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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

To be blunt, I don't think what you and I consider "the real issues" are the same thing. I honestly couldn't give less of a gak about what faction is winning competitively if it didn't affect simple games with people just playing their model collections against each other. If a list made up of 90 scout bikes+saint celestine or 26 culexus assassins was totally unbeatable at LVO and was 100% of the competitive lists people brought, it would do precisely nothing to affect me.

Yea, I got to witness the absurd-ness of IH dreads two weekends ago. It got crushed by DA of all things.

Intercessors were barely ever part of the equation.

Sure. But some Forgeworld chaplain dreadnought discontinued sculpt that people can take 3 of and have this hyper-efficient tank hunting thing - I'll just never have to care about it. That's just not how people tend to play around here, Forgeworld in general is incredibly rare due to its price and the fact you can't buy it from the store, and seeing someone take 3 of any 200+ point unit is incredibly unusual.

Problems like those, 12 flyrant lists, 3 crimson hunter/3 Hemlock lists, triple riptide+60 drone lists, a dozen such other crazy competitive meta problems come and go without ever affecting any of the 50 odd people that play around here. And the really amazing thing about that is that a bunch of the names you see cropping up again and again at tournament top 8s are people who play in this local area. They just play eachother, because only they are good practice.

Yep, primaries finally show true colors.

I don’t understand, though, how this will be balanced once they primarize the current chapter specific specialists.

Primaris wulfin?

Also, what’s with freaking bubbles this edition. Good job killing templates, now everyone stacking in silly auras.

ryuken87 wrote:
Firstly, your maths is wrong for several of those calculations.
17 Genestealers attacking with rending claws is 68 attacks, 45.33 hits, 15.11 wounds at AP-1 and 7.55 wounds at AP-4 for a total of 15.11 unsaved wounds and 7.55 dead intercessors (128 points).

12 Intercessors including sergeant is 37 attacks, 24.66 hits, 12.33 wounds and 8.22 unsaved wounds for 99 points of dead genestealers.

Secondly, the most important aspect of a melee unit is its ability to get into melee. The game is littered with high damage melee units that simply can't get there. Raven Guard Assault Cents = amazing. Other Assault Cents = opposite of amazing.

Along a similar vein, Reapers come off horribly in your comparison despite being an excellent anti marine unit, but you ignored range.

For what it's worth, I do think Shock Assault is too powerful, I think it would be better if marines only got it when they charged.

It has been pointed out by others that my army's genestealers are 3PPM more than another army's genestealers and I didn't realize because I don't play Tyranids.

I think I realised why I don't like Space Marines as much as everyone else seems to. Being the best at everything at once just isn't as compelling to me, regardless of how its portrayed.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Stormonu wrote:Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Eh, can't say I agree. You're welcome to your interpretation, but I've never seen it that way.

A Space Marine should be feared by all who face them. It's GUARDSMEN who are inferior in every way to xenos races, but not the Astartes. The Astartes are as strong as an Ork Nob, as fast as an Eldar, as resilient as a Necron, as relentless as a Tyranid, and on a similar technological parity with Tau (Marines have power through brute force, Tau have power through perfect science and engineering).

Where a Space Marine fails is that there are so few of them. Each one is a squad, a small army unto itself, but the enemy is so much more numerous that even the apex of humanity (barring the Custodes, who are pretty much just the same thing to Marines as Marines are to everything else) must rely on their fearlessness and wits to triumph.

So no, I can agree that they should be outmanned, and as a result, outgunned (by volume, not quality), but outclassed? Hell no. If an Eldar is faced with a Space Marine, they should be scared. An Ork fighting a Space Marine will see it as a great challenge, or flee, if sufficiently prompted. A Tyranid synapse creature will see a Space Marine as a high priority target and allocate far more resources than necessary to take one out, as a grave threat to the Hive. Tau will look on in awe and terror as great brutish battlesuits shrugging off their fire rip and tear through their lines. Space Marines are, and should be, terrifyingly powerful. The catch is that they're mortal, and there's never enough of them.

It's guardmen who are the embodiment of human spirit, not the Space Marines. Astartes are the embodiment of humanity's brutality in war, and their answer to the horrors of the void.

Having a race that's better than everyone at everything is neither good writing nor good game design.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In this game when you charge you win the combat. Marines can win a combat if they charge...however - they have basically no mechanics to charge with.
Literally all the examples you listed are much more likely to charge the marines due to the fact they are faster or have deep strike charge mechanics.

Transports are terrible and or too expensive. They aren't quick. Plus no real other methods of mobility (yes RG and WS do have mechanics for this) more often than not though - Marines melee ability is an afterthought.

Another point. Intercessors do really well against light infantry but do really poorly against tough units like custodians guards and broadsides. I assure you a unit of harlequin troops out-damages intercessors vs broadsides or custodian gaurd in melee. Just speaking on stats here...I agree that some of the chapter tactics / super-doctrines are absurd.

In general. Intercessors rek light units and do poorly against actual elite units - youd rather have chaff or no troops at all against really elite unit - like knights or SG or shinning spears.

IMO they finally got the marine feel right with the base stats on the intercessor - marines being terrible really wasn't doing it for anyone but marine haters (of which there are plenty).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Not sure what fluff you are reading...marines are certainly always outnumbered and outgunned. Outclassed though? Nope...their quality can not be overstated. Mary sue? Maybe. They are the heros of the story though. A marine should be a lot harder to kill than an ork.

I'm sorry, do we live in a universe where it makes sense for a space marine equipped with a gun to compete with a dedicated melee specialist against a unit like a custode? Regardless, Harlequins are fething horrible against custodes, 0.44 wounds on average. Want to kill 1 Custode? Take 7 harlequins. And then the remaining 2 custodes in the minimum squad kill 2 harlequins in your turn, then 2 harlequins when they strike first in their turn, and finish off the squad if you don't fall back on your turn. But YoU wIn WhEn YoU cHaRgE.

Just for you, let's do an actual full mathhammer for that harlequin vs intercessor fight given your claim here. We'll ignore doctrines and chapter tactics again, and give the harlequins the ability to instantly materialize 2" away and charge, they can't fail. But since we're talking about their ability to advance and charge, no pistol attacks for the harlequins.

Overwatch: .56 dead harlequins.
Harlequin first round: 4.9 wounds.
Intercessor first round: 2.44 dead harlequins
Intercessors turn, 3 pistols kill .66 harlequins and 8 melee attacks kill 1.77.

5.4 average harlequins dead. 2 intercessors dead, 1 wounded.

A game where a melee specialist can get the first strike against a 30" range gunline infantry unit that costs exactly equal points and lose all their models before they can even take the other guy down under half strength is fethed.

taking it out to the big squads I looked at in the initial example makes it even worse, because other factions actually have morale rules to some extent. You get a little over 11 genestealers for the cost of 10 intercessors. It's about 11.33, the intercessors kill 1.2 in overwatch so we'll say 10 make it in. The genestealers kill 4.1 intercessors in the first round and lose 6.6 in return, taking 1 from morale on average. Then the next round the intercessors kill the remaining 5 genestealers easily between pistols and melee.

Charging does not. make. a difference.

Nono - I was saying harliquens perform better against tougher units. They have str 5 and -2 ap on their attacks with caress and twice as many attacks for I think the exact same cost. Not to mention the ability to advance and charge and fall back and charge.

Quins vs custodian guards wound on 4's and drop them to a 4+ save where as intercessors wound on 5's and they get a 2+.
Intercessors vs custodian guard a full 10 man squad charging has 32 attacks and does 1.14 wounds
A 10 man harlequin does 6.66 (and this is without the obligatory frozen stars +1 attack ability)

How elite do intercessors feel in this situation? Not very. I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying just the conclusion you are reaching. Intercessors are good against any kind of infantry that isn't bringing heavy armor and can't penetrate theirs. This is exactly what a marine should feel like. You should need the right weapons to kill marines. Plasmaguns / dessie cannons / power weapons. If anything a unit like geensteelers doesn't feel nearly as strong as they used to. They used to shred everything now they just scratch at you with claws fishing for 6's and a few acid maws. The real issue here is this unit never makes it to combat without losing half the unit unless it's charging turn 1 or you are in a city fight.

 catbarf wrote:

Karol wrote:
Everyone does remember though how the game looked like, when marines did not have those IF, IH and RG rules right? Eldar and tau were running rings around them. They couldn't kill enough orcs before being overun, and struggles against stuff like knights or chaos soups.

I feel like Marine players just collectively skip over the changes between Codex 1.0 and Codex 2.0, because the points drops to everything in CA18 combined with the standardization of Bolter Discipline as an official rule made for a hell of a difference in how they fared.

And yet events were still being won, by tau and eldar, and top placing were not marines. bolter drill didn't help marines to beat the top armies. the new rules do.

Nope. When Tau are really strong and people complain they have boring, uninteractive gunline rules, I tend to agree. When guard are strong and it feels like these baseline level humans are outperforming supposed superhuman soldiers, I tend to agree. When Eldar are strong and it feels like they have 9000 special rules for how their special guys are the specialest and bestest at everything, I tend to agree.

I'm just applying those exact same standards to marines right now. Pretty much all at once.

what standards. Eldar players loved it when they armies were good. I can't think of a single thread made by eldar players being upset how edition after edition they are on the top. If anything, eldar players anwser to their armies being above avarge good, was L2P issue or they say that they never used those powerful rules, followed by them claiming to win with those weaker armies anyway.

But I get it, when a minority army is good, people are okey with it. Specially if the army costs a lot. But the idea that someone can slap two starter sets, make snipers out of 9 ETB reavers, and start winning, with 2 weeks of expiriance, vs 20 years vets as if it was nothing.

If knights could dominate for a year, if eldar could dominate for multiple editions, maybe this is the time for marines to be the top army for a year or two. Seems the way GW designs and makes their rules.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Stormonu wrote:Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Eh, can't say I agree. You're welcome to your interpretation, but I've never seen it that way.

A Space Marine should be feared by all who face them. It's GUARDSMEN who are inferior in every way to xenos races, but not the Astartes. The Astartes are as strong as an Ork Nob, as fast as an Eldar, as resilient as a Necron, as relentless as a Tyranid, and on a similar technological parity with Tau (Marines have power through brute force, Tau have power through perfect science and engineering).

Where a Space Marine fails is that there are so few of them. Each one is a squad, a small army unto itself, but the enemy is so much more numerous that even the apex of humanity (barring the Custodes, who are pretty much just the same thing to Marines as Marines are to everything else) must rely on their fearlessness and wits to triumph.

So no, I can agree that they should be outmanned, and as a result, outgunned (by volume, not quality), but outclassed? Hell no. If an Eldar is faced with a Space Marine, they should be scared. An Ork fighting a Space Marine will see it as a great challenge, or flee, if sufficiently prompted. A Tyranid synapse creature will see a Space Marine as a high priority target and allocate far more resources than necessary to take one out, as a grave threat to the Hive. Tau will look on in awe and terror as great brutish battlesuits shrugging off their fire rip and tear through their lines. Space Marines are, and should be, terrifyingly powerful. The catch is that they're mortal, and there's never enough of them.

It's guardmen who are the embodiment of human spirit, not the Space Marines. Astartes are the embodiment of humanity's brutality in war, and their answer to the horrors of the void.

And what about a Chaos Space Marine? Should Marines have more wounds and attacks and a better gun than CSM?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. I was trying to argue that sm units that are shared with csm are under costed, not just against csm, but against everyone, as they are superior due to doctrines and stronger chapter tactics. Before c:sm 2.0 and the supplements those units were basically equal without buffing effects, so it made sense for them to be the same price. That's no longer the case.

Well and on the whole the choas units do cost slightly less. The csm compared to a tactical for example. I agree with you - the disparity is not fair. Esp when compared to something like Ironhands or imperial fist. Then again - those are clear outliers in power.

Karol wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Karol wrote:
Everyone does remember though how the game looked like, when marines did not have those IF, IH and RG rules right? Eldar and tau were running rings around them. They couldn't kill enough orcs before being overun, and struggles against stuff like knights or chaos soups.

I feel like Marine players just collectively skip over the changes between Codex 1.0 and Codex 2.0, because the points drops to everything in CA18 combined with the standardization of Bolter Discipline as an official rule made for a hell of a difference in how they fared.

And yet events were still being won, by tau and eldar, and top placing were not marines. bolter drill didn't help marines to beat the top armies. the new rules do.

Competitive events aren't about basic troops anyways. I don't really care about whether the pre-2.0, post-CA18 Marine codex could take on a Triptide or IH Levi Dread spam list. That metric isn't at all relevant to the game I'm playing. In a casual meta they were fine.

All SM1.0 not showing up to tournaments tells you is that you couldn't make a broken, imbalanced list out of the codex to compete with all the other broken, imbalanced lists that show up at top-tier tournament play. Now even fluffy, casual SM have been kicked up to that level, and it's pretty un-fun to have to build a competitive list to be on even footing.

Once again I feel tournament play completely skews the discussion surrounding the game. Intercessors beat the crap out of any other faction's basic infantry and did so even before SM2.0, but tournament players don't mind because they're not taking Fire Warriors or Guardians to begin with.

Karol wrote:

But the idea that someone can slap two starter sets, make snipers out of 9 ETB reavers, and start winning, with 2 weeks of expiriance, vs 20 years vets as if it was nothing.

If knights could dominate for a year, if eldar could dominate for multiple editions, maybe this is the time for marines to be the top army for a year or two. Seems the way GW designs and makes their rules.

It is usually a bad sign. Among the winners of GT I see relatively new players using meta armies.

While these players are probably smart and motivated, it doesn’t precisely highlight balance and depth of the game.

Try that with chess and tell me how it works out.

Some of it seems to be carried by primaris and some marine armies like IH.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. I was trying to argue that sm units that are shared with csm are under costed, not just against csm, but against everyone, as they are superior due to doctrines and stronger chapter tactics. Before c:sm 2.0 and the supplements those units were basically equal without buffing effects, so it made sense for them to be the same price. That's no longer the case.

Well and on the whole the choas units do cost slightly less. The csm compared to a tactical for example. I agree with you - the disparity is not fair. Esp when compared to something like Ironhands or imperial fist. Then again - those are clear outliers in power.

For the...only example.

IIRC all the other CSM units have the same costs as loyalist units. All the (effectively) identical HQs, all the shared vehicles who don't get chapter tactics, all the guns that won't be getting -1AP turn 1... Terminators *might* be 1-2 points chaeaper base, I honestly don't remember.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Stormonu wrote:Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Eh, can't say I agree. You're welcome to your interpretation, but I've never seen it that way.

A Space Marine should be feared by all who face them. It's GUARDSMEN who are inferior in every way to xenos races, but not the Astartes. The Astartes are as strong as an Ork Nob, as fast as an Eldar, as resilient as a Necron, as relentless as a Tyranid, and on a similar technological parity with Tau (Marines have power through brute force, Tau have power through perfect science and engineering).

Where a Space Marine fails is that there are so few of them. Each one is a squad, a small army unto itself, but the enemy is so much more numerous that even the apex of humanity (barring the Custodes, who are pretty much just the same thing to Marines as Marines are to everything else) must rely on their fearlessness and wits to triumph.

So no, I can agree that they should be outmanned, and as a result, outgunned (by volume, not quality), but outclassed? Hell no. If an Eldar is faced with a Space Marine, they should be scared. An Ork fighting a Space Marine will see it as a great challenge, or flee, if sufficiently prompted. A Tyranid synapse creature will see a Space Marine as a high priority target and allocate far more resources than necessary to take one out, as a grave threat to the Hive. Tau will look on in awe and terror as great brutish battlesuits shrugging off their fire rip and tear through their lines. Space Marines are, and should be, terrifyingly powerful. The catch is that they're mortal, and there's never enough of them.

It's guardmen who are the embodiment of human spirit, not the Space Marines. Astartes are the embodiment of humanity's brutality in war, and their answer to the horrors of the void.

And what about a Chaos Space Marine? Should Marines have more wounds and attacks and a better gun than CSM?

It doesn't tact marines and csm have the exact same base stats.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In this game when you charge you win the combat. Marines can win a combat if they charge...however - they have basically no mechanics to charge with.
Literally all the examples you listed are much more likely to charge the marines due to the fact they are faster or have deep strike charge mechanics.

Transports are terrible and or too expensive. They aren't quick. Plus no real other methods of mobility (yes RG and WS do have mechanics for this) more often than not though - Marines melee ability is an afterthought.

Another point. Intercessors do really well against light infantry but do really poorly against tough units like custodians guards and broadsides. I assure you a unit of harlequin troops out-damages intercessors vs broadsides or custodian gaurd in melee. Just speaking on stats here...I agree that some of the chapter tactics / super-doctrines are absurd.

In general. Intercessors rek light units and do poorly against actual elite units - youd rather have chaff or no troops at all against really elite unit - like knights or SG or shinning spears.

IMO they finally got the marine feel right with the base stats on the intercessor - marines being terrible really wasn't doing it for anyone but marine haters (of which there are plenty).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Not sure what fluff you are reading...marines are certainly always outnumbered and outgunned. Outclassed though? Nope...their quality can not be overstated. Mary sue? Maybe. They are the heros of the story though. A marine should be a lot harder to kill than an ork.

I'm sorry, do we live in a universe where it makes sense for a space marine equipped with a gun to compete with a dedicated melee specialist against a unit like a custode? Regardless, Harlequins are fething horrible against custodes, 0.44 wounds on average. Want to kill 1 Custode? Take 7 harlequins. And then the remaining 2 custodes in the minimum squad kill 2 harlequins in your turn, then 2 harlequins when they strike first in their turn, and finish off the squad if you don't fall back on your turn. But YoU wIn WhEn YoU cHaRgE.

Just for you, let's do an actual full mathhammer for that harlequin vs intercessor fight given your claim here. We'll ignore doctrines and chapter tactics again, and give the harlequins the ability to instantly materialize 2" away and charge, they can't fail. But since we're talking about their ability to advance and charge, no pistol attacks for the harlequins.

Overwatch: .56 dead harlequins.
Harlequin first round: 4.9 wounds.
Intercessor first round: 2.44 dead harlequins
Intercessors turn, 3 pistols kill .66 harlequins and 8 melee attacks kill 1.77.

5.4 average harlequins dead. 2 intercessors dead, 1 wounded.

A game where a melee specialist can get the first strike against a 30" range gunline infantry unit that costs exactly equal points and lose all their models before they can even take the other guy down under half strength is fethed.

taking it out to the big squads I looked at in the initial example makes it even worse, because other factions actually have morale rules to some extent. You get a little over 11 genestealers for the cost of 10 intercessors. It's about 11.33, the intercessors kill 1.2 in overwatch so we'll say 10 make it in. The genestealers kill 4.1 intercessors in the first round and lose 6.6 in return, taking 1 from morale on average. Then the next round the intercessors kill the remaining 5 genestealers easily between pistols and melee.

Charging does not. make. a difference.

Nono - I was saying harliquens perform better against tougher units. They have str 5 and -2 ap on their attacks with caress and twice as many attacks for I think the exact same cost. Not to mention the ability to advance and charge and fall back and charge.

Quins vs custodian guards wound on 4's and drop them to a 4+ save where as intercessors wound on 5's and they get a 2+.
Intercessors vs custodian guard a full 10 man squad charging has 32 attacks and does 1.14 wounds
A 10 man harlequin does 6.66 (and this is without the obligatory frozen stars +1 attack ability)

How elite do intercessors feel in this situation? Not very. I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying just the conclusion you are reaching. Intercessors are good against any kind of infantry that isn't bringing heavy armor and can't penetrate theirs. This is exactly what a marine should feel like. You should need the right weapons to kill marines. Plasmaguns / dessie cannons / power weapons. If anything a unit like geensteelers doesn't feel nearly as strong as they used to. They used to shred everything now they just scratch at you with claws fishing for 6's and a few acid maws. The real issue here is this unit never makes it to combat without losing half the unit unless it's charging turn 1 or you are in a city fight.

Maybe that has something to do with those tougher units actually paying a fair cost for their durability and abilities. There is no reason a model with a S4 AP-3 d1 (or S5 AP-2 D1, they're basically identical I just used the embrace because IIRC it's one point cheaper and made them *exactly* the same cost) should not do well against a T4 3+ infantry unit that puts most of its points budget into shooting.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. I was trying to argue that sm units that are shared with csm are under costed, not just against csm, but against everyone, as they are superior due to doctrines and stronger chapter tactics. Before c:sm 2.0 and the supplements those units were basically equal without buffing effects, so it made sense for them to be the same price. That's no longer the case.

Well and on the whole the choas units do cost slightly less. The csm compared to a tactical for example. I agree with you - the disparity is not fair. Esp when compared to something like Ironhands or imperial fist. Then again - those are clear outliers in power.

For the...only example.

IIRC all the other CSM units have the same costs as loyalist units. All the (effectively) identical HQs, all the shared vehicles who don't get chapter tactics, all the guns that won't be getting -1AP turn 1... Terminators *might* be 1-2 points chaeaper base, I honestly don't remember.

Pretty much every unit in csm got a drop in points in the last chapter approved. By comparison you can count the number of drops on 1 hand for loyalists (which is good - because marines would be REALLY REALLY OP if they got those drops too).

@the_scotsman
Custodian gaurds probably should come down a few points that is not the issue though. The point is custodian gaurds are going to destroy intercessors in a brawl but they are probably going to lose to harlequins. We are just talking about rock paper scissors here.

Martel always says this and I totally agree. For cheaper units with lower ppm. A big % of their total cost is just existing with 1 wound. Taking up space - the cheapest units should not be able to compete against higher ppm units who are actually putting more "risk" on top their wounds with the amount of points you can remove with a wound. So basically - the cheaper a model is - the less efficient it should be.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. I was trying to argue that sm units that are shared with csm are under costed, not just against csm, but against everyone, as they are superior due to doctrines and stronger chapter tactics. Before c:sm 2.0 and the supplements those units were basically equal without buffing effects, so it made sense for them to be the same price. That's no longer the case.

Well and on the whole the choas units do cost slightly less. The csm compared to a tactical for example. I agree with you - the disparity is not fair. Esp when compared to something like Ironhands or imperial fist. Then again - those are clear outliers in power.

For the...only example.

IIRC all the other CSM units have the same costs as loyalist units. All the (effectively) identical HQs, all the shared vehicles who don't get chapter tactics, all the guns that won't be getting -1AP turn 1... Terminators *might* be 1-2 points chaeaper base, I honestly don't remember.

Pretty much every unit in csm got a drop in points in the last chapter approved. By comparison you can count the number of drops on 1 hand for loyalists (which is good - because marines would be REALLY REALLY OP if they got those drops too).

Chaos Lord 74
SM Captain 74
Sorceror 88
Librarian 88
CSMs 55
Tacticals 60
Chaos Terminators (Fist and Power Sword champ) 165
Tactical Terminators 165
Raptors 75
Assault Squad Jump Packs 75
Bike Squad 69 (nice)
Bike Squad 69 (nice)
Havocs 116 (heavy bolters)
Devastators 105 (Heavy Bolters)
Chaos Land Raider 277
Land Raider 277
Chaos Predator 125
Predator 125
Chaos Vindicator 125
Vindicator 125
Chaos Rhino 67
Rhino 67

Is my battlescribe out of date? Am I missing something somewhere? Where are these point drops on Chaos stuff vs Loyalist stuff?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In this game when you charge you win the combat. Marines can win a combat if they charge...however - they have basically no mechanics to charge with.
Literally all the examples you listed are much more likely to charge the marines due to the fact they are faster or have deep strike charge mechanics.

Transports are terrible and or too expensive. They aren't quick. Plus no real other methods of mobility (yes RG and WS do have mechanics for this) more often than not though - Marines melee ability is an afterthought.

Another point. Intercessors do really well against light infantry but do really poorly against tough units like custodians guards and broadsides. I assure you a unit of harlequin troops out-damages intercessors vs broadsides or custodian gaurd in melee. Just speaking on stats here...I agree that some of the chapter tactics / super-doctrines are absurd.

In general. Intercessors rek light units and do poorly against actual elite units - youd rather have chaff or no troops at all against really elite unit - like knights or SG or shinning spears.

IMO they finally got the marine feel right with the base stats on the intercessor - marines being terrible really wasn't doing it for anyone but marine haters (of which there are plenty).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Not sure what fluff you are reading...marines are certainly always outnumbered and outgunned. Outclassed though? Nope...their quality can not be overstated. Mary sue? Maybe. They are the heros of the story though. A marine should be a lot harder to kill than an ork.

I'm sorry, do we live in a universe where it makes sense for a space marine equipped with a gun to compete with a dedicated melee specialist against a unit like a custode? Regardless, Harlequins are fething horrible against custodes, 0.44 wounds on average. Want to kill 1 Custode? Take 7 harlequins. And then the remaining 2 custodes in the minimum squad kill 2 harlequins in your turn, then 2 harlequins when they strike first in their turn, and finish off the squad if you don't fall back on your turn. But YoU wIn WhEn YoU cHaRgE.

Just for you, let's do an actual full mathhammer for that harlequin vs intercessor fight given your claim here. We'll ignore doctrines and chapter tactics again, and give the harlequins the ability to instantly materialize 2" away and charge, they can't fail. But since we're talking about their ability to advance and charge, no pistol attacks for the harlequins.

Overwatch: .56 dead harlequins.
Harlequin first round: 4.9 wounds.
Intercessor first round: 2.44 dead harlequins
Intercessors turn, 3 pistols kill .66 harlequins and 8 melee attacks kill 1.77.

5.4 average harlequins dead. 2 intercessors dead, 1 wounded.

A game where a melee specialist can get the first strike against a 30" range gunline infantry unit that costs exactly equal points and lose all their models before they can even take the other guy down under half strength is fethed.

taking it out to the big squads I looked at in the initial example makes it even worse, because other factions actually have morale rules to some extent. You get a little over 11 genestealers for the cost of 10 intercessors. It's about 11.33, the intercessors kill 1.2 in overwatch so we'll say 10 make it in. The genestealers kill 4.1 intercessors in the first round and lose 6.6 in return, taking 1 from morale on average. Then the next round the intercessors kill the remaining 5 genestealers easily between pistols and melee.

Charging does not. make. a difference.

Nono - I was saying harliquens perform better against tougher units. They have str 5 and -2 ap on their attacks with caress and twice as many attacks for I think the exact same cost. Not to mention the ability to advance and charge and fall back and charge.

Quins vs custodian guards wound on 4's and drop them to a 4+ save where as intercessors wound on 5's and they get a 2+.
Intercessors vs custodian guard a full 10 man squad charging has 32 attacks and does 1.14 wounds
A 10 man harlequin does 6.66 (and this is without the obligatory frozen stars +1 attack ability)

How elite do intercessors feel in this situation? Not very. I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying just the conclusion you are reaching. Intercessors are good against any kind of infantry that isn't bringing heavy armor and can't penetrate theirs. This is exactly what a marine should feel like. You should need the right weapons to kill marines. Plasmaguns / dessie cannons / power weapons. If anything a unit like geensteelers doesn't feel nearly as strong as they used to. They used to shred everything now they just scratch at you with claws fishing for 6's and a few acid maws. The real issue here is this unit never makes it to combat without losing half the unit unless it's charging turn 1 or you are in a city fight.

Maybe that has something to do with those tougher units actually paying a fair cost for their durability and abilities. There is no reason a model with a S4 AP-3 d1 (or S5 AP-2 D1, they're basically identical I just used the embrace because IIRC it's one point cheaper and made them *exactly* the same cost) should not do well against a T4 3+ infantry unit that puts most of its points budget into shooting.

@the_scotsman
Custodian gaurds probably should come down a few points that is not the issue though. The point is custodian gaurds are going to destroy intercessors in a brawl but they are probably going to lose to harlequins. We are just talking about rock paper scissors here.

Martel always says this and I totally agree. For cheaper units with lower ppm. A big % of their total cost is just existing with 1 wound. Taking up space - the cheapest units should not be able to compete against higher ppm units who are actually putting more "risk" on top their wounds with the amount of points you can remove with a wound. So basically - the cheaper a model is - the less efficient it should be.

But...what? Harlequins and intercessors are..they're exactly the same points. EXACTLY the same points. You're saying that them having 1 wound instead of 2 is a BONUS they're getting? I figured you guys would be calling major bs if I tried to compare naked harlequins to Intercessors, because...the numbers there are just fething laughable...but harlequins with a melee option take up LESS board space than intercessors, they have smaller bases.

Also, one of the worst matchups I looked into was Intercessors vs Dark Reapers, and they're both anti-marine specialists AND have basically zero board presence at 31ppm for a 25mm base.

Darsath wrote:
I think I realised why I don't like Space Marines as much as everyone else seems to. Being the best at everything at once just isn't as compelling to me, regardless of how its portrayed.

I'm with you there, and it's only gotten worse over time. Over the past two decades Marines have gone from skilled, smart, physically augmented, coordinated, and experienced- but still threatened by the extreme capabilities of the xenos races in the setting- to harder to kill than tanks, faster than Usain Bolt, never missing a shot, basically not threatened by anything they fight, with their only weakness being that they can't be everywhere at once.

'Movie Marines' were a joke when they released- a play on how cinematics exaggerate the capabilities of the heroes and invoke over-the-top tropes. Now, fifteen years later, they're regarded as 'lore accurate' Marines.

I think this is part of why players misunderstand the problem with balance. If a unit is good at everything, it should be expensive enough to be mediocre at everything for its points. If a generalist unit can, point-for-point, compete in melee with a melee specialist or compete at range with a ranged specialist, that's not Marines being good as they should be, that's Marines being underpriced. Sure, you can outshoot a Fire Warrior one-on-one, but if 100pts of Marines can out-shoot 100pts of Fire Warriors then something is very wrong.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Martel always says this and I totally agree. For cheaper units with lower ppm. A big % of their total cost is just existing with 1 wound. Taking up space - the cheapest units should not be able to compete against higher ppm units who are actually putting more "risk" on top their wounds with the amount of points you can remove with a wound. So basically - the cheaper a model is - the less efficient it should be.

Take this argument to its logical conclusion and you wind up with Knights dominating everyone again.

I find board presence to be regularly overvalued. Taking up more space is a double-edged sword when you can't fit in cover, can't escape LOS, can't get everyone in range, can't keep all your units within an aura bubble, can't maneuver multiple units around terrain, or can't stay alive on an objective. People like to theoryhammer about Straken and a Priest leading a whole platoon of Catachans into melee but in practice it's damn near impossible to herd that many cats. 90 Boyz sounds great, but it is a work of art getting them all into combat at the same time against an opponent who positions to restrict your maximum frontage.

You're not taking extra 'risk' by taking a 8.5PPW Intercessor over a 4pt Guardsman; you pay more per-wound because each of those wounds is a lot harder to remove and represents a greater amount of firepower. You're just trading resilience against anti-tank weapons for resilience against anti-infantry weapons.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Stormonu wrote:Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Eh, can't say I agree. You're welcome to your interpretation, but I've never seen it that way.

A Space Marine should be feared by all who face them. It's GUARDSMEN who are inferior in every way to xenos races, but not the Astartes. The Astartes are as strong as an Ork Nob, as fast as an Eldar, as resilient as a Necron, as relentless as a Tyranid, and on a similar technological parity with Tau (Marines have power through brute force, Tau have power through perfect science and engineering).

Where a Space Marine fails is that there are so few of them. Each one is a squad, a small army unto itself, but the enemy is so much more numerous that even the apex of humanity (barring the Custodes, who are pretty much just the same thing to Marines as Marines are to everything else) must rely on their fearlessness and wits to triumph.

So no, I can agree that they should be outmanned, and as a result, outgunned (by volume, not quality), but outclassed? Hell no. If an Eldar is faced with a Space Marine, they should be scared. An Ork fighting a Space Marine will see it as a great challenge, or flee, if sufficiently prompted. A Tyranid synapse creature will see a Space Marine as a high priority target and allocate far more resources than necessary to take one out, as a grave threat to the Hive. Tau will look on in awe and terror as great brutish battlesuits shrugging off their fire rip and tear through their lines. Space Marines are, and should be, terrifyingly powerful. The catch is that they're mortal, and there's never enough of them.

It's guardmen who are the embodiment of human spirit, not the Space Marines. Astartes are the embodiment of humanity's brutality in war, and their answer to the horrors of the void.

And what about a Chaos Space Marine? Should Marines have more wounds and attacks and a better gun than CSM?

It doesn't tact marines and csm have the exact same base stats.

Intercessors, my friend, is what we're talking about. The new "marine baseline". AKA, the subject in the OP.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. I was trying to argue that sm units that are shared with csm are under costed, not just against csm, but against everyone, as they are superior due to doctrines and stronger chapter tactics. Before c:sm 2.0 and the supplements those units were basically equal without buffing effects, so it made sense for them to be the same price. That's no longer the case.

Well and on the whole the choas units do cost slightly less. The csm compared to a tactical for example. I agree with you - the disparity is not fair. Esp when compared to something like Ironhands or imperial fist. Then again - those are clear outliers in power.

For the...only example.

IIRC all the other CSM units have the same costs as loyalist units. All the (effectively) identical HQs, all the shared vehicles who don't get chapter tactics, all the guns that won't be getting -1AP turn 1... Terminators *might* be 1-2 points chaeaper base, I honestly don't remember.

Pretty much every unit in csm got a drop in points in the last chapter approved. By comparison you can count the number of drops on 1 hand for loyalists (which is good - because marines would be REALLY REALLY OP if they got those drops too).

Chaos Lord 74
SM Captain 74
Sorceror 88
Librarian 88
CSMs 55
Tacticals 60
Chaos Terminators (Fist and Power Sword champ) 165
Tactical Terminators 165
Raptors 75
Assault Squad Jump Packs 75
Bike Squad 69 (nice)
Bike Squad 69 (nice)
Havocs 116 (heavy bolters)
Devastators 105 (Heavy Bolters)
Chaos Land Raider 277
Land Raider 277
Chaos Predator 125
Predator 125
Chaos Vindicator 125
Vindicator 125
Chaos Rhino 67
Rhino 67

Is my battlescribe out of date? Am I missing something somewhere? Where are these point drops on Chaos stuff vs Loyalist stuff?

You missed one small one.

Relic leviathan dreadnought: 175

Hellforged leviathan dreadnought: 175

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In this game when you charge you win the combat. Marines can win a combat if they charge...however - they have basically no mechanics to charge with.
Literally all the examples you listed are much more likely to charge the marines due to the fact they are faster or have deep strike charge mechanics.

Transports are terrible and or too expensive. They aren't quick. Plus no real other methods of mobility (yes RG and WS do have mechanics for this) more often than not though - Marines melee ability is an afterthought.

Another point. Intercessors do really well against light infantry but do really poorly against tough units like custodians guards and broadsides. I assure you a unit of harlequin troops out-damages intercessors vs broadsides or custodian gaurd in melee. Just speaking on stats here...I agree that some of the chapter tactics / super-doctrines are absurd.

In general. Intercessors rek light units and do poorly against actual elite units - youd rather have chaff or no troops at all against really elite unit - like knights or SG or shinning spears.

IMO they finally got the marine feel right with the base stats on the intercessor - marines being terrible really wasn't doing it for anyone but marine haters (of which there are plenty).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Isn't part of the problem the sheer number of good units sm have? They have the best internally balanced codex in the game, with few bad options.

And when compared to supposedly equal units, at least in name and cost, fielded by csm the loyalists option is still better. If a loyalist land raider, predator, vindicator, or leviathan goes up against its heretic counterpart it's going to win the majority of the time. For the same points. Doctrines need to be taken into consideration in all sm points costs just as they were in the case of tacticals vs csm.

In the choas vs loyalist balance issues it appears they have gone for a different approach. Choas has weaker base rules - but better stratagem efficiency. I don't like it anymore than you do but...there is no denying that choas can buff a unit out the wazzo - much more than space marines can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Not sure what fluff you are reading...marines are certainly always outnumbered and outgunned. Outclassed though? Nope...their quality can not be overstated. Mary sue? Maybe. They are the heros of the story though. A marine should be a lot harder to kill than an ork.

I'm sorry, do we live in a universe where it makes sense for a space marine equipped with a gun to compete with a dedicated melee specialist against a unit like a custode? Regardless, Harlequins are fething horrible against custodes, 0.44 wounds on average. Want to kill 1 Custode? Take 7 harlequins. And then the remaining 2 custodes in the minimum squad kill 2 harlequins in your turn, then 2 harlequins when they strike first in their turn, and finish off the squad if you don't fall back on your turn. But YoU wIn WhEn YoU cHaRgE.

Just for you, let's do an actual full mathhammer for that harlequin vs intercessor fight given your claim here. We'll ignore doctrines and chapter tactics again, and give the harlequins the ability to instantly materialize 2" away and charge, they can't fail. But since we're talking about their ability to advance and charge, no pistol attacks for the harlequins.

Overwatch: .56 dead harlequins.
Harlequin first round: 4.9 wounds.
Intercessor first round: 2.44 dead harlequins
Intercessors turn, 3 pistols kill .66 harlequins and 8 melee attacks kill 1.77.

5.4 average harlequins dead. 2 intercessors dead, 1 wounded.

A game where a melee specialist can get the first strike against a 30" range gunline infantry unit that costs exactly equal points and lose all their models before they can even take the other guy down under half strength is fethed.

taking it out to the big squads I looked at in the initial example makes it even worse, because other factions actually have morale rules to some extent. You get a little over 11 genestealers for the cost of 10 intercessors. It's about 11.33, the intercessors kill 1.2 in overwatch so we'll say 10 make it in. The genestealers kill 4.1 intercessors in the first round and lose 6.6 in return, taking 1 from morale on average. Then the next round the intercessors kill the remaining 5 genestealers easily between pistols and melee.

Charging does not. make. a difference.

Nono - I was saying harliquens perform better against tougher units. They have str 5 and -2 ap on their attacks with caress and twice as many attacks for I think the exact same cost. Not to mention the ability to advance and charge and fall back and charge.

Quins vs custodian guards wound on 4's and drop them to a 4+ save where as intercessors wound on 5's and they get a 2+.
Intercessors vs custodian guard a full 10 man squad charging has 32 attacks and does 1.14 wounds
A 10 man harlequin does 6.66 (and this is without the obligatory frozen stars +1 attack ability)

How elite do intercessors feel in this situation? Not very. I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying just the conclusion you are reaching. Intercessors are good against any kind of infantry that isn't bringing heavy armor and can't penetrate theirs. This is exactly what a marine should feel like. You should need the right weapons to kill marines. Plasmaguns / dessie cannons / power weapons. If anything a unit like geensteelers doesn't feel nearly as strong as they used to. They used to shred everything now they just scratch at you with claws fishing for 6's and a few acid maws. The real issue here is this unit never makes it to combat without losing half the unit unless it's charging turn 1 or you are in a city fight.

Maybe that has something to do with those tougher units actually paying a fair cost for their durability and abilities. There is no reason a model with a S4 AP-3 d1 (or S5 AP-2 D1, they're basically identical I just used the embrace because IIRC it's one point cheaper and made them *exactly* the same cost) should not do well against a T4 3+ infantry unit that puts most of its points budget into shooting.

@the_scotsman
Custodian gaurds probably should come down a few points that is not the issue though. The point is custodian gaurds are going to destroy intercessors in a brawl but they are probably going to lose to harlequins. We are just talking about rock paper scissors here.

Martel always says this and I totally agree. For cheaper units with lower ppm. A big % of their total cost is just existing with 1 wound. Taking up space - the cheapest units should not be able to compete against higher ppm units who are actually putting more "risk" on top their wounds with the amount of points you can remove with a wound. So basically - the cheaper a model is - the less efficient it should be.

But...what? Harlequins and intercessors are..they're exactly the same points. EXACTLY the same points. You're saying that them having 1 wound instead of 2 is a BONUS they're getting? I figured you guys would be calling major bs if I tried to compare naked harlequins to Intercessors, because...the numbers there are just fething laughable...but harlequins with a melee option take up LESS board space than intercessors, they have smaller bases.

Also, one of the worst matchups I looked into was Intercessors vs Dark Reapers, and they're both anti-marine specialists AND have basically zero board presence at 31ppm for a 25mm base.

Base size is kind of negligible. A single 25mm base is a 18"+ diameter no deep strike zone and smaller base can be an advantage sometimes if you want to fit into smaller areas.

The quin has double the attacks and basically moves twice as fast - ignores vertical distances. They are both great units I'm not saying which is better. Whoever hits first is going to win the fight (quins ether go naked or with caress)

Also I see a lot of utility in naked harlequins. Put a 12 man squad out on the table next to a shadowseer and give them a 3++ save (for CP) with -1 to wound (6+fnp if you get to go first). Advance them up - double move them. Blizz up your solitare to maybe remove overwatch if you are lucky and then lock up as much as you can. Turn 2 your whole army is charging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Stormonu wrote:Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Eh, can't say I agree. You're welcome to your interpretation, but I've never seen it that way.

A Space Marine should be feared by all who face them. It's GUARDSMEN who are inferior in every way to xenos races, but not the Astartes. The Astartes are as strong as an Ork Nob, as fast as an Eldar, as resilient as a Necron, as relentless as a Tyranid, and on a similar technological parity with Tau (Marines have power through brute force, Tau have power through perfect science and engineering).

Where a Space Marine fails is that there are so few of them. Each one is a squad, a small army unto itself, but the enemy is so much more numerous that even the apex of humanity (barring the Custodes, who are pretty much just the same thing to Marines as Marines are to everything else) must rely on their fearlessness and wits to triumph.

So no, I can agree that they should be outmanned, and as a result, outgunned (by volume, not quality), but outclassed? Hell no. If an Eldar is faced with a Space Marine, they should be scared. An Ork fighting a Space Marine will see it as a great challenge, or flee, if sufficiently prompted. A Tyranid synapse creature will see a Space Marine as a high priority target and allocate far more resources than necessary to take one out, as a grave threat to the Hive. Tau will look on in awe and terror as great brutish battlesuits shrugging off their fire rip and tear through their lines. Space Marines are, and should be, terrifyingly powerful. The catch is that they're mortal, and there's never enough of them.

It's guardmen who are the embodiment of human spirit, not the Space Marines. Astartes are the embodiment of humanity's brutality in war, and their answer to the horrors of the void.

And what about a Chaos Space Marine? Should Marines have more wounds and attacks and a better gun than CSM?

It doesn't tact marines and csm have the exact same base stats.

Intercessors, my friend, is what we're talking about. The new "marine baseline". AKA, the subject in the OP.

Yeah but CSM aren't primaris and they don't pay primaris prices. They are unique in their own way. Can take 20 man squads. We don't write the fluff man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think I realised why I don't like Space Marines as much as everyone else seems to. Being the best at everything at once just isn't as compelling to me, regardless of how its portrayed.

I'm with you there, and it's only gotten worse over time. Over the past two decades Marines have gone from skilled, smart, physically augmented, coordinated, and experienced- but still threatened by the extreme capabilities of the xenos races in the setting- to harder to kill than tanks, faster than Usain Bolt, never missing a shot, basically not threatened by anything they fight, with their only weakness being that they can't be everywhere at once.

'Movie Marines' were a joke when they released- a play on how cinematics exaggerate the capabilities of the heroes and invoke over-the-top tropes. Now, fifteen years later, they're regarded as 'lore accurate' Marines.

I think this is part of why players misunderstand the problem with balance. If a unit is good at everything, it should be expensive enough to be mediocre at everything for its points. If a generalist unit can, point-for-point, compete in melee with a melee specialist or compete at range with a ranged specialist, that's not Marines being good as they should be, that's Marines being underpriced. Sure, you can outshoot a Fire Warrior one-on-one, but if 100pts of Marines can out-shoot 100pts of Fire Warriors then something is very wrong.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Martel always says this and I totally agree. For cheaper units with lower ppm. A big % of their total cost is just existing with 1 wound. Taking up space - the cheapest units should not be able to compete against higher ppm units who are actually putting more "risk" on top their wounds with the amount of points you can remove with a wound. So basically - the cheaper a model is - the less efficient it should be.

Take this argument to its logical conclusion and you wind up with Knights dominating everyone again.

I find board presence to be regularly overvalued. Taking up more space is a double-edged sword when you can't fit in cover, can't escape LOS, can't get everyone in range, can't keep all your units within an aura bubble, can't maneuver multiple units around terrain, or can't stay alive on an objective. People like to theoryhammer about Straken and a Priest leading a whole platoon of Catachans into melee but in practice it's damn near impossible to herd that many cats. 90 Boyz sounds great, but it is a work of art getting them all into combat at the same time against an opponent who positions to restrict your maximum frontage.

You're not taking extra 'risk' by taking a 8.5PPW Intercessor over a 4pt Guardsman; you pay more per-wound because each of those wounds is a lot harder to remove and represents a greater amount of firepower. You're just trading resilience against anti-tank weapons for resilience against anti-infantry weapons.

You are actually taking a huge risk. Lots of armies basically every weapon they shoot at you does 2 flat or d3 damage. That is a huge risk. Not to mention AP.

So you're just gonna ignore the two differenr ways I just proved you wrong? Harlequins do not win in melee vs primaris wirh any weapon, and csm pay exactly the same prices loyalists do for all their shared stuff except for 1ppm for marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What army has every weapon damage 2 or D3? Knights? Im coming up with one troop unit with only d3d guns, battle servitors.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Stormonu wrote:Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Eh, can't say I agree. You're welcome to your interpretation, but I've never seen it that way.

A Space Marine should be feared by all who face them. It's GUARDSMEN who are inferior in every way to xenos races, but not the Astartes. The Astartes are as strong as an Ork Nob, as fast as an Eldar, as resilient as a Necron, as relentless as a Tyranid, and on a similar technological parity with Tau (Marines have power through brute force, Tau have power through perfect science and engineering).

Where a Space Marine fails is that there are so few of them. Each one is a squad, a small army unto itself, but the enemy is so much more numerous that even the apex of humanity (barring the Custodes, who are pretty much just the same thing to Marines as Marines are to everything else) must rely on their fearlessness and wits to triumph.

So no, I can agree that they should be outmanned, and as a result, outgunned (by volume, not quality), but outclassed? Hell no. If an Eldar is faced with a Space Marine, they should be scared. An Ork fighting a Space Marine will see it as a great challenge, or flee, if sufficiently prompted. A Tyranid synapse creature will see a Space Marine as a high priority target and allocate far more resources than necessary to take one out, as a grave threat to the Hive. Tau will look on in awe and terror as great brutish battlesuits shrugging off their fire rip and tear through their lines. Space Marines are, and should be, terrifyingly powerful. The catch is that they're mortal, and there's never enough of them.

It's guardmen who are the embodiment of human spirit, not the Space Marines. Astartes are the embodiment of humanity's brutality in war, and their answer to the horrors of the void.

And what about a Chaos Space Marine? Should Marines have more wounds and attacks and a better gun than CSM?

It doesn't tact marines and csm have the exact same base stats.

Intercessors, my friend, is what we're talking about. The new "marine baseline". AKA, the subject in the OP.

Yeah but CSM aren't primaris and they don't pay primaris prices. They are unique in their own way. Can take 20 man squads. We don't write the fluff man.

Points, etc. are really beside the point in this branch of the conversation here. Is it appropriate to have your baseline heroes so powerful compared to opposing units that have been much more comparable in the past? What does it do to your setting? What does it do to the units of other factions?

 catbarf wrote:
The_scotsman, I agree with your overall point but I think you're off regarding Genestealers specifically. You should be able to get 17 Genestealers for the price of 12 Intercessors.

12 Intercessors fire Overwatch against 17 Genestealers, they kill 1.33 on average.

15.67 Genestealers swing, 4 attacks each, average 14 wounds for 7 kills.

5 Intercessors swing back, 3.33 kills.

The Genestealers have taken out 58% of their opposition, while the Intercessors have taken out 27%.

Which means that the glassiest of glass hammers, designed specifically to kill Marines in melee, making it into charge range completely unscathed, going up against basic Marines- barely average twice the efficiency, can't kill their own points' worth, and will certainly die in the opponent's next turn.

This is all in a scenario concocted to avoid the massive investment that Tyranids need to get a full-strength T1 Genestealer charge (Swarmlord, usually Kraken, going first), and ignoring the myriad tricks that Marines have to ruin the whole thing.

That's extremely underwhelming. And Genestealers are generally regarded as pretty good, so the problem isn't with them.

They aren't really glass they are t4 with a 5++ and hit them with catalyst. They are ignoring about half of all incoming wounds and they best part about it is it is guaranteed durability. I stopped taking the steelers though in favor of warriors.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Stormonu wrote:Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Eh, can't say I agree. You're welcome to your interpretation, but I've never seen it that way.

A Space Marine should be feared by all who face them. It's GUARDSMEN who are inferior in every way to xenos races, but not the Astartes. The Astartes are as strong as an Ork Nob, as fast as an Eldar, as resilient as a Necron, as relentless as a Tyranid, and on a similar technological parity with Tau (Marines have power through brute force, Tau have power through perfect science and engineering).

Where a Space Marine fails is that there are so few of them. Each one is a squad, a small army unto itself, but the enemy is so much more numerous that even the apex of humanity (barring the Custodes, who are pretty much just the same thing to Marines as Marines are to everything else) must rely on their fearlessness and wits to triumph.

So no, I can agree that they should be outmanned, and as a result, outgunned (by volume, not quality), but outclassed? Hell no. If an Eldar is faced with a Space Marine, they should be scared. An Ork fighting a Space Marine will see it as a great challenge, or flee, if sufficiently prompted. A Tyranid synapse creature will see a Space Marine as a high priority target and allocate far more resources than necessary to take one out, as a grave threat to the Hive. Tau will look on in awe and terror as great brutish battlesuits shrugging off their fire rip and tear through their lines. Space Marines are, and should be, terrifyingly powerful. The catch is that they're mortal, and there's never enough of them.

It's guardmen who are the embodiment of human spirit, not the Space Marines. Astartes are the embodiment of humanity's brutality in war, and their answer to the horrors of the void.

And what about a Chaos Space Marine? Should Marines have more wounds and attacks and a better gun than CSM?

It doesn't tact marines and csm have the exact same base stats.

Intercessors, my friend, is what we're talking about. The new "marine baseline". AKA, the subject in the OP.

Yeah but CSM aren't primaris and they don't pay primaris prices. They are unique in their own way. Can take 20 man squads. We don't write the fluff man.

Points, etc. are really beside the point in this branch of the conversation here. Is it appropriate to have your baseline heroes so powerful compared to opposing units that have been much more comparable in the past? What does it do to your setting? What does it do to the units of other factions?

Well unless they make tac loyalist unplayable in the modern game they aren't comparable units. CSM are to be compared against tac marines.

the_scotsman wrote:
So you're just gonna ignore the two differenr ways I just proved you wrong? Harlequins do not win in melee vs primaris wirh any weapon, and csm pay exactly the same prices loyalists do for all their shared stuff except for 1ppm for marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What army has every weapon damage 2 or D3? Knights? Im coming up with one troop unit with only d3d guns, battle servitors.

Marines have stalkers that d2. It's not hard to build lists with most factions that have lots of multiple damage weapons. Primaris Marines are easy to plan for with most armies.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
So you're just gonna ignore the two differenr ways I just proved you wrong? Harlequins do not win in melee vs primaris wirh any weapon, and csm pay exactly the same prices loyalists do for all their shared stuff except for 1ppm for marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What army has every weapon damage 2 or D3? Knights? Im coming up with one troop unit with only d3d guns, battle servitors.

Marines have stalkers that d2. It's not hard to build lists with most factions that have lots of multiple damage weapons. Primaris Marines are easy to plan for with most armies.

Youre right, ill just take the natural predator of primaris marines when I want to counter them: primaris marines.

This is why I made this thread. I knew itd be comedy gold. You could take a 2000 point army of harlequins equipped with their best anti-MEQ weaponry, deploy them 2" away and guarantee they get the first turn and theyd lose to 2000 points of intercessors.

the_scotsman wrote:
So you're just gonna ignore the two differenr ways I just proved you wrong? Harlequins do not win in melee vs primaris wirh any weapon, and csm pay exactly the same prices loyalists do for all their shared stuff except for 1ppm for marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What army has every weapon damage 2 or D3? Knights? Im coming up with one troop unit with only d3d guns, battle servitors.

Yeah knights is possible. DE and eldar too.
The tau missle spam that is coming (oh they get free AP too) - happy me (I have 15 tau suits with rocket pods).

I'm not sure you are correct here. If the quins (frozen stars) attack. They kill 7 primaris marines with caress (without reroll wounds which they gonna have). They completely make up their points in 1 turn if they have a troop master nearby.

Ive been playing my Eldar stuff wrong then. All my basic troops do only one damage.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Stormonu wrote:Marines are supposed to be the epitome - if not superhuman model of humanity.

But the thing is, even marines are generally inferior to many of the Xenos they face - not as swift or elegant in warfare as the Eldar, not as indestructible as the Necrons, not the unstoppable flood of biomass of the Tyranids or as technologically adaptive as the Tau. Nor are they as brutally cunning as the orcs and their endless destructive waves of hate.

Marines should be outgunned, outmanned and outclassed. But they hold the line because they must and win where they can through sheer tenacity of the human spirit. Not because they are 2W and have better faction doctrines.

Eh, can't say I agree. You're welcome to your interpretation, but I've never seen it that way.

A Space Marine should be feared by all who face them. It's GUARDSMEN who are inferior in every way to xenos races, but not the Astartes. The Astartes are as strong as an Ork Nob, as fast as an Eldar, as resilient as a Necron, as relentless as a Tyranid, and on a similar technological parity with Tau (Marines have power through brute force, Tau have power through perfect science and engineering).

Where a Space Marine fails is that there are so few of them. Each one is a squad, a small army unto itself, but the enemy is so much more numerous that even the apex of humanity (barring the Custodes, who are pretty much just the same thing to Marines as Marines are to everything else) must rely on their fearlessness and wits to triumph.

So no, I can agree that they should be outmanned, and as a result, outgunned (by volume, not quality), but outclassed? Hell no. If an Eldar is faced with a Space Marine, they should be scared. An Ork fighting a Space Marine will see it as a great challenge, or flee, if sufficiently prompted. A Tyranid synapse creature will see a Space Marine as a high priority target and allocate far more resources than necessary to take one out, as a grave threat to the Hive. Tau will look on in awe and terror as great brutish battlesuits shrugging off their fire rip and tear through their lines. Space Marines are, and should be, terrifyingly powerful. The catch is that they're mortal, and there's never enough of them.

It's guardmen who are the embodiment of human spirit, not the Space Marines. Astartes are the embodiment of humanity's brutality in war, and their answer to the horrors of the void.

And what about a Chaos Space Marine? Should Marines have more wounds and attacks and a better gun than CSM?

It doesn't tact marines and csm have the exact same base stats.

Intercessors, my friend, is what we're talking about. The new "marine baseline". AKA, the subject in the OP.

Yeah but CSM aren't primaris and they don't pay primaris prices. They are unique in their own way. Can take 20 man squads. We don't write the fluff man.

Points, etc. are really beside the point in this branch of the conversation here. Is it appropriate to have your baseline heroes so powerful compared to opposing units that have been much more comparable in the past? What does it do to your setting? What does it do to the units of other factions?

Well unless they make tac loyalist unplayable in the modern game they aren't comparable units. CSM are to be compared against tac marines.

Sigh. Have you read the OP? The OP that talks about Intercessors? Did you follow any of the reasoning at all in the thread of conversation that you replied to?