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.

Martel732 wrote:
It wasn't. Turn 1 tablings were a thing.

I guess history repeats itself...

Nah, most lists can last around 3 turns now.

There was also games where your army spent the whole game knocked over and incapable of taking actions.

Martel732 wrote:
It wasn't. Turn 1 tablings were a thing.

It could be a mess in uncontrolled settings, sure. But it had some very interesting options and tactics available to you if you didn't go the "Spam Pulsa Rokkits" or whatever route.

BA are great in 8th, too, if I can talk my opponent out of bringing effective units.

Martel732 wrote:
BA are great in 8th, too, if I can talk my opponent out of bringing effective units.

That has been the time-honoured method for achieving balance in GW games for over thirty years!

Martel732 wrote:
BA are great in 8th, too, if I can talk my opponent out of bringing effective units.

A LOT of those interesting tactics could be effectively used against WAAC types. The number of times I blinded the majority of an Ork army with a Chaplain dismounting a bike. . . glorious.

Yeah I saw that with chaos lords vs ig. Just seemed cheap to me.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah I saw that with chaos lords vs ig. Just seemed cheap to me.

My "Cheap" threshold stopped at souping during 2nd for Imperial Agents with access to Smoke Grenades, since I could see through them and many other armies/units couldn't. But since my friend had a strong WAAC tendency, I kept up with the Jones's.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Didn't marines get a big buff in 2nd edition?

They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.

At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.

This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Didn't marines get a big buff in 2nd edition?

They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.

At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.

This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.

This is true.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Didn't marines get a big buff in 2nd edition?

They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.

At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.

This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.

Nonsense, there's still depth. It's just not the "flavor" of depth you want it to be. The scale of the game has shifted beyond certain details, and that's fine. Most of the complaints leveled at 8th could be leveled at 2nd. Allies get crazy, Deathstars, balance issues, I could go on. 40K has always had an amount of "You get out what you put in." I saw plenty of absolutely awful games in 2nd ed. The vast majority of the time throughout the years you could make the game more tactically engaging by just changing some things up in your terrain collection.

Martel732 wrote:
Nah, most lists can last around 3 turns now.

There was also games where your army spent the whole game knocked over and incapable of taking actions.

Setting guys on fire was pretty fun. As was the whole "move templates' phase.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Didn't marines get a big buff in 2nd edition?

They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.

At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.

This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.

Nonsense, there's still depth. It's just not the "flavor" of depth you want it to be. The scale of the game has shifted beyond certain details, and that's fine. Most of the complaints leveled at 8th could be leveled at 2nd. Allies get crazy, Deathstars, balance issues, I could go on. 40K has always had an amount of "You get out what you put in." I saw plenty of absolutely awful games in 2nd ed. The vast majority of the time throughout the years you could make the game more tactically engaging by just changing some things up in your terrain collection.

It hasn't "shifted". It's degenerated. Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. 40k has none of that. "Tactics" in warhammer boil down to rudimentary reserves, bubblewrapping, and aura stacking. That isn't tactics unless we're going by the most rudimentary definition and is an utter joke when compared to older GW games - let alone other wargames that simulate the exact same scale as 40k with far better mechanics.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. .

That would mean Go is a very shallow game. But it ain't.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. .

That would mean Go is a very shallow game. But it ain't.

GO like chess is is incredibly simple, GO like chess scales based on player competence, neither is remotely comparable to a system that has over a dozen factions to balance, if those games did have as many factions then both would need a lot more tactical depth and nuance between the factions than it currently does, a better example of apples and oranges I have never seen.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread

Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)

Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.

The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.

Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.

Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.

I will bite, from the space marine list we got
In Gmans aura
Last edition a tac marine shoting them with a melta gun would have done .46 of a wound each shot now it wounds .576 and that would turn into a 56% chance of doing the two wounds needed to kill the termi now each shot or about a 22% increase in damage
How about a power fist? Would have done .34 wounds last edition now it has a .37% chance of killing a termi with it and a chance of doing one wound as well.
How about a plasma gun? Last edition it would get .92 of a wound now it has a can get 1.152 kills and has lower chance of killing the guy using it. Or about a 25% up in kills
Sure they got better vs the stuff they could tank anyways like flamers or bolters but the kind of stuff the was killing terminators is doing so better even other then grav since it got gutted.

The moment you decided you should put everyone in Roboute's aura it was dishonest math. Sorry, but that doesn't prove your point at all.

"Terminator's are more durable then ever except when the opponent uses their units effectively."

 Formosa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. .

That would mean Go is a very shallow game. But it ain't.

GO like chess is is incredibly simple, GO like chess scales based on player competence, neither is remotely comparable to a system that has over a dozen factions to balance, if those games did have as many factions then both would need a lot more tactical depth and nuance between the factions than it currently does, a better example of apples and oranges I have never seen.

Does that make the counter implication that 40K played without factions or unit diversity once again becomes a tactical game? I'm not convinced the amount of unit options directly correlates with a lack of depth.

Depth and complexity are not the same thing. Depth is about importance of choices. That is why Go and Chess have great depth but are simple non-complex games.

On Youtube Extracredits did a great video about it. "Depth vs. Complexity". It is in the context of video games however. I would post a link, but I think that would be against forum rules.

I still maintain if it is the plethora of high str, high damage weapons out there, devaluing the effectiveness of power armour (and terminator armour), then increase the cost of weapons. Everyone likes cheap plasma weapons in their lists, but no one likes facing plentiful plasma weapons because they are cheap.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Space Wolves can run horde units though through Wolves themselves, and they have lots of cheap units like Sentry Guns and Attack Bikes (though their Attack Bikes are actually super garbage).

Look at the cheapest unit for each slot for GK and you'll see an issue there.

I've never seen competitive SW 8th edition lists with wolves and attack bikes. The only real cheap units they have that may serve some purpose are single cyberwolves as FA for 15 points. Quite useful in very small games, at 2000 points you'll never see them either. The only "horde" unit that can be worthy is the blood claw one with 15 dudes plus a WG. Thanks to the CPs system you'll always want 3x5 instead of 1x15 though.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. .

That would mean Go is a very shallow game. But it ain't.

GO like chess is is incredibly simple, GO like chess scales based on player competence, neither is remotely comparable to a system that has over a dozen factions to balance, if those games did have as many factions then both would need a lot more tactical depth and nuance between the factions than it currently does, a better example of apples and oranges I have never seen.

Does that make the counter implication that 40K played without factions or unit diversity once again becomes a tactical game? I'm not convinced the amount of unit options directly correlates with a lack of depth.

nope, because then it wouldnt be 40k, true balance is one of those utopian ideals that can only be strived for but will never be achieved and should never be forced, what we have in this thread are people trying to force it, people trying to strive for it and people blindly believing we already have it (those people are insufferable).

While you are not convinced that the more units you have the more variation you need so the more tactical depth is required to differentiate them, well... your belief is not required, a well designed system knows that in order to show the difference in multi faction games you need to have a sufficient depth of rules otherwise you get heavy overlap in rules and everything ends up feeling "vanilla" and "bland" this has been the death nell for several good games, on the flip side you get games that have variation of units rather than factions, battletech has a vast vast array of units all different from each other, but this makes for a nightmare for new players, thats too much depth.

then we have 40k, its trying to have its cake and eat it, its trying to show multi factions but the main rules simply do not allow for the complexity and depth needed to show the differences in each faction, this is mainly down to the D6 system they have chosen in my mind, they have severely limited their own scope for expansion, they have tried to address the 1-10 scale for stats but its still limited by the D6, in order to see that I am right about this you need only look at the codexs and see the massive amount of crossover in rules and themes.

Sadly this limit hits low armour save units in this ed (and pretty much every ed after 3rd) the hardest, in a marine was to have a 3+ save on a D10. and then apply modifiers, power armour would be worth something, the D10 system could easily show the differences in power armour too, astartes 3+, soriatus 4+, hell you could even throw in the marks, but thats a bit far, imagine if terminator armour had a 1+ save on a d10, then you would be forced to use massively powerful weapons to actually dent them, as it should be.

anyway, waffling over.

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread

Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)

Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.

The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.

Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.

Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.

I will bite, from the space marine list we got
In Gmans aura
Last edition a tac marine shoting them with a melta gun would have done .46 of a wound each shot now it wounds .576 and that would turn into a 56% chance of doing the two wounds needed to kill the termi now each shot or about a 22% increase in damage
How about a power fist? Would have done .34 wounds last edition now it has a .37% chance of killing a termi with it and a chance of doing one wound as well.
How about a plasma gun? Last edition it would get .92 of a wound now it has a can get 1.152 kills and has lower chance of killing the guy using it. Or about a 25% up in kills
Sure they got better vs the stuff they could tank anyways like flamers or bolters but the kind of stuff the was killing terminators is doing so better even other then grav since it got gutted.

The moment you decided you should put everyone in Roboute's aura it was dishonest math. Sorry, but that doesn't prove your point at all.

"Terminator's are more durable then ever except when the opponent uses their units effectively."

Roboute makes anything better is the issue. If you don't incorporate him into your mathematical model with point comparisons, it doesn't work. Roboute isn't just a free bonus. Or are you saying that Marines are finely priced as you're always running him?

So please by all means, do the math again without him. Or are you afraid you're wrong?

Insectum7 wrote:They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters.

Yep. It was bolters, bolt pistol and Storm Bolter. Much death to potentially be dealt and they could even use it while on overwatch.

fraser1191 wrote:I've never played 2nd edition before

Heresy!!

Martel732 wrote:It wasn't. Turn 1 tablings were a thing.

Ah Virus bombs. To be fair you could avoid this if you were using a decent dollop of terrain, ripped up the Virus Bomb card, ignored the Callidus Assassin/Assassination combo mission, Vortex grenades, absuing the allies mechanics to take an army of 100% characters.... It was a horribly written game. So much wasted potential.

Wyzilla wrote:This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.

You have to remember that 2nd Edition was written as a borderline roleplaying game. It certainly wasn't designed for large scale combat. The close combat phase required you to clear your diary for a week just to do one squad vs squad clash. It did have lots of interesting mechanics like the way cover worked, which made using cover and thinking tactically about movement highly advantageous, but it's best legacy would be as the core basis for a rules sets for someone to come along and edit down heavily (as virtually everyone did with various house rules).

Tygre wrote:Depth and complexity are not the same thing. Depth is about importance of choices. That is why Go and Chess have great depth but are simple non-complex games.

On Youtube Extracredits did a great video about it. "Depth vs. Complexity". It is in the context of video games however. I would post a link, but I think that would be against forum rules.

I still maintain if it is the plethora of high str, high damage weapons out there, devaluing the effectiveness of power armour (and terminator armour), then increase the cost of weapons. Everyone likes cheap plasma weapons in their lists, but no one likes facing plentiful plasma weapons because they are cheap.

What this guy said.

One of the problems with Marines I haven't seen touched on too much is that the way detachments work punishes fluffy play. Marine units start at 5-strong, and can be bought up to 10-strong, which is what the fluff states is a full-sized, codex-compliant squad. Game mechanics wise, taking one 10-man squad instead of two 5-man squads is a terrible idea, because it only takes one detachment slot instead of the two that could have been filled by the two 5-man squads. This also makes the combat squads ability completely useless, as if you're going to split the unit into two squads anyway, you might as well just buy it as two 5-man squads in order to fill detachment slots. I don't know if Combat Squads was a significant factor in how GW decided to price Marines, but if it was, then Marine players are definitely paying for an ability they are never going to use.

In order to see 10-man squads hit the table, Marines would need a special detachment that rewards taking 10-man squads - maybe giving a bonus CP for every 10 man squad in the detachment.

Also, in 8th edition the difference between a bad unit and a good unit is often what stratagems the unit has access to, and Tac Marines don't really have access to any that are particularly sexy. A couple good strats might improve them tremendously. Say, one strat that lets them fire all their weapons twice, and another that lets them disembark from a transport after it moved. Those might make Tac Marines a tempting choice again. Unfortunately, the existence of Primaris Marines probably indicates that GW isn't really interested in doing much to improve OldMarines anymore. While I don't think there's imminent danger GW is going to stop supporting OldMarines in the foreseeable future, I also don't think they're going to expend much creativity or effort in keeping them competitively viable. If any OldMarine units remain competitively viable, it'll be more by accident than design.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


In order to see 10-man squads hit the table, Marines would need a special detachment that rewards taking 10-man squads - maybe giving a bonus CP for every 10 man squad in the detachment.

Alternatively larger squads should gain some special rules, stats or more special wargear allowed (like 5-6 heavy/special weapons allowed in a 10 man squad).

Take ork boyz: the size squad doesn't give the army more CPs but the unit gains two effective buffs, an higher Ld and +1A. You invest more points in the troop squad but you also gain a stronger unit, that's the concept behind troops squads of units that aren't the cheapest ones. Gretchins serve a better role for the army in min squads of 10, the more expensive boyz are better in units of 20+ models than min squads. To make 10 man SM squads worthy they should be way more efficient than 2x5 man squads. Maybe with more weapons allowed or even +1BS if the unit is 6+ dudes: if SM are in good numbers they are more relaxed or confident in themselves and shoot at their best, if their unit becomes too small they start feeling nervous and their BS drops by one point

That should be applied to all those troops that don't work as screeners and gain no benefit in being played in units bigger than their min size.

Space Marines, the faction with the tagline "And They Shall Know No Fear", become "nervous" if they operate in smaller squads?

I'm of the idea that Tactical Marines would be better if they had better weapon saturation in larger squads. Personally I'd like to see a Skitarii sorta setup, but you get 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special once you hit 10 dudes. Min squads would stay the same.

Fix the Bolter and cut a point off, and you're good to go.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Space Marines, the faction with the tagline "And They Shall Know No Fear", become "nervous" if they operate in smaller squads?

Yeah, this thing of being superdudes is just imperium propaganda. They just wet their pants like any other soldier if they're actually in a real war and start feeling outnumbered


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm of the idea that Tactical Marines would be better if they had better weapon saturation in larger squads. Personally I'd like to see a Skitarii sorta setup, but you get 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special once you hit 10 dudes. Min squads would stay the same.

Fix the Bolter and cut a point off, and you're good to go.

I don't think I'd take a max sized squad only if I get the change of adding just one special/heavy weapon to the squad. 10 man squads also means no razorbacks to ride in, which are definitely SM best transports. I think that 10 man squads should get something more significant, just like orks when they are 20+. If they get the chance of bringing more weapons I'd go with 4 at least, maybe even 5, not just 3.

Kabalite warriors have something like the bonus you propose, they can have 1 special per 5 dudes, but 2 specials and a heavy if they are 10. And yet 5 man squads are way more common than the 10 man one. Even if you want 10 dudes in a raider it's usually 2x5 with a blaster/shredder in each squad instead of 10 with 2 blasters/shredder and a dark lance/splinter cannon.

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Space Marines, the faction with the tagline "And They Shall Know No Fear", become "nervous" if they operate in smaller squads?

Yeah, this thing of being superdudes is just imperium propaganda. They just wet their pants like any other soldier if they're actually in a real war and start feeling outnumbered


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm of the idea that Tactical Marines would be better if they had better weapon saturation in larger squads. Personally I'd like to see a Skitarii sorta setup, but you get 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special once you hit 10 dudes. Min squads would stay the same.

Fix the Bolter and cut a point off, and you're good to go.

I don't think I'd take a max sized squad only if I get the change of adding just one special/heavy weapon to the squad. 10 man squads also means no razorbacks to ride in, which are definitely SM best transports. I think that 10 man squads should get something more significant, just like orks when they are 20+. If they get the chance of bringing more weapons I'd go with 4 at least, maybe even 5, not just 3.

Kabalite warriors have something like the bonus you propose, they can have 1 special per 5 dudes, but 2 specials and a heavy if they are 10. And yet 5 man squads are way more common than the 10 man one. Even if you want 10 dudes in a raider it's usually 2x5 with a blaster/shredder in each squad instead of 10 with 2 blasters/shredder and a dark lance/splinter cannon.

Which has to do with the CP system coming into play, as everyone wants to just meet a quota even with excellent troop choices. After all, if I were running a DE Battalion and just wanted the CP real quick, 4 ×5 dudes would be more helpful for me to use, even with better weapon saturation. A system of working backwards or being slightly more liberal with CP handout would go a long way to fixing that.

Also Razorbacks are garbage transports, so I don't see how that helps your point. They're excellent battle tanks though!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which has to do with the CP system coming into play, as everyone wants to just meet a quota even with excellent troop choices. After all, if I were running a DE Battalion and just wanted the CP real quick, 4 ×5 dudes would be more helpful for me to use, even with better weapon saturation. A system of working backwards or being slightly more liberal with CP handout would go a long way to fixing that.

Yeah, the point is disposing of more CPs is definitely more appealing that having just +1 gun per squad. The bonus that big squads get should be something very rewarding, like the boyz ones. In comparison to make 10 man tacs squads interesting, compared to 2x5 ones, they should get +1BS or -1AP, something like that. Maybe also the ability of auto passing morale tests if the squad if 5+ dudes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also Razorbacks are garbage transports, so I don't see how that helps your point. They're excellent battle tanks though!

Razorbacks are excellent transports because they let you reduce the drops as you want at least 3x 5-6 man squads of dudes anyway. If you want to play with pure marines and you're SW (so no scouts as troops) 5 GH are decent enough to be embarked in turn 1 and then pop up to screen the tanks and provide some little shooting. Ass can razorbacks may also want to move in turn 1 due to their weapon range. Long fangs also benefit a lot from being inside a tank during alpha strike. I'd never take razorbacks with no one inside.

Rhinos are the worse transports instead: they're cheaper, no shooting penalties if they move, more transport capacity but way less synergies with the rest of the army. Basically with my SW it's just blood claws that may want such ride. Many SM armies have litterally zero units that like to ride in a rhino.

And nothing rides in the Razorback, as those will be Scouts or camping Lascannons or Heavy Bolters. If you want strictly a transport though, Rhinos do it as they don't sacrifice any shooting to do so.

That's the key difference. Dark Eldar don't have to worry about this anyway though because anyone can shoot out of the Raider/Venom.