat sure it would be great. but you can just retreat from combat without a dice roll. Which is stupid but thats another topic. Morale is only used to calculate casualities and thats it.

Your personal feelings about ATSKNF aren't relevant to the discussion about durability per point, which is the context here. Marines pay for ATSKNF, and Guard don't. When comparing the two units, you use morale because A:it's a core mechanic, and B: It's relevant to the cost of the units in question.

And a garbage addition to the BRB is a universal stratagem to pass a morale check. How do I, as a BA player, try to maximize morale casualties? By focusing fire. But as it stands I have to split that firepower into two separate units because one will shrug off the losses because you, as a guard player, had a mountain of CP, and if I remember some of the litany of posts I’ve read of yours, Guard have no “good” strats to spend them on, so it seems like fearless guardsmen aren’t out of the question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
These Dakka 'How to Fix Marines' threads are always so fething pointless.

Poster 1: "How to fix problem X, Y and Z on marines'
Poster2: "Primaris have fixed the problems X, Y and Z."
Poster1: "Noo, Primaris bad! No Primaris!"

Have you read what I've said? I haven't said 'they are bad'. Just that it would make them too powerful. Primaris are good but not that good. (Hence why no one runs them in tournaments).

So Primaris stats would make the marines too powerful but at the same time the Primaris are not powerful enough?

What is this I don't even...

I think this makes sense given more context; Primaris stats generally fix a lot of what’s wrong with standard marines. Then new problems are introduced because they are a) too expensive, and b)too inflexible, and c)have no ablative wounds so lose firepower to casualties far too quickly. GE slowly adding more options to sergeants at least helps (just stuck a BA fist on a sergeant today!). Primaris that were introduced as replacement kits for mini marines with +1W and A at not much of a price premium, and ATSKNF being “roll two, pick lowest” would have gone a long way to prevent me from whining so frequently on this forum. Instead GW kept the twisted little monkeys as they were, and introduced steroid 30k legion marines with mono weapon loadouts that no one asked for.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

So a marine should fear a lasgun as much as a battlecannon? That's mad, Also if Ppwer Armous is a 2+Sv you'll be ok with 2+ sisters etc?

Why? They are quite different in universe? Marine armour was always better than sisters armour, as they were built to be part of it, not just wear it.

Actually no, the Witch Hunter codex specificly mention that SoB armors offer hte same level of protection then the Space Marine ones. The difference is in auxilary systems like auto-senses and strength enhancement. Thus, they should have the same armor save, because that's what ''same level of protection'' is supposed to mean and represent. They are different in style and auxilary function, but they don't have a difference in efficency when submitted to firepower. If you give Space Marine a better armor save then Sisters, you just retconned this piece of fluff. In my opinion, if you boost the armors of Space Marine, you should boost the armors of the SIsters. If you boost their regular bolters so should you boost theirs (they are supposed to be just as powerful and more reliable then the Space Marines one). Of course, you could be forced to raise their point cost accordingly.

@ Asherion Command: As I play them, a buffed 10 Man Tactical Squad (Chapter Master + Lt. re-rolls) inflicts 6.4 casualties on an Infantry Squad with only their bolters. The higher value weapons will likely be shooting something else. 6.4 Casualties is enough to force a morale check, and has a good chance of taking down a few more guys. So my "crappy" Tacs can eliminate the threat of an Infantry squad at the same time as they are engaging something else, because most of the time the Guard don't have any special weapons, 2 or 3 of them is not a credible threat, and I haven't done any assaulting either.

This is how I play it, and this is how I see that they should be played.

If you like the Intercessors, play the Intercessors. I have no problem with that. I find that Tacticals can more meaningfully engage with heavier targets because they bring special/heavies into the mix, while Intercessors do not. And Tacticals can use cheap, numerous transports to strike more effectively.

I'll have to rethink the balance of things with veteran marines apparently dropping in price, so we'll see how that goes.

Bremon wrote:
And a garbage addition to the BRB is a universal stratagem to pass a morale check. How do I, as a BA player, try to maximize morale casualties? By focusing fire. But as it stands I have to split that firepower into two separate units because one will shrug off the losses because you, as a guard player, had a mountain of CP, and if I remember some of the litany of posts I’ve read of yours, Guard have no “good” strats to spend them on, so it seems like fearless guardsmen aren’t out of the question.

And let's not forget that in addition to that the Guard has their own stratagem for mitigating morale too, so you actually need to split your firepower into three units!

 Insectum7 wrote:
@ Asherion Command: As I play them, a buffed 10 Man Tactical Squad (Chapter Master + Lt. re-rolls) inflicts 6.4 casualties on an Infantry Squad with only their bolters. The higher value weapons will likely be shooting something else. 6.4 Casualties is enough to force a morale check, and has a good chance of taking down a few more guys. So my "crappy" Tacs can eliminate the threat of an Infantry squad at the same time as they are engaging something else, because most of the time the Guard don't have any special weapons, 2 or 3 of them is not a credible threat, and I haven't done any assaulting either.

This is how I play it, and this is how I see that they should be played.

If you like the Intercessors, play the Intercessors. I have no problem with that. I find that Tacticals can more meaningfully engage with heavier targets because they bring special/heavies into the mix, while Intercessors do not. And Tacticals can use cheap, numerous transports to strike more effectively.

I'll have to rethink the balance of things with veteran marines apparently dropping in price, so we'll see how that goes.

Again that is a ton of investment for 1 tactical squad that is almost 350pts there. And 2CP as well! Thats a lot of investment for just 1 350 pt squad firing at 1 40pt unit.

A single sternguard squad is 80pts has 30" range, and ap -2. Less investment and +1 attack +1LD as well. Making them far more effective.... which begs the question why would you take a tactical squad if there is no incentive to use one? Marines vs guardsmen who wins? Guardsmen due to how cheap they are and how easy it is to spam their special weapons and heavy weapons. And as the "no one uses heavy weapons with squads." That is true people just take mortars in groups of three instead.

Bremon wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

There are many ways to mitigate morale. The problem for you here is that the basic Marine has his morale-mitigation built in. They can be in units of 5, and have ATSKNF. It's intrinsically part of the valuation of the unit. Guardsmen don't have mitigation built in, and come in squads of ten. They are intrinsically more suspect to morale than marines, and that's a part of their points value. Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about efficiency/durability per point, morale can't be ignored.

ATSKNF is a great rule... if it was used more often. But its not. If marines could use it to determine if they can retreat in combat sure it would be great. but you can just retreat from combat without a dice roll. Which is stupid but thats another topic. Morale is only used to calculate casualities and thats it.

Your personal feelings about ATSKNF aren't relevant to the discussion about durability per point, which is the context here. Marines pay for ATSKNF, and Guard don't. When comparing the two units, you use morale because A:it's a core mechanic, and B: It's relevant to the cost of the units in question.

And a garbage addition to the BRB is a universal stratagem to pass a morale check. How do I, as a BA player, try to maximize morale casualties? By focusing fire. But as it stands I have to split that firepower into two separate units because one will shrug off the losses because you, as a guard player, had a mountain of CP, and if I remember some of the litany of posts I’ve read of yours, Guard have no “good” strats to spend them on, so it seems like fearless guardsmen aren’t out of the question.

You may have mistaken me for someone else, as I haven't made any claim that I recall about Guard Stratagems. However, if my opponent want's to spend 2 CP to save the lives of 3 Guardsmen, that's fine by me. My greater point is that if you're going to compare two units and use their points cost as a measure, you need to use the entire range of aspects those point values are including. But you also have to keep the comparisons concise, because after you conflate it to chapter tactics, etc. things get out of control real fast, and I think we've all been down that route plenty of times. Very little productive conversation happens there.

As for focusing fire, it seems very strange to me that spreading wounds across multiple units should be a problem when the target units are T3 5+ save, and you have an entire army to do it with. If I'm fighting guard, there's usually a turn or two where I can meaningfully engage 3 or more Infantry units, and so I spread the love around to force as much morale as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@ Asherion Command: As I play them, a buffed 10 Man Tactical Squad (Chapter Master + Lt. re-rolls) inflicts 6.4 casualties on an Infantry Squad with only their bolters. The higher value weapons will likely be shooting something else. 6.4 Casualties is enough to force a morale check, and has a good chance of taking down a few more guys. So my "crappy" Tacs can eliminate the threat of an Infantry squad at the same time as they are engaging something else, because most of the time the Guard don't have any special weapons, 2 or 3 of them is not a credible threat, and I haven't done any assaulting either.

This is how I play it, and this is how I see that they should be played.

If you like the Intercessors, play the Intercessors. I have no problem with that. I find that Tacticals can more meaningfully engage with heavier targets because they bring special/heavies into the mix, while Intercessors do not. And Tacticals can use cheap, numerous transports to strike more effectively.

I'll have to rethink the balance of things with veteran marines apparently dropping in price, so we'll see how that goes.

Again that is a ton of investment for 1 tactical squad that is almost 350pts there. And 2CP as well! Thats a lot of investment for just 1 350 pt squad firing at 1 40pt unit.

Okay, see this is what I'm talking about. That's exactly the sort of poor, bad faith reasoning that's easily avoided, but you shoot right down that path.

A: Chapter Master upgrade is 3 CP.
B: That 150 points + 3 CP is buffing 90% of my 2000 point army.
C: The Tactical Squad is engaging the Guardsmen at the same time as they engage something else.

So. . . 350 points isn't just squaring off against 40 in a vacuum, as you illustrate it.

If you're going to continue down that path, we're done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

A single sternguard squad is 80pts has 30" range, and ap -2. Less investment and +1 attack +1LD as well. Making them far more effective.... which begs the question why would you take a tactical squad if there is no incentive to use one? Marines vs guardsmen who wins? Guardsmen due to how cheap they are and how easy it is to spam their special weapons and heavy weapons. And as the "no one uses heavy weapons with squads." That is true people just take mortars in groups of three instead.

I'll make that calculation once I have my printed copy in my hands, alongside all relevant potential FAQ updates that come along with it.

Okay, see this is what I'm talking about. That's exactly the sort of poor, bad faith reasoning that's easily avoided, but you shoot right down that path.

A: Chapter Master upgrade is 3 CP.
B: That 150 points + 3 CP is buffing 90% of my 2000 point army.
C: The Tactical Squad is engaging the Guardsmen at the same time as they engage something else.

So. . . 350 points isn't just squaring off against 40 in a vacuum, as you illustrate it.

If you're going to continue down that path, we're done.

How is that bad faith your assuming that your tactical squad and your army is always in range of those auras! Auras are not board wide they are within a certain range. Assuming that they are always there to buff that squad is disingenious unless you run your whole army as a giant blob. 6 inches! away from your chapter master is nothing and should not be taken into account for every single space marine shot. If it were then space marines would be far better, but they aren't! They always have to be in range and 6 inches is nothing on the board. If you running your army as a blob you cannot capture objectives. a 150 pts + 170 = 320 pts + 65 pts for a LT. thats 385pts investment. Your using up an entire round of shooting of one 170 pt squad at 1 40pt unit.

If you assume it is buffing 90% of your army your clearly not playing space marines.

Insectum7 “As for focusing fire, it seems very strange to me that spreading wounds across multiple units should be a problem when the target units are T3 5+ save, and you have an entire army to do it with. If I'm fighting guard, there's usually a turn or two where I can meaningfully engage 3 or more Infantry units, and so I spread the love around to force as much morale as possible.”

You don’t see why spreading wounds around is a problem? That’s practically the entire crux of this entire thread. Are being purposely obtuse? Is this a bad faith argument I’m better served by not engaging in? You focus fire so 18 casualties wipes a 30 man unit automatically. I think others have concisely shown that spreading wounds around is a problem because the average space marine has far too little damage output for the points cost.

Apologies for mistaking you for someone else with regards to stratagems though. It was someone wishing Guard stratagems were of the quality of marine stratagems which lead to an outcry from vanilla marine players wondering where their “good” stratagems were.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Okay, see this is what I'm talking about. That's exactly the sort of poor, bad faith reasoning that's easily avoided, but you shoot right down that path.

A: Chapter Master upgrade is 3 CP.
B: That 150 points + 3 CP is buffing 90% of my 2000 point army.
C: The Tactical Squad is engaging the Guardsmen at the same time as they engage something else.

So. . . 350 points isn't just squaring off against 40 in a vacuum, as you illustrate it.

If you're going to continue down that path, we're done.

How is that bad faith your assuming that your tactical squad and your army is always in range of those auras! Auras are not board wide they are within a certain range. Assuming that they are always there to buff that squad is disingenious unless you run your whole army as a giant blob. 6 inches! away from your chapter master is nothing and should not be taken into account for every single space marine shot. If it were then space marines would be far better, but they aren't! They always have to be in range and 6 inches is nothing on the board. If you running your army as a blob you cannot capture objectives. a 150 pts + 170 = 320 pts + 65 pts for a LT. thats 385pts investment. Your using up an entire round of shooting of one 170 pt squad at 1 40pt unit.

If you assume it is buffing 90% of your army your clearly not playing space marines.

Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.

catbarf wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The game is definitely not perfect but it's a quality wargame with more dynamics and variety than others. The sales and fans certainly agree.

I have never met anyone who switched to 40K from Dust, Bolt Action, Flames of War, Infinity, Dropzone Commander, or any other reasonably popular wargame because they liked 40K's rules more. Models, yes, fluff, yes, availability, yes, community, yes, rules- hell no. The mechanical changes in AoS and Kill Team show that new-GW is at least willing to innovate on the core WHF/40K system, but they're still a long ways from having a ruleset that is appealing to wargamers on its own right.

Having the rules support a model range rather than the other way around means they're wedded to all the bloat and chrome that gets in the way of good design, but they could at least take a page from the rest of the industry (or their prior games, see: Epic) and consider things like command systems, alternating activation, and range modifiers. Epic's command/activation system gave elite armies like Space Marines a simple, tangible advantage over Orks or Guard that had nothing to do with rivet-counting weapon stats or slapping special rules on them.

I know of people that don't like infinity ruleset but like 40K. They just aren't looking for a nice ruleset, they are looking for one that let them play whatever fantasy they have. Also minis and fluff are a huge appeal for these people.
GW doesn't just produce a game, and they have been telling us for a while, it appeals to a wider range of people than pure gamers. So in this sense they are successful.

Note : I'm not saying 40K is a perfectly fine ruleset. I don't think it is.

Edit : look like I was pretty late in the thread, sorry for that

Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.

Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.

Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.

Bremon wrote:
Insectum7 “As for focusing fire, it seems very strange to me that spreading wounds across multiple units should be a problem when the target units are T3 5+ save, and you have an entire army to do it with. If I'm fighting guard, there's usually a turn or two where I can meaningfully engage 3 or more Infantry units, and so I spread the love around to force as much morale as possible.”

You don’t see why spreading wounds around is a problem? That’s practically the entire crux of this entire thread. Are being purposely obtuse? Is this a bad faith argument I’m better served by not engaging in? You focus fire so 18 casualties wipes a 30 man unit automatically. I think others have concisely shown that spreading wounds around is a problem because the average space marine has far too little damage output for the points cost.

Apologies for mistaking you for someone else with regards to stratagems though. It was someone wishing Guard stratagems were of the quality of marine stratagems which lead to an outcry from vanilla marine players wondering where their “good” stratagems were.

I really don't see the issue with spreading wounds around, I honestly can't see your angle on this. "You focus fire so 18 casualties wipes a 30 man unit automatically" is an unclear statement? To clarify, my usual play is to try and do 7 casualties per unit, spread across a number of units (in practice 3-4 Infantry Squads), and force morale on each unit to get some extra kills. A buffed Tactical Squad averages 6.4, which gets me close, and then I have whatever supporting bolter fire from other nearby units to cover for bad luck or whatever. I'm not sure why that seems like an unrealistic model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.

Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.

Ok, so I don't play ITC, so progressively scoring objectives are not my norm and becomes much less of a factor. But otherwise it's very possible for me to buff a 2K list completely around 2 models.

Ok, so I don't play ITC, so progressively scoring objectives are not my norm and becomes much less of a factor. But otherwise it's very possible for me to buff a 2K list completely around 2 models.

Well then you better be playing on a completely empty board cause once that unit encounters a terrain they cannot maintain cohesion and would be force not to move. and thus would lose the buff.

Its possible but its also completely illegal would get you thrown out of a tournament or disqualified

Plus that would mean your list would only generate 5cp, so you use 1/2 of your cp for 1 character. Thus handcapping your whole army. Chapter master is not worth the 3cp.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.

Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.

Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.

He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.

Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.

Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.

He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).

Thought so. I don't have that luxury and most players don't as well. (faces knights on a regular)

 Asherian Command wrote:

Ok, so I don't play ITC, so progressively scoring objectives are not my norm and becomes much less of a factor. But otherwise it's very possible for me to buff a 2K list completely around 2 models.

Well then you better be playing on a completely empty board cause once that unit encounters a terrain they cannot maintain cohesion and would be force not to move. and thus would lose the buff.

Its possible but its also completely illegal would get you thrown out of a tournament or disqualified

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Infantry move freely through all the terrain common on our boards, ruins, forests, etc.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Plus that would mean your list would only generate 5cp, so you use 1/2 of your cp for 1 character. Thus handcapping your whole army. Chapter master is not worth the 3cp.

8CP for Battalion + battleforged. Yeah it's not much, but Chapter Master is 100% worth it imo. Probably because I'm buffing 2K with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.

Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.

Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.

He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).

Thought so. I don't have that luxury and most players don't as well. (faces knights on a regular)

We're talking Marines vs. Guardsmen here, which is a matchup for everybody who plays the game. And my meta has it's Imperial Soup with Castellan, loyal 32, Eldar super-soup etc. I've been more focused on Tyranids recently because that's what I've been painting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).

Ah Slayer, so true to form. Can't win the actual argument so calls me worthless and insults my meta.

I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.

And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.

And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.

If you say so. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, and your experience playing not-guard isn't necessarily relevant to Guard. Maybe you haven't lost more models to morale because you play against terrible players in a casual meta. Hmm? See how lazy that reasoning is?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.

And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.

If you say so. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, and your experience playing not-guard isn't necessarily relevant to Guard. Maybe you haven't lost more models to morale because you play against terrible players in a casual meta. Hmm? See how lazy that reasoning is?

Skitarii have the same exact LD stat..

“I lreally don't see the issue with spreading wounds around, I honestly can't see your angle on this. "You focus fire so 18 casualties wipes a 30 man unit automatically" is an unclear statement? To clarify, my usual play is to try and do 7 casualties per unit, spread across a number of units (in practice 3-4 Infantry Squads), and force morale on each unit to get some extra kills. A buffed Tactical Squad averages 6.4, which gets me close, and then I have whatever supporting bolter fire from other nearby units to cover for bad luck or whatever. I'm not sure why that seems like an unrealistic model.”

Insectum7 what are you accomplishing with this? You aren’t wiping things, you aren’t shifting things off objectives, you aren’t getting kill points, you’re doing nothing. So if your shooting remains at 100% efficacy you will have maybe wiped each target in 3 turns. Killing 7 models and you’re getting D6 extra kills. Why not kill 16-18 nearly guarantee the 30 bodies are wiped? Then you’re displacing bubble wrap, displacing objective control, disrupting the enemy’s game plan. The issue is marines need more killing power to be able to clear the chaff better.

As for your buff anecdotes... I can’t imagine your horde marines being effective, nor much fun to play against. Actually scratch that; they probably are fun to play against; it’s not hard to lay waste to mass amounts of mini marines. An 18”ish circle of marines wandering the table maximizing buffs...I’m not buying it, otherwise Templars wouldn’t be so poor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I already won the argument a while back. I literally have only lost units to morale ONCE since this edition has been out, because it's a garbage mechanic. To say to take advantage of morale was bad on your end, sorry.

And yeah, with your meta, you shouldn't be giving advice. Sorry.

If you say so. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, and your experience playing not-guard isn't necessarily relevant to Guard. Maybe you haven't lost more models to morale because you play against terrible players in a casual meta. Hmm? See how lazy that reasoning is?

Skitarii have the same exact LD stat..

Do you play them the same as you would play Guard? Do you field them as a screen? How many points are they? Do you have support units that are in jeopardy if I get past them, like Guard do? Or does the army as a whole fight differently than Guard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bremon wrote:

Insectum7 what are you accomplishing with this? You aren’t wiping things, you aren’t shifting things off objectives, you aren’t getting kill points, you’re doing nothing. So if your shooting remains at 100% efficacy you will have maybe wiped each target in 3 turns. Killing 7 models and you’re getting D6 extra kills. Why not kill 16-18 nearly guarantee the 30 bodies are wiped? Then you’re displacing bubble wrap, displacing objective control, disrupting the enemy’s game plan. The issue is marines need more killing power to be able to clear the chaff better.

As for your buff anecdotes... I can’t imagine your horde marines being effective, nor much fun to play against. Actually scratch that; they probably are fun to play against; it’s not hard to lay waste to mass amounts of mini marines. An 18”ish circle of marines wandering the table maximizing buffs...I’m not buying it, otherwise Templars wouldn’t be so poor.

"What are you accomplishing with this?" I'm killing more guardsmen than I would if I didn't do it. I'm not getting the "why not kill 16 to 18 and nearly guaranteeing that 30 bodies are wiped". Like I really have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some giant combined squad here? Because I haven't seen that in person. If there was a giant combined squad, then sure, that's a great thing to do.

As for objectives and kill points, I don't play ITC, thus my priorities are different. I think my marine horde fares better outside of ITC because I don't have to worry about progressive scoring.

Honestly it's a bit of a bear to play, because there are so many re-rolls. I've begun to find it cumbersome over the last few months.

God I would love to play someone who spams power armored marines.

Ravagers alone would kill nearly 30 per turn, not even factoring in blasters, poison, etc.

I wouldn't even need Doom.

Progressive scoring is really important to balancing the game out. I suspect there is baby seal clubbing happening here.

 Marmatag wrote:
God I would love to play someone who spams power armored marines.

Ravagers alone would kill nearly 30 per turn, not even factoring in blasters, poison, etc.

I wouldn't even need Doom.

I've only played the Eldar super soup with the marines once, and honestly I shot through most of them before losing. I lost but I didn't feel that far behind. Reapers, Spears, Fliers of some sort, Ravagers, all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Progressive scoring is really important to balancing the game out. I suspect there is baby seal clubbing happening here.

Progressive scoring changes things drastically.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Ok, so I don't play ITC, so progressively scoring objectives are not my norm and becomes much less of a factor. But otherwise it's very possible for me to buff a 2K list completely around 2 models.

Well then you better be playing on a completely empty board cause once that unit encounters a terrain they cannot maintain cohesion and would be force not to move. and thus would lose the buff.

Its possible but its also completely illegal would get you thrown out of a tournament or disqualified

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Infantry move freely through all the terrain common on our boards, ruins, forests, etc.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Plus that would mean your list would only generate 5cp, so you use 1/2 of your cp for 1 character. Thus handcapping your whole army. Chapter master is not worth the 3cp.

8CP for Battalion + battleforged. Yeah it's not much, but Chapter Master is 100% worth it imo. Probably because I'm buffing 2K with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Or you've never seen me play Space Marines. 90% of my army being buffed is the norm for my games. Only one model from a unit (usually 10 man) needs to be in range for the unit to get the buff. The line could be 30+ inches wide if it needs to be. I wish I didin't feel like I had to blob, but that seems like the most effective thing to do, so that's what I do.

Yeah I am calling BS on that statement. There is no way to have a 2k point list in an objectives based game all within 6inches unless you breaking squad cohesion and are bending rules. While that is also highly suspect from a rule standpoint.

Because once one unit moves into a terrain and can no longer maintain cohesion that unit can no longer move at all.

He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).

Thought so. I don't have that luxury and most players don't as well. (faces knights on a regular)

We're talking Marines vs. Guardsmen here, which is a matchup for everybody who plays the game. And my meta has it's Imperial Soup with Castellan, loyal 32, Eldar super-soup etc. I've been more focused on Tyranids recently because that's what I've been painting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

He plays the most casual meta, which completely skews his viewpoint. He's mostly worthless for these kinds of threads (though I do admire the desire to be anti-meta with horde Marine. It still sucks but it's different at least).

Ah Slayer, so true to form. Can't win the actual argument so calls me worthless and insults my meta.

Capter master is not worth it...Calgar is worth it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Capter master is not worth it...Calgar is worth it.

The tradeoff as I see it is about 3CP for a Razorback.