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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Actually...Catachan guardsmen are as strong as a primaris marine.

Game stats do not make it so.

Well, they kinda do in practice. I can't point to a fluff source and say "You don't wound my marine on a 4."

Actually, Catachan are stronger than Marines. Because fluff.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Actually, Catachan are stronger than Marines. Because fluff.

Marines should recruit from there then cause...the primaris treatment on these "god men" might actually produce individuals as strong as Gman.

Game Stats 101 tells us that each "tick" on a stat represents a wide range of ability. Just not enough of an ability to merit a bump in effectiveness for tabletop purposes.

You all know this.

An Exarch is more skilled than an Aspect Warrior. Both hit on 4s.

A Vet Sarge is more skilled than Scout Bob who's deployed for the first time ever today. Both hit on 4s.

Jain Zar is better with a sword than some flunky SM Captain. Both hit on 2s.

Tabletop is an abstraction, not an absolute.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Game Stats 101 tells us that each "tick" on a stat represents a wide range of ability. Just not enough of an ability to merit a bump in effectiveness for tabletop purposes.

You all know this.

LOL I know it's terrible. 800lb marine as strong as 200 lb unmodified human. If the games stats include 800 lb power armor with fusion power assist and a 200 lb human at the same str characteristic...you might as well flush it down the dang toilet. It is indefensible. Especially when in game points are over triple the value.

Seems pretty absolute when rolling the dice.

Bharring wrote:
An Exarch is more skilled than an Aspect Warrior. Both hit on 4s.

A Vet Sarge is more skilled than Scout Bob who's deployed for the first time ever today. Both hit on 4s.

Jain Zar is better with a sword than some flunky SM Captain. Both hit on 2s.

Tabletop is an abstraction, not an absolute.

exarchs hit on 3's...exarchs were hitting on 2's last edition and it made sense.
Phoenix lords used to have super high WS and INT to represent their superior skills. That is gone now and it sucks. You could still give them special rules to make them better...like each hit counts as 2 hits or something like that...but GW just sucks at everything.

You *could* introduce a more stratiated to-hit scheme, but it's always a tradeoff between granularity and simplicity. 40k has been very open and direct about where it sits on that tradeoff. But regardless of where, two things with the same rough stat are not intended to be literally equal.

And no, that doesn't make it useless. Chromium and Topaz are both an 8 on the Moh's hardness scale. But Chromium is "harder" than Topaz. However, that scale is still useful.

Put yet another way, Einstein and I are both top-quartile intelligences. Saying so in no way claims I'm just as smart as Einstein.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An Exarch is more skilled than an Aspect Warrior. Both hit on 4s.

A Vet Sarge is more skilled than Scout Bob who's deployed for the first time ever today. Both hit on 4s.

Jain Zar is better with a sword than some flunky SM Captain. Both hit on 2s.

Tabletop is an abstraction, not an absolute.

exarchs hit on 3's...exarchs were hitting on 2's last edition and it made sense.
Phoenix lords used to have super high WS and INT to represent their superior skills. That is gone now and it sucks. You could still give them special rules to make them better...like each hit counts as 2 hits or something like that...but GW just sucks at everything.

Fun fact: even when Jain Zar *did* have a "super-high" WS, it was still a lower WS than an augmented human SNIPER. Because reasons. The stats are never fully faithful to the fluff.

Martel732 wrote:
Seems pretty absolute when rolling the dice.

Part of the dice role is the variability represented by the stat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Game Stats 101 tells us that each "tick" on a stat represents a wide range of ability. Just not enough of an ability to merit a bump in effectiveness for tabletop purposes.

You all know this.

LOL I know it's terrible. 800lb marine as strong as 200 lb unmodified human. If the games stats include 800 lb power armor with fusion power assist and a 200 lb human at the same str characteristic...you might as well flush it down the dang toilet. It is indefensible. Especially when in game points are over triple the value.

It's fine within the scope of the game, running the gamut from S2 Gretchin to S whatever Titan. You could have 100 different tiers of strength but it wouldn't really improve the game, imo.

Anyone in here fancy telling Sly Marbo he's not as strong a Space Marine?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Game Stats 101 tells us that each "tick" on a stat represents a wide range of ability. Just not enough of an ability to merit a bump in effectiveness for tabletop purposes.

You all know this.

LOL I know it's terrible. 800lb marine as strong as 200 lb unmodified human. If the games stats include 800 lb power armor with fusion power assist and a 200 lb human at the same str characteristic...you might as well flush it down the dang toilet. It is indefensible. Especially when in game points are over triple the value.

Chess has a 100-200lb guy with a pointy stick have the same offensive and defensive stats as over 1,000lb of man, horse, and metal. Different movement and special rules, though. Should that game be flushed down the toilet?

And in Go, there's no rules difference between the best mounted warrior with all the best gear ever and some random half-drunk pleb with a shank. Again, should that game be flushed down the toilet?

The bottom line is that GW can make many other factions NOT miserable to play in their crappy system they have devised. How they can keep whiffing with their poster boys is mind boggling.

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line is that GW can make many other factions NOT miserable to play in their crappy system they have devised. How they can keep whiffing with their poster boys is mind boggling.

I find Marines fun and interesting to play.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Anyone in here fancy telling Sly Marbo he's not as strong a Space Marine?

Hes not. A single marine would break him in half without effort. His only chance is to hid and throw a massive explosive on the marine. That could work.

Not what 8th says.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line is that GW can make many other factions NOT miserable to play in their crappy system they have devised. How they can keep whiffing with their poster boys is mind boggling.

I find Marines fun and interesting to play.

I like playing marines because I think they look good. Their game play is Abysmal. Literally Abysmal. Slow/short ranged army that has to stay still to do damage....It doesn't work for a lot of reasons. Mainly because they aren't survivable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line is that GW can make many other factions NOT miserable to play in their crappy system they have devised. How they can keep whiffing with their poster boys is mind boggling.

I find Marines fun and interesting to play.

I like playing marines because I think they look good. Their game play is Abysmal. Literally Abysmal. Slow/short ranged army that has to stay still to do damage....It doesn't work for a lot of reasons. Mainly because they aren't survivable.

Slow and short ranged? Ohhhh. . . you're playing Primaris and using only 1/20h of the book.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line is that GW can make many other factions NOT miserable to play in their crappy system they have devised. How they can keep whiffing with their poster boys is mind boggling.

I find Marines fun and interesting to play.

I like playing marines because I think they look good. Their game play is Abysmal. Literally Abysmal. Slow/short ranged army that has to stay still to do damage....It doesn't work for a lot of reasons. Mainly because they aren't survivable.

Slow and short ranged? Ohhhh. . . you're playing Primaris and using only 1/20h of the book.

Short ranged? I can't hear you over the sound of CWE's only-3-infantry-have-24"-range....

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An Exarch is more skilled than an Aspect Warrior. Both hit on 4s.

A Vet Sarge is more skilled than Scout Bob who's deployed for the first time ever today. Both hit on 4s.

Jain Zar is better with a sword than some flunky SM Captain. Both hit on 2s.

Tabletop is an abstraction, not an absolute.

exarchs hit on 3's...exarchs were hitting on 2's last edition and it made sense.
Phoenix lords used to have super high WS and INT to represent their superior skills. That is gone now and it sucks. You could still give them special rules to make them better...like each hit counts as 2 hits or something like that...but GW just sucks at everything.

I've been proposing an improved WS for some time. Just expand the comparison chart an be a bit more liberal with giving elite units WS in the 5-7 range and it would make more sense again:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Game Stats 101 tells us that each "tick" on a stat represents a wide range of ability. Just not enough of an ability to merit a bump in effectiveness for tabletop purposes.

You all know this.

LOL I know it's terrible. 800lb marine as strong as 200 lb unmodified human. If the games stats include 800 lb power armor with fusion power assist and a 200 lb human at the same str characteristic...you might as well flush it down the dang toilet. It is indefensible. Especially when in game points are over triple the value.

Chess has a 100-200lb guy with a pointy stick have the same offensive and defensive stats as over 1,000lb of man, horse, and metal. Different movement and special rules, though. Should that game be flushed down the toilet?

And in Go, there's no rules difference between the best mounted warrior with all the best gear ever and some random half-drunk pleb with a shank. Again, should that game be flushed down the toilet?

Not sure chess was every intended to replicate actual real life units. It is a strategy game. Plus they have point values more in line with their abiltiies. In competitive play a pawn is considered worth 4 while a power price is between 7-12. The only difference in units is mobility. You can make a game like that. It's stuck around for quite a while for a reason. Because it is pretty well balanced and hard to master.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An Exarch is more skilled than an Aspect Warrior. Both hit on 4s.

A Vet Sarge is more skilled than Scout Bob who's deployed for the first time ever today. Both hit on 4s.

Jain Zar is better with a sword than some flunky SM Captain. Both hit on 2s.

Tabletop is an abstraction, not an absolute.

exarchs hit on 3's...exarchs were hitting on 2's last edition and it made sense.
Phoenix lords used to have super high WS and INT to represent their superior skills. That is gone now and it sucks. You could still give them special rules to make them better...like each hit counts as 2 hits or something like that...but GW just sucks at everything.

I've been proposing an improved WS for some time. Just expand the comparison chart an be a bit more liberal with giving elite units WS in the 5-7 range and it would make more sense again:

Spoiler:

I'm down with it.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think you justify the fluff through the stats. Guard are statistically inferior to Space Marines.

The issue is the D6 system. It inherently throws the fluff out the window by making the guardman way more powerful than he should be.

So why not just charge the appropriate points while acknowledging this problem?

Ideally that is what should happen. Guardsman need to go up a point and space marines need to go down several. When will GW do this though/will they... idk. Personally i would liek to see 11 point marines to start with and adjust down if they are still performing poorly.

OK, but, Guardsman cost isn't the issue. They are not at all intrinsically related. Guardsmen are appropriately costed, and Space marines are too high. Guard don't get access to all the golly gee whiz cool kid stuff that SMs do. Then again, who cares, the NuMarines are replacing Oldboys anyway.

except guardsmen DO get access to most of the space Marines toys, plasma, melta Lascanons etc. guard get access to all that. no they don't have power armor and boltguns but they have pretty much everything else Marines have, on a cheaper base too. meanwhile Guard have access to chapter tactics for ALL their units not just infantry bikes and dreads. and the roders system, which is a huge force multipler. I have always maintained that there is no legitmate reason for guard to get chapter tactics and orders. Orders should be stratigiums, costing command points. because as it stands every other army in the game to issue special orders to a unit to increase it's effectiveness has to spend command points, guard can do that "just cause"

Bharring wrote:
You *could* introduce a more stratiated to-hit scheme, but it's always a tradeoff between granularity and simplicity. 40k has been very open and direct about where it sits on that tradeoff. But regardless of where, two things with the same rough stat are not intended to be literally equal.

And no, that doesn't make it useless. Chromium and Topaz are both an 8 on the Moh's hardness scale. But Chromium is "harder" than Topaz. However, that scale is still useful.

Put yet another way, Einstein and I are both top-quartile intelligences. Saying so in no way claims I'm just as smart as Einstein.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An Exarch is more skilled than an Aspect Warrior. Both hit on 4s.

A Vet Sarge is more skilled than Scout Bob who's deployed for the first time ever today. Both hit on 4s.

Jain Zar is better with a sword than some flunky SM Captain. Both hit on 2s.

Tabletop is an abstraction, not an absolute.

exarchs hit on 3's...exarchs were hitting on 2's last edition and it made sense.
Phoenix lords used to have super high WS and INT to represent their superior skills. That is gone now and it sucks. You could still give them special rules to make them better...like each hit counts as 2 hits or something like that...but GW just sucks at everything.

Fun fact: even when Jain Zar *did* have a "super-high" WS, it was still a lower WS than an augmented human SNIPER. Because reasons. The stats are never fully faithful to the fluff.

We are in agreement then that eldar leaders have never really be represented very well. At least in previous editions they always fought first (which was pretty big). However in 4th edition when I played a lot of marines vs DE (admittedly I was a child with no idea what I was doing) A DE archon could literally run a rampage through my whole army. Plus in 7th. I played marines vs eldar a lot and though not what you would see in a competitive build - a unit of shinning spears with invis and fourtune with an autarch with shard of arnis - seemed to beat me every time regardless of what I played against it. Literally the only answer I had was to include a paladin in every list so I could stomp on them. Even then - just got rekt by warp spiders.

So like - I literally have no attachment to any secondis unit. They have all be getting crushed since forever. I am glad to see them go. Please bring me new units that can compete with xenos. This means they have to have an actual strength. Every army can be glass cannon - you have to have more. Marines on the whole need more durability because it is very rare they are hitting hard first - so they have to take a hit to give it back. I literally don't care what they do. Reduced cost would be good but I would really like great abilities.
Eldar always have at least a few units it seems in every edition that you can just spam and win games because they are mobile/and lethal - marine units can be lethal - they are supposed to be durable and lethal but they aren't the durable part and never have been.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
You *could* introduce a more stratiated to-hit scheme, but it's always a tradeoff between granularity and simplicity. 40k has been very open and direct about where it sits on that tradeoff. But regardless of where, two things with the same rough stat are not intended to be literally equal.

And no, that doesn't make it useless. Chromium and Topaz are both an 8 on the Moh's hardness scale. But Chromium is "harder" than Topaz. However, that scale is still useful.

Put yet another way, Einstein and I are both top-quartile intelligences. Saying so in no way claims I'm just as smart as Einstein.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An Exarch is more skilled than an Aspect Warrior. Both hit on 4s.

A Vet Sarge is more skilled than Scout Bob who's deployed for the first time ever today. Both hit on 4s.

Jain Zar is better with a sword than some flunky SM Captain. Both hit on 2s.

Tabletop is an abstraction, not an absolute.

exarchs hit on 3's...exarchs were hitting on 2's last edition and it made sense.
Phoenix lords used to have super high WS and INT to represent their superior skills. That is gone now and it sucks. You could still give them special rules to make them better...like each hit counts as 2 hits or something like that...but GW just sucks at everything.

Fun fact: even when Jain Zar *did* have a "super-high" WS, it was still a lower WS than an augmented human SNIPER. Because reasons. The stats are never fully faithful to the fluff.

We are in agreement then that eldar leaders have never really be represented very well. At least in previous editions they always fought first (which was pretty big). However in 4th edition when I played a lot of marines vs DE (admittedly I was a child with no idea what I was doing) A DE archon could literally run a rampage through my whole army. Plus in 7th. I played marines vs eldar a lot and though not what you would see in a competitive build - a unit of shinning spears with invis and fourtune with an autarch with shard of arnis - seemed to beat me every time regardless of what I played against it. Literally the only answer I had was to include a paladin in every list so I could stomp on them. Even then - just got rekt by warp spiders.

Anything can be OP if you don't know what you're doing. Complaining about Spears in 7th is a lot like complaining about Marines in 8th - but we do occasionally see people post who haven't figured out how to take on Space Marines these days. I fielded my Spears a couple times in 7th, and they were hilariously terrible.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
You *could* introduce a more stratiated to-hit scheme, but it's always a tradeoff between granularity and simplicity. 40k has been very open and direct about where it sits on that tradeoff. But regardless of where, two things with the same rough stat are not intended to be literally equal.

And no, that doesn't make it useless. Chromium and Topaz are both an 8 on the Moh's hardness scale. But Chromium is "harder" than Topaz. However, that scale is still useful.

Put yet another way, Einstein and I are both top-quartile intelligences. Saying so in no way claims I'm just as smart as Einstein.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An Exarch is more skilled than an Aspect Warrior. Both hit on 4s.

A Vet Sarge is more skilled than Scout Bob who's deployed for the first time ever today. Both hit on 4s.

Jain Zar is better with a sword than some flunky SM Captain. Both hit on 2s.

Tabletop is an abstraction, not an absolute.

exarchs hit on 3's...exarchs were hitting on 2's last edition and it made sense.
Phoenix lords used to have super high WS and INT to represent their superior skills. That is gone now and it sucks. You could still give them special rules to make them better...like each hit counts as 2 hits or something like that...but GW just sucks at everything.

Fun fact: even when Jain Zar *did* have a "super-high" WS, it was still a lower WS than an augmented human SNIPER. Because reasons. The stats are never fully faithful to the fluff.

We are in agreement then that eldar leaders have never really be represented very well. At least in previous editions they always fought first (which was pretty big). However in 4th edition when I played a lot of marines vs DE (admittedly I was a child with no idea what I was doing) A DE archon could literally run a rampage through my whole army. Plus in 7th. I played marines vs eldar a lot and though not what you would see in a competitive build - a unit of shinning spears with invis and fourtune with an autarch with shard of arnis - seemed to beat me every time regardless of what I played against it. Literally the only answer I had was to include a paladin in every list so I could stomp on them. Even then - just got rekt by warp spiders.

Anything can be OP if you don't know what you're doing. Complaining about Spears in 7th is a lot like complaining about Marines in 8th - but we do occasionally see people post who haven't figured out how to take on Space Marines these days. I fielded my Spears a couple times in 7th, and they were hilariously terrible.

How were they terrible? The dude was literally playing what we called "eldar lite" they were still better than anything I could put out in a marine army. They got invun saves just for moving and were capable in 2 phases with massive mobility....The archon thing come on man. The dude literally had double my attacks...hit better...had a 2++. His vehicals all could not be penned if moved 6 inches...Meanwhile I can't even move with my tank or it can only shoot 1 gun...Its basically always been lopsided...I really don't understand how you could think otherwise.

Maybe you just havn't gotten over super friends wrecking you but I would never play that way. It is really un interesting to me and I considered it an abuse of the rules.

The Spears were ungodly numbers of points for a singe T4 3+/4++ wound. They had a single S6 shot at 6" or TL small arms at 12", and 2 S6 attacks on the charge or S3 AP0 attacks if they didn't charge.

A pair of basic troop units from most factions shut them down, even with Invis + Fortune (meaning a Farseer babysitting them). The Spears could take a decent chunk out of one - maybe even wipe the squad. But they couldn't do it without being charged by the other squad next turn.

An Invis ASM squad was nearly as durable, but a crapton fewer points. An invis kitted out basic Biker marine squad outperformed Shining Spears easily. The Spears felt OP because of Invis - which was just as viable for Marines.

I love how Superfriends was abusive play and should be ignored, because you never played it. But Seer Council shenanigans is OP but must be fixed.

Man it's amazing how reliably people just happened to think getting invis was considering it was something gained on a random roll chart.

BrianDavion wrote:
Man it's amazing how reliably people just happened to think getting invis was considering it was something gained on a random roll chart.

2 things contributed to this:
A) Some lists brought multiple high level Psykers for more rolls on the chart and
B) People tend to remember that games that involved Invis far more than the ones that didn't, because it was that broken

-

 Galef wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Man it's amazing how reliably people just happened to think getting invis was considering it was something gained on a random roll chart.

2 things contributed to this:
A) Some lists brought multiple high level Psykers for more rolls on the chart and
B) People tend to remember that games that involved Invis far more than the ones that didn't, because it was that broken

-

ohh for sure, ultimately random rolled powers where a bad idea. I can understand GW's idea was "well we can force folks to mix their tactics up a bit" but..

It's why every Marine unit has Gman's aura, and every Eldar vehicle is a Wave Serpent soaking Plasma within RF range while getting the Alaitoc bonus.

Everyone has a selective memory. It's why I go back and review my old posts and the threads they are in.