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.
Elite armies are armies where the units cost big points per model, so there are less models on the field than armies which cost small points per model.
Rihgu wrote: Elite armies are armies where the units cost big points per model, so there are less models on the field than armies which cost small points per model.
That's backwards
Points per model should be determined after the "eliteness" of the model, not before. You shouldn't be like "I think Marines are 20 pt models" and then make sure you stuff them full of rules and statlines until they burst.
It's possible to have an army of "elite things" that has a large number of models, if their eliteness comes out of ways that points cost doesn't handle well (e.g. require lots of skill on the player's part to execute).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/18 14:30:56
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with that too is there is always a chance the lasgun will do SOMETHING so you don't want to just skip it, but rolling well over a hundred shooting dice for like 150pts of models to such little effect is just silly and a waste of time.
When I said I wanted a lethality reduction, I meant "I want to roll fewer attack dice" not "I enjoy rolling 1e13 dice, but I don't actually want them to do anything."
To kill 1 Marine requires 36 las shots. 36/2 is 18, 18/3 is 6, 6/3 = 2. TO get 36 las gun shots requires 18 Guardsmen in double tap range or 36 at max range (without FRFSRF). A guardsmen is currently 5.5pts So at a minimum its 99pts to kill 1 18pt Marine or at max range its 198pts to kill 1 18pt Marine. Of course that math ignores sgts who have pistols but this was done purely for academic purposes.
So you need 2 full guard squads to kill 1 Marine at half range. When Marines were 15ppm and had 1 wound it took half that to kill them, so 9-18 to kill 1 Marine. So 49.5-99pts to kill 1 Marine at 15pts.
My personal rule of thumb has always been a shooting unit should be able to make its points back in 3 turns to be considered effective. Why? Because after 3 turns, few things are alive.
The old guard squad was killing 15pts of Marine every turn so it was earning back 45pts over 3 turns, and I believe they used to be flat 5ppm or even lower but I can't remember. so they were right about where they needed to be.
Now? A 55pt Guard squad takes 4 turns to kill 1 Marine at max distance. So they are nowhere near where they need to be in regards to the 1/3rd rule. 4 turns kills 1 18pt Marine, which means they would need another 8 turns to come close to earning their points back. Ironically though, if you buff them too much to make them better at killing the old standard to be judged against, they become too effective at killing other things like DE or Orkz.
The Math for Guardsmen killing Orkz hasn't really changed, if anything its gotten better thanks to the points increases for Orkz. To kill 1 Ork took 7.2 shots. 7.2/2 is 3.6, 3.6/3 is 1.2. 1.2 wounds after a 6+ save is...1 Dead Ork. So that was 7.2 guardsmen or 3.6 at half range killing 1 ork. Well guess what? 7.2 Guardsmen still kill 1 Ork, so the math is now 39.6pts of Guardsmen killing 9pts of Ork each and every turn. After 3 full turns its 27pts, so not at the 1/3rd line but still a hell of a lot closer than the Marine currently is, not to mention, as the orkz get closer the guardsmen double their efficiency and since orkz want to get closer its more likely to happen. And when this does happen its 3.6 to kill 1 Ork so a guard squad is killing almost 27pts of Ork in 1 turn. So if you buff the guardsmen in anyway to meet the 1/3rd rule for Marines you are creating a unit that is absolutely destroying other factions troops.
This is the biggest reason why I was against Marines going to 2W base. You can't buff other factions troops to be better at killing those Marines to make up for the increase in their durability without likewise destroying everyone elses troops. The only solution I can think of is reducing the price of special weapons for those Guard squads to make them efficient at taking D2+ weapons in order to deal with Marines, but even then you are opening pandoras box, introducing a system where a unit is capable of dealing with elite units for relatively cheap.
Rihgu wrote: Elite armies are armies where the units cost big points per model, so there are less models on the field than armies which cost small points per model.
That's backwards
Points per model should be determined after the "eliteness" of the model, not before. You shouldn't be like "I think Marines are 20 pt models" and then make sure you stuff them full of rules and statlines until they burst.
It's possible to have an army of "elite things" that has a large number of models, if their eliteness comes out of ways that points cost doesn't handle well (e.g. require lots of skill on the player's part to execute).
I'm not in the GW Design Studio so I can't say for certain whether they do it one way or the other. But across every game system I've played, and every person I've met, elite has meant more points. This applies to Infinity where the developers make the statline/rules and have the algorithm suggest the points costs as well as systems which perhaps work the opposite way.
If I had to guess how GW does it, I'd say they make the statline + the rules and make a wild guess about how much they feel that's worth. "Oh, S4, T4, 2W, 3+ save? yea sure, 20 points. S4 T4 1W 3+ save? make it like 14, yea"
It's possible to have an army of "elite things" that has a large number of models, if their eliteness comes out of ways that points cost doesn't handle well (e.g. require lots of skill on the player's part to execute).
I rarely if ever hear people discussing the eliteness of things in this context outside of the fluff forums.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/18 14:35:18
Rihgu wrote: Elite armies are armies where the units cost big points per model, so there are less models on the field than armies which cost small points per model.
That's backwards
Points per model should be determined after the "eliteness" of the model, not before. You shouldn't be like "I think Marines are 20 pt models" and then make sure you stuff them full of rules and statlines until they burst.
It's possible to have an army of "elite things" that has a large number of models, if their eliteness comes out of ways that points cost doesn't handle well (e.g. require lots of skill on the player's part to execute).
This 100%
Marines got buffed to high heaven in 8th. Doubled their ROF, doubled their # of CC attacks, Doubled their Wounds, got access to Doctrines etc. And they went from 15ppm to 18ppm.
But unfortunately the problem is that Marines still aren't good because their basic weapon is terrible....mostly due to their own fault of doubling their # of wounds. A Bolters efficiency has gone down dramatically since 8th. To kill 1 Marine used to take 9 shots. It now takes 18. Marines killing Marines is also the most common matchup. And nobody wants to sit there and plink 18 shots from 162pts of Models to kill 1 18pt model.
Hot Take, we need Movie Marines back. I want a 11 model army of marines. Screw your 1w marines give me 13w marines at Str/T6 2 dice to roll for saves instead of 1 (add together) with 5x the shots and melee attacks. Where the Sargent is basically a super captain with teeth of terror.
It's possible to have an army of "elite things" that has a large number of models, if their eliteness comes out of ways that points cost doesn't handle well (e.g. require lots of skill on the player's part to execute).
I rarely if ever hear people discussing the eliteness of things in this context outside of the fluff forums.
How many other games do you play?
There's a good bit of this in other games, where the eliteness of something comes organically out of an interaction within the rules rather than raw statline or damage.
An example is Chain of Command (because of course it is with me).
Armored Cars don't have a good statline. They just don't. They're thinly armored, have tiny guns with bad firepower, and don't go very fast offroad. On the road, they're quite fast, but not every map has roads (and some of the ones that do don't have useful/convenient roads for your purpose). Linear obstacles (hedges/snowdrifts/entrenchments) stop Armored Cars in their... wheels (whilst tanks can typically cross them), and terrain that would slow a tank down with little other effect can often outright immobilize an armored car.
So, it's got super low lethality, super low durability, and at best moderate mobility on most battlefields. Yet I bring an armored car every single time that I am attacking, whether I am using an Armored Platoon, SPG platoon, Infantry Platoon, etc. to do so.
And the reason for this is that there's other things for units to do other than simply "kill the enemy." Scouting has value. Being tall enough to see over obstacles has value (even if you can't cross those obstacles out right).
The limited number of activations available (core rules) to the enemy means it takes actual resources and time to kill the armored car. Units being able to do useful things outside of "kill the enemy" (core rules) makes a low-lethality armored car worthwhile (indeed, invaluable on the attack).
Armored Cars, I would consider, are elite models. You don't want to bring a horde of them because what they do is work as a part of a larger team, and if you don't have the firepower or maneuverable power to follow up their scouting, it's a waste. On the other hand, you want at least one because what they do is completely indispensable and is a role only very few other units can fill with the same capability. It takes some skill to milk an armored car for all its worth and get real value out of it, but when you do your opponent is entirely flabbergasted at just how much it mattered.
Anecdotally, I've had games where the hero of the match was my little armored car, even though it never received fire nor delivered it. And my opponent agreed that such a little, low-statline model that seemed almost helpless turned out to be a vital lynchpin.
It's possible to have an army of "elite things" that has a large number of models, if their eliteness comes out of ways that points cost doesn't handle well (e.g. require lots of skill on the player's part to execute).
I rarely if ever hear people discussing the eliteness of things in this context outside of the fluff forums.
How many other games do you play?
There's a good bit of this in other games, where the eliteness of something comes organically out of an interaction within the rules rather than raw statline or damage.
An example is Chain of Command (because of course it is with me).
Armored Cars don't have a good statline. They just don't. They're thinly armored, have tiny guns with bad firepower, and don't go very fast offroad. On the road, they're quite fast, but not every map has roads (and some of the ones that do don't have useful/convenient roads for your purpose). Linear obstacles (hedges/snowdrifts/entrenchments) stop Armored Cars in their... wheels (whilst tanks can typically cross them), and terrain that would slow a tank down with little other effect can often outright immobilize an armored car.
So, it's got super low lethality, super low durability, and at best moderate mobility on most battlefields. Yet I bring an armored car every single time that I am attacking, whether I am using an Armored Platoon, SPG platoon, Infantry Platoon, etc. to do so.
And the reason for this is that there's other things for units to do other than simply "kill the enemy." Scouting has value. Being tall enough to see over obstacles has value (even if you can't cross those obstacles out right).
The limited number of activations available (core rules) to the enemy means it takes actual resources and time to kill the armored car. Units being able to do useful things outside of "kill the enemy" (core rules) makes a low-lethality armored car worthwhile (indeed, invaluable on the attack).
Armored Cars, I would consider, are elite models. You don't want to bring a horde of them because what they do is work as a part of a larger team, and if you don't have the firepower or maneuverable power to follow up their scouting, it's a waste. On the other hand, you want at least one because what they do is completely indispensable and is a role only very few other units can fill with the same capability. It takes some skill to milk an armored car for all its worth and get real value out of it, but when you do your opponent is entirely flabbergasted at just how much it mattered.
Anecdotally, I've had games where the hero of the match was my little armored car, even though it never received fire nor delivered it. And my opponent agreed that such a little, low-statline model that seemed almost helpless turned out to be a vital lynchpin.
Spoiler:
There's this guy in my local game group that used to serve in the military. If you use any term that could be applied to his military sense of the term, he will, for whatever reason, interpret what you're saying in that context. Even if the other 20 people in the room, including the guys who actively serve understand the wargaming vernacular, this guy flexes his real life military knowledge of terminology in the world's worst game of Trivial Pursuit (he always wins, but he's always the only one ever playing). This isn't to suggest that you're that type of person and there are many explanations as to why there is a disconnect in vernacular here that do not involve you "flexing" knowledge of terminology. I perhaps react more sourly than I have right to when I come across things like this because of this person, and would like to apologize if my posts are coming across as extra sour.
In the parlance I'm familiar with and how I'd see this put in pretty much every community I've ever been a part of, what you're describing is a support unit.
How many other games do you play?
40k, AoS, Warcry, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, Necromunda, Grimdark Future, Age of Fantasy, WHFB 8th edition, Conquest: LAoK, Warhammer Underworlds, 30k/Horus Heresy (Age of Darkness)
as far as games I've been involved in communities of but no longer actively play
Kings of War, Frostgrave, Infinity, Hail Caesar, Sword & Spear, Battletech
I feel like I'm missing a few but if they don't come to mind I probably didn't play them enough to really consider myself an active player at any point
Rihgu wrote: In the parlance I'm familiar with and how I'd see this put in pretty much every community I've ever been a part of, what you're describing is a support unit.
How many other games do you play?
40k, AoS, Warcry, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, Necromunda, Grimdark Future, Age of Fantasy, WHFB 8th edition, Conquest: LAoK, Warhammer Underworlds, 30k/Horus Heresy (Age of Darkness) as far as games I've been involved in communities of but no longer actively play Kings of War, Frostgrave, Infinity, Hail Caesar, Sword & Spear, Battletech I feel like I'm missing a few but if they don't come to mind I probably didn't play them enough to really consider myself an active player at any point
I feel like we're talking past each other if you missed my point so clearly.
Do you think it's possible for a unit to be useful/important/significant/critical to an army without having a huge statline or huge special rules/damages? (Outside 40k mostly, since 40k is all about the damages or resilience to the damages).
Is it also possible for that unit to be fairly cheap because it takes some skill to use and lacks a biggo statline or biggo damages?
Is it also possible for that unit to be considered elite?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/18 15:42:06
Do you think it's possible for a unit to be useful/important/significant/critical to an army without having a huge statline or huge special rules/damages? (Outside 40k mostly, since 40k is all about the damages or resilience to the damages).
Yes.
Is it also possible for that unit to be fairly cheap because it takes some skill to use and lacks a biggo statline or biggo damages?
Not really? If it provides a key effect that so strongly amplifies the overall force why would it be cheap? Points don't account just for statline or damage potential
Is it also possible for that unit to be considered elite?
Not if it is cheap.
Let me give you an example. In Conquest, I play W'adrhun. They have a mechanic where each unit that activates adds a token of 1 of 4 types to a stack. When you get 3 tokens, you chant a warcry and gain a buff depending on how many tokens of the same type you discard. So you have to carefulyl manage your activation order to maximize buffs.
There is a unit that lets you have infinite of these tokens and doesn't force you to chant the warcry when you get up to 3, so you get a TON more flexibility with activation order. There's no point (but redundancy) to having multiple of these, and they completely change the playstyle of the army.
It's a support unit. Not an elite unit. It is absolutely integral to the army, in my opinion, because without it you can be out-activated by a canny opponent and lose most of your bonuses from the warcry due to ineffective use. It also doesn't have big stats or big damage.
An elite unit is veterans, who automatically chant the battlecry at the lowest level without discarding any tokens from the sequence. They cost a lot of points but can do many different things because of this warcry flexibility. They also have good raw stats but not super good damage unless you specifically use a damage-boosting warcry. If you take an army of nothing but Veterans, you're going to have an elite army that has less models than somebody who took nothing but Blooded (the core, trained unit of the army).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/18 16:23:01
Do you think it's possible for a unit to be useful/important/significant/critical to an army without having a huge statline or huge special rules/damages? (Outside 40k mostly, since 40k is all about the damages or resilience to the damages).
Yes.
Is it also possible for that unit to be fairly cheap because it takes some skill to use and lacks a biggo statline or biggo damages?
Not really? If it provides a key effect that so strongly amplifies the overall force why would it be cheap? Points don't account just for statline or damage potential
Is it also possible for that unit to be considered elite?
Not if it is cheap.
If that is how you answer those questions a priori then we will never agree, I'm afraid.
If a unit being cheap means it's impossible to be elite, then the only way to make a unit elite is to remove player skill from the equation (since the unit just has to be "good" instead of "good when used correctly or bad otherwise"). Either that or they price the unit assuming a fantasticbulous player is using it, and then it just appears to be absolute crap and super dramatically overpriced to everyone else (and therefore not elite by my definition).
As for your answer to the second question, there's conceptual space for a unit that: - Is crap when used normally (and is priced accordingly) - Is godly when used by a skilled player / in a skilled way / in certain tactical situations that can be contrived on the tabletop.
For me, the number of models on the tabletop in a platoon or company scale game (like 40k) has nothing to do with eliteness, as historically at the company scale it hasn't mattered. It's not like crack elite trooper companies were automatically categorically smaller than regular line companies.
Elites are rare on an army scale, but if a company of Army Rangers shows up to a battle, the enemy company doesn't just double in size (or whatever) because "they gotta be bigger than the Army Rangers, since the Rangers are elite and all!"
That's why I said it's backwards.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/18 16:26:33
As for your answer to the second question, there's conceptual space for a unit that:
- Is crap when used normally (and is priced accordingly)
- Is godly when used by a skilled player / in a skilled way / in certain tactical situations that can be contrived on the tabletop.
This would be bad design, in my opinion. Why would you price units according to their conceptual mid-point? To keep to 40k, should we price Fire Dragons according to how much damage they do to a space marine? What is "used normally"? Wouldn't using a unit to do what it's good at be using it normally?
For your scout car example, is "using it normally" having it drive forward and shooting at an enemy unit? Or is it to use it to scout? Is it really more skillful to use a scout car to scout than to shoot?
Elites are rare on an army scale, but if a company of Army Rangers shows up to a battle, the enemy company doesn't just double in size (or whatever) because "they gotta be bigger than the Army Rangers, since the Rangers are elite and all!"
This is because in real life military generals do not play 2000 point Matched Play games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/18 16:32:12
As for your answer to the second question, there's conceptual space for a unit that: - Is crap when used normally (and is priced accordingly) - Is godly when used by a skilled player / in a skilled way / in certain tactical situations that can be contrived on the tabletop.
This would be bad design, in my opinion. Why would you price units according to their conceptual mid-point? To keep to 40k, should we price Fire Dragons according to how much damage they do to a space marine? What is "used normally"? Wouldn't using a unit to do what it's good at be using it normally?
An example would be Space Marines from 5th edition, to get to the heart of the thread.
They could choose to fail a morale check instead of rolling it whenever they wanted. "Well, that's a dumb rule." A player might say. "Why would I want to fail a morale check?"
Well, there were very specific tactical situations when choosing to fail that morale check was the best choice to achieve the objectives of the mission. But if someone just categorically dismissed that ability and used tactical marines normally (i.e. rolled leadership checks like any other unit, instead of stopping to consider if they should choose to fail or not), then they'd think marines were a "meh" unit with no defining features of eliteness.
In fact, this gets to Scotsman's point rather well. The Marines have a low Attacks stat, womp womp. However, when confronted with a stronger Melee foe, that actually helps their eliteness, because: 1) they're more likely to lose the combat by not killing the enemy 2) They can choose to fail the ensuing morale check, falling back (something a normal army wouldn't be able to do) 3) They were resistant to being swept because of another obscure rule that makes them more elite without adding a whole bunch of outright killy capability ("cannot be swept" is not a lethality boost, nor is it a straight durability boost. Yet it makes the unit feel unique and elite.) 4) So now the enemy unit is open to the rest of the army's shooting, when in another army that Infantry squad would have kept fighting for its life, heedless of the battle around them, and preventing the army from addressing the incoming combat threat through means other than simply piling into the CC and hoping for the best.
Assaulting Marines (in the hands of a skilled player!) required more thought than assaulting, say, an identical unit without that obscure special rule because it was actually very very dangerous, even though the Marines themselves "only have eleven attacks, hurr durr imperium's finest"
Rihgu wrote: For your scout car example, is "using it normally" having it drive forward and shooting at an enemy unit? Or is it to use it to scout? Is it really more skillful to use a scout car to scout than to shoot?
That depends on how the player views scouting in general. If they don't consider scouting important, then the scout car is a literal waste of time because its statline doesn't justify bringing it. They may get this impression because, since they don't value scouting, they don't bother to perform it correctly (or perform it at all), and so to them an armored car is a trash unit.
Again, player skill determines the use of a unit.
This is because in real life military generals do not play 2000 point Matched Play games.
Warhammer 40k should be trying to emulate battles set in the milieu of the 41st millennium first, and worry about specific play modes and points limits second.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/11/18 17:01:15
You call it "using it normally" but to me that's "using them badly", which based on your mention of player skills you also seem to agree with.
Units shouldn't be pointed based on people using them poorly.
Nor should they be pointed based on the fluff.
In fact, this gets to Scotsman's point rather well. The Marines have a low Attacks stat, womp womp. However, when confronted with a stronger Melee foe, that actually helps their eliteness, because:
1) they're more likely to lose the combat by not killing the enemy
2) They can choose to fail the ensuing morale check, falling back (something a normal army wouldn't be able to do)
3) They were resistant to being swept because of another obscure rule that makes them more elite without adding a whole bunch of outright killy capability ("cannot be swept" is not a lethality boost, nor is it a straight durability boost. Yet it makes the unit feel unique and elite.)
4) So now the enemy unit is open to the rest of the army's shooting, when in another army that Infantry squad would have kept fighting for its life, heedless of the battle around them, and preventing the army from addressing the incoming combat threat through means other than simply piling into the CC and hoping for the best.
Yes, and in 5th edition they cost more than units without this ability because they were more elite in this way.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with that too is there is always a chance the lasgun will do SOMETHING so you don't want to just skip it, but rolling well over a hundred shooting dice for like 150pts of models to such little effect is just silly and a waste of time.
When I said I wanted a lethality reduction, I meant "I want to roll fewer attack dice" not "I enjoy rolling 1e13 dice, but I don't actually want them to do anything."
To kill 1 Marine requires 36 las shots. 36/2 is 18, 18/3 is 6, 6/3 = 2. TO get 36 las gun shots requires 18 Guardsmen in double tap range or 36 at max range (without FRFSRF). A guardsmen is currently 5.5pts So at a minimum its 99pts to kill 1 18pt Marine or at max range its 198pts to kill 1 18pt Marine. Of course that math ignores sgts who have pistols but this was done purely for academic purposes.
So you need 2 full guard squads to kill 1 Marine at half range. When Marines were 15ppm and had 1 wound it took half that to kill them, so 9-18 to kill 1 Marine. So 49.5-99pts to kill 1 Marine at 15pts.
My personal rule of thumb has always been a shooting unit should be able to make its points back in 3 turns to be considered effective. Why? Because after 3 turns, few things are alive.
The old guard squad was killing 15pts of Marine every turn so it was earning back 45pts over 3 turns, and I believe they used to be flat 5ppm or even lower but I can't remember. so they were right about where they needed to be.
Now? A 55pt Guard squad takes 4 turns to kill 1 Marine at max distance. So they are nowhere near where they need to be in regards to the 1/3rd rule. 4 turns kills 1 18pt Marine, which means they would need another 8 turns to come close to earning their points back. Ironically though, if you buff them too much to make them better at killing the old standard to be judged against, they become too effective at killing other things like DE or Orkz.
The Math for Guardsmen killing Orkz hasn't really changed, if anything its gotten better thanks to the points increases for Orkz. To kill 1 Ork took 7.2 shots. 7.2/2 is 3.6, 3.6/3 is 1.2. 1.2 wounds after a 6+ save is...1 Dead Ork. So that was 7.2 guardsmen or 3.6 at half range killing 1 ork. Well guess what? 7.2 Guardsmen still kill 1 Ork, so the math is now 39.6pts of Guardsmen killing 9pts of Ork each and every turn. After 3 full turns its 27pts, so not at the 1/3rd line but still a hell of a lot closer than the Marine currently is, not to mention, as the orkz get closer the guardsmen double their efficiency and since orkz want to get closer its more likely to happen. And when this does happen its 3.6 to kill 1 Ork so a guard squad is killing almost 27pts of Ork in 1 turn. So if you buff the guardsmen in anyway to meet the 1/3rd rule for Marines you are creating a unit that is absolutely destroying other factions troops.
This is the biggest reason why I was against Marines going to 2W base. You can't buff other factions troops to be better at killing those Marines to make up for the increase in their durability without likewise destroying everyone elses troops. The only solution I can think of is reducing the price of special weapons for those Guard squads to make them efficient at taking D2+ weapons in order to deal with Marines, but even then you are opening pandoras box, introducing a system where a unit is capable of dealing with elite units for relatively cheap.
I think this highlights why I think W2 marines are a good change. Instead of brute forcing lasguns for every target you need to consider other targets.
Look at how much less diverse the choices are when you compare the current versus the old:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with that too is there is always a chance the lasgun will do SOMETHING so you don't want to just skip it, but rolling well over a hundred shooting dice for like 150pts of models to such little effect is just silly and a waste of time.
When I said I wanted a lethality reduction, I meant "I want to roll fewer attack dice" not "I enjoy rolling 1e13 dice, but I don't actually want them to do anything."
To kill 1 Marine requires 36 las shots. 36/2 is 18, 18/3 is 6, 6/3 = 2. TO get 36 las gun shots requires 18 Guardsmen in double tap range or 36 at max range (without FRFSRF). A guardsmen is currently 5.5pts So at a minimum its 99pts to kill 1 18pt Marine or at max range its 198pts to kill 1 18pt Marine. Of course that math ignores sgts who have pistols but this was done purely for academic purposes.
So you need 2 full guard squads to kill 1 Marine at half range. When Marines were 15ppm and had 1 wound it took half that to kill them, so 9-18 to kill 1 Marine. So 49.5-99pts to kill 1 Marine at 15pts.
My personal rule of thumb has always been a shooting unit should be able to make its points back in 3 turns to be considered effective. Why? Because after 3 turns, few things are alive.
The old guard squad was killing 15pts of Marine every turn so it was earning back 45pts over 3 turns, and I believe they used to be flat 5ppm or even lower but I can't remember. so they were right about where they needed to be.
Now? A 55pt Guard squad takes 4 turns to kill 1 Marine at max distance. So they are nowhere near where they need to be in regards to the 1/3rd rule. 4 turns kills 1 18pt Marine, which means they would need another 8 turns to come close to earning their points back. Ironically though, if you buff them too much to make them better at killing the old standard to be judged against, they become too effective at killing other things like DE or Orkz.
The Math for Guardsmen killing Orkz hasn't really changed, if anything its gotten better thanks to the points increases for Orkz. To kill 1 Ork took 7.2 shots. 7.2/2 is 3.6, 3.6/3 is 1.2. 1.2 wounds after a 6+ save is...1 Dead Ork. So that was 7.2 guardsmen or 3.6 at half range killing 1 ork. Well guess what? 7.2 Guardsmen still kill 1 Ork, so the math is now 39.6pts of Guardsmen killing 9pts of Ork each and every turn. After 3 full turns its 27pts, so not at the 1/3rd line but still a hell of a lot closer than the Marine currently is, not to mention, as the orkz get closer the guardsmen double their efficiency and since orkz want to get closer its more likely to happen. And when this does happen its 3.6 to kill 1 Ork so a guard squad is killing almost 27pts of Ork in 1 turn. So if you buff the guardsmen in anyway to meet the 1/3rd rule for Marines you are creating a unit that is absolutely destroying other factions troops.
This is the biggest reason why I was against Marines going to 2W base. You can't buff other factions troops to be better at killing those Marines to make up for the increase in their durability without likewise destroying everyone elses troops. The only solution I can think of is reducing the price of special weapons for those Guard squads to make them efficient at taking D2+ weapons in order to deal with Marines, but even then you are opening pandoras box, introducing a system where a unit is capable of dealing with elite units for relatively cheap.
I think this highlights why I think W2 marines are a good change. Instead of brute forcing lasguns for every target you need to consider other targets.
"Brute force" is an . . . interesting way of describing lasguns.
That aside, the issue is that Marines typically represent the *weakest* units in Marine armies. So the only way you can find something more vulnerable to massed lasgun fire is to abandon the game and find a different opponent altogether.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, and I do seem to recall orks being S3. S4 on the charge, and no AP with 3 attacks in previous editions ..also I2 so anything you got into got to swing at you first... and if you're factoring in doctrines we can also talk about waaagh.
But I kind of don't have to, because 225pts to kill 60pts is more efficient than 486pts (or 411pts which is intercessor numbers) to kill 90pts.
Something is actually MORE durable in 9th than 7th and earlier, which is kind of unusual.
More durable against certain weapons. They are in fact no more durable against Lasguns.
Marines on the other hand became twice as durable against both bolters AND lasguns.
At the end of the day I just don't see moving to w2 and 20ppm as actually doubling marines "eliteness." It made them twice as good vs anti geq weaponry,
Aka twice as durable against all other infantry, it seems.
If spamming assault cannons and punishers and lasguns is efficient to destroy marines, that's more stuff that's going to be spammed in my opponents lists to kill my stuff.
It just changes the optimal weapons. Assault Cannons kill Marines just as good as Heavy Bolters, and Orks got no tougher against Assault Cannons, while Marines doubled their resilience.
its really strange after two full editions and the entirety of the launch of primaris that the fact that D2 weapons kill W2 marines extremely efficiently is somehow escaping you.
Remember? the 80% of the edition when primaris were absolute gak?
I'm aware that 2D weapons kill 2W marines. I spammed the gak out of them during 8th. But I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Plasma Guns will kill Orks just fine too.
Warhammer 40k should be trying to emulate battles set in the milieu of the 41st millennium first, and worry about specific play modes and points limits second.
Hard disagree. It should be a coherent and consistent game first, and the fluff written to match what the game is capable of.
An example would be Space Marines from 5th edition, to get to the heart of the thread.
They could choose to fail a morale check instead of rolling it whenever they wanted. "Well, that's a dumb rule." A player might say. "Why would I want to fail a morale check?"
Well, there were very specific tactical situations when choosing to fail that morale check was the best choice to achieve the objectives of the mission. But if someone just categorically dismissed that ability and used tactical marines normally (i.e. rolled leadership checks like any other unit, instead of stopping to consider if they should choose to fail or not), then they'd think marines were a "meh" unit with no defining features of eliteness.
In fact, this gets to Scotsman's point rather well. The Marines have a low Attacks stat, womp womp. However, when confronted with a stronger Melee foe, that actually helps their eliteness, because:
1) they're more likely to lose the combat by not killing the enemy
2) They can choose to fail the ensuing morale check, falling back (something a normal army wouldn't be able to do)
3) They were resistant to being swept because of another obscure rule that makes them more elite without adding a whole bunch of outright killy capability ("cannot be swept" is not a lethality boost, nor is it a straight durability boost. Yet it makes the unit feel unique and elite.)
4) So now the enemy unit is open to the rest of the army's shooting, when in another army that Infantry squad would have kept fighting for its life, heedless of the battle around them, and preventing the army from addressing the incoming combat threat through means other than simply piling into the CC and hoping for the best.
Assaulting Marines (in the hands of a skilled player!) required more thought than assaulting, say, an identical unit without that obscure special rule because it was actually very very dangerous, even though the Marines themselves "only have eleven attacks, hurr durr imperium's finest"
Warhammer 40k should be trying to emulate battles set in the milieu of the 41st millennium first, and worry about specific play modes and points limits second.
Hard disagree. It should be a coherent and consistent game first, and the fluff written to match what the game is capable of.
I'm on Units side of this one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/18 19:20:51
Rihgu wrote: Yes, and in 5th edition they cost more than units without this ability because they were more elite in this way.
Some units, but not others. You could easily put 100 Marines in a 2000 point list and have room for a couple predators or the like.
They certainly were "elite" but they didn't cost more than, say, Necron Warriors until the 5th ed Cron book towards the very end of the edition (which is also the one that nerfed them hard).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/18 19:52:10
Rihgu wrote: Yes, and in 5th edition they cost more than units without this ability because they were more elite in this way.
Some units, but not others. You could easily put 100 Marines in a 2000 point list and have room for a couple predators or the like.
They certainly were "elite" but they didn't cost more than, say, Necron Warriors until the 5th ed Cron book towards the very end of the edition (which is also the one that nerfed them hard).
It cost a little less than a point, roughly speaking. CSM were (afairc) 14 ppm to a Marine's 15. CSM had 1 point of Ld more, but Loyalists had ATSKNF and Combat Squads.
the_scotsman wrote: Marines being A1 was always a joke. Like, I almost always made fun of space marine players when I got into combat with their stuff in 7e and they got to swing before me, like "cmon, finest soldiers of the imperium, do your stuff! Oooooh, only 11 attacks huh?"
Just a quick question: do you think the number of attacks defines how "fine" a soldier is? Is it possible to have infantry that are good but also only have 1 attack per model?
It's a genuine question, as I think there's some element of the game designers themselves forgetting what their abstractions mean. The "number of attacks" a model makes has very little to do with whether or not it is a good soldier; conversely, some of the worst troopers in the game had plenty of attacks back in the day (mutants/mutant brutes).
I think there's a general trend in modern 40k that "elite" armies aren't elite because they're well trained and equipped, but rather because they have excellent statlines and biggo numbers. It's an interesting shift, and I think largely provoked by how gakky 40k's 8th edition rules were at handling things other than "kill the enemy and be killed." If all that matters is how well you kill people, it's hard to feel elite without biggo numbers. And to an extent, 40k has always had this problem, but it's a good bit worse now than it used to be, imho. At least back in the day, it was things like leadership and unique ways of commanding your troops on the board that made Marines feel unique and elite by comparison to other factions.
...Are we now making the claim that "dangerous in close combat, really difficult to kill, and powerful in ranged combat" are not core identifiers of what is a space marine?
The space marine statline got around having 1 attack in previous editions because previous editions had a blanket +1 attack on the charge bonus that you got for charging. This allowed space marines to still feel reasonably like "Shock troops" and it is also how units like Howling Banshees felt less noodle-fisted than they do right now even though their core attack stat was as it is now just 2.
Howling Banshees actually ended up getting FOUR attacks per model in previous editions because previous editions also did a "if you have 2 close combat weapons you get an extra attack"
Surprisingly, or if you're me, not surprisingly, the way to get that feeling of elite shock troops back on basic marines was to give them a bonus attack on the charge.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Warhammer 40k should be trying to emulate battles set in the milieu of the 41st millennium first, and worry about specific play modes and points limits second.
Hard disagree. It should be a coherent and consistent game first, and the fluff written to match what the game is capable of.
I'm on Units side of this one.
Well, for me its problematic, since GW has used that kind of logic to push marine buffs out so they're explicitly better than other armies. If you remember the old WH40k Compilation (yellow cover, around the start of 2nd edition, the proper Craftworlds list is in the same book), they push out a bunch of buffs for power armor, marine morale and the all-important T4 upgrade. (And overwatch).
The intro to the article was the justification: with new models and rules for enemies, 'space marines were looking a little less heroic.' And then the zinger: "Of course this is hardly appropriate!" (actual quote).
The 9th edition shift to 2 Wounds is very similar in intent. Marines don't feel elite enough. Their weapons aren't good enough, so they vomit forth a 5 and a half page list of weapons.
An emphasis on setting emulation over game design is part of what keeps this game kind of gakky, rules-wise. Its a driver for intentional imbalance and favored factions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/18 20:10:24
Howling Banshees actually ended up getting FOUR attacks per model in previous editions because previous editions also did a "if you have 2 close combat weapons you get an extra attack"
1+1+1 = 3. Banshees had only one attack in their base profile. They had as many attacks on the charge as an Assault Marine armed with a Chainsword and Bolt Pistol.
Surprisingly, or if you're me, not surprisingly, the way to get that feeling of elite shock troops back on basic marines was to give them a bonus attack on the charge.
I think the bonus attack on the Marine first round of combat was a good move, personally.
Warhammer 40k should be trying to emulate battles set in the milieu of the 41st millennium first, and worry about specific play modes and points limits second.
Hard disagree. It should be a coherent and consistent game first, and the fluff written to match what the game is capable of.
I'm on Units side of this one.
Well, for me its problematic, since GW has used that kind of logic to push marine buffs out so they're explicitly better than other armies. If you remember the old WH40k Compilation (yellow cover, around the start of 2nd edition, the proper Craftworlds list is in the same book), they push out a bunch of buffs for power armor, marine morale and the all-important T4 upgrade. (And overwatch).
The intro to the article was the justification: with new models and rules for enemies, 'space marines were looking a little less heroic.' And then the zinger: "Of course this is hardly appropriate!" (actual quote).
Ummm. . . ok. But the new-at-the-time Aspect Warriors, introduced in the same book, could happily butcher Marines at their given specialties. They boosted Marines at the very same time they boosted another major faction. Arguably the Aspect Warriors were quite a bit MORE killy than the Marines, despite the Marine upgrades, really. Oh the good old days!
Also Overwatch was introduced as a rule for everybody, not just Marines.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/18 20:21:50
the_scotsman wrote: Marines being A1 was always a joke. Like, I almost always made fun of space marine players when I got into combat with their stuff in 7e and they got to swing before me, like "cmon, finest soldiers of the imperium, do your stuff! Oooooh, only 11 attacks huh?"
Just a quick question: do you think the number of attacks defines how "fine" a soldier is? Is it possible to have infantry that are good but also only have 1 attack per model?
It's a genuine question, as I think there's some element of the game designers themselves forgetting what their abstractions mean. The "number of attacks" a model makes has very little to do with whether or not it is a good soldier; conversely, some of the worst troopers in the game had plenty of attacks back in the day (mutants/mutant brutes).
I think there's a general trend in modern 40k that "elite" armies aren't elite because they're well trained and equipped, but rather because they have excellent statlines and biggo numbers. It's an interesting shift, and I think largely provoked by how gakky 40k's 8th edition rules were at handling things other than "kill the enemy and be killed." If all that matters is how well you kill people, it's hard to feel elite without biggo numbers. And to an extent, 40k has always had this problem, but it's a good bit worse now than it used to be, imho. At least back in the day, it was things like leadership and unique ways of commanding your troops on the board that made Marines feel unique and elite by comparison to other factions.
...Are we now making the claim that "dangerous in close combat, really difficult to kill, and powerful in ranged combat" are not core identifiers of what is a space marine?
They are, but it becomes a question of "dangerous to what".
To a mortal human? Even a 1 attack space marine is an angel of death. The only stat they shared with Guardsmen was "Attacks". WS? Marine. Strength? Marine. Toughness? Marine. Armor save? Marine.
The difference was something like a Daemonette had a pretty fair chance against a Marine, which aligns pretty well with how dangerous a Daemonette should be against a Marine. In 5th, a Daemonette had something like a 25% chance to kill a marine outright (3 rending attacks). In 9th, a Daemonette has... well zero %, given that it's one rending attack and Marines have 2 wounds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/18 20:22:57
Daemonettes are two attacks base, actually. And AP-1 (-4 on 6s).
Which means that, hitting on a 3+, wounding on a 5+, 4+ save half the time and no save the other half, they have a 1/6 chance of doing a wound per attack. So a 1/36 or about 3% chance of killing a MEQ in one round.
A Tactical Marine who gets charged, meanwhile, has two attacks, hitting on a 3+, wounding on a 3+, and killing on a failed 5+ save. For a slightly under 30% chance of killing per hit. Just over a 50% chance of killing a Daemonette in one combat phase.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: Daemonettes are two attacks base, actually. And AP-1 (-4 on 6s).
Which means that, hitting on a 3+, wounding on a 5+, 4+ save half the time and no save the other half, they have a 1/6 chance of doing a wound per attack. So a 1/36 or about 3% chance of killing a MEQ in one round.
A Tactical Marine who gets charged, meanwhile, has two attacks, hitting on a 3+, wounding on a 3+, and killing on a failed 5+ save. For a slightly under 30% chance of killing per hit. Just over a 50% chance of killing a Daemonette in one combat phase.
Right I forgot they were two base, sorry. Still, it's a good bit lower than it used to be in relative power, predominantly because the Marine got an extra wound.
Back in the day, the Marine would only hit on 4s with one attack (though everything else was the same). It's also worth noting that offense is its own defense in some ways in the older editions (at least at high initiative values) so a Daemonette was much more likely to survive fighting a marine Back in the Day than it is now.
Should Marines be as dangerous to Daemonettes as they are to Guardsmen? Should Daemonettes be less dangerous to Marines than they are to Necrons?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/18 20:37:46
An emphasis on setting emulation over game design is part of what keeps this game kind of gakky, rules-wise. Its a driver for intentional imbalance and favored factions.
It's a problem only when they're favoring factions, which is my whole beef at the moment. But that's not an intrinsic fault of "designing to the universe", it's a fault of the degradation of that universe over time, the "bolter porn" paradigm. GW needs to either make the game match their universe more, or fix their universe and reverse the gradual slide into "marines uber alles!"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/18 20:36:18
Right. Aligning the game to the universe assumes the universe is itself consistent.
IMHO part of the importance of adhering rules to the background is it can be easy to see when the background is sliding completely out of proportion when the RULES are out of proportion.
In theory, if you've adhered to the background 100% perfectly and one faction is super dominant in the game, then you've not written background that is engaging for the armies getting shat on (and they probably shouldn't be playable or you should fix your background so they're actually a threat).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/18 20:40:08
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
