Why Power Armour troops are mediocre and what can be done?

[kombatwombat]

Cap Idaho, I find myself generally agreeing with the thrust of what you’re saying until you say ‘Space Marine staying power’. That’s just it though: Tacticals simply don’t have Space Marine staying power. That’s exactly what they’re lacking.

 

Marines should be an army that is hard as nails to kill, but each casualty is a small win for the opponent. Stand them up against equal points of something like Guardsmen and they should achieve M.A.D.

 

You can say that by virtue of smaller numbers Marines are more likely to be able to take advantage of cover, but conversely the larger numbers of Guard have more board control and can much more effectively deny alpha strikers. You can say Guardsmen can have more trouble bringing all of their firepower to bear because they have to spread their models out more, but again conversely, they are able to bring some firepower to bear across a larger percentage of the board. Marines have better resistance to morale and are superior in both combat and shooting, and yet even taking all that into account they’re still not durable enough to stand up to Guardsmen!

 

I think Tacticals’ utility and firepower is in a good place for a basic troop unit, but they are simply too squishy for their points.

[Captain Idaho]

I Think you've not interpreted "Space Marines staying power" incorrectly.

 

I'm referring to Tactical Marines as having the staying power of Space Marines, nothing more, nothing less.

 

You'll notice I never once said that Marines are impossible to kill and intact I've pointed out Marines, like everyone else, die fairly easily in 40K nowadays.

 

Just like I never said that Tactical Marines can compete with the firepower of Heavy Support units.

[kombatwombat]

So how would you define Space Marine staying power? Your post seemed to imply it was one of their positive points. Personally I would find it counter to the lore an determinedly unintentional for Space Marines in Power Armour to be a glass cannon unit, so I would expect the definition to be at the very least ‘as difficult to kill point-for-point as common basic humans’. Would your expectations be different?

[Charlo]

As a side note, one of my most effective units in 7th was a 10 Man Blood Angel Tactical Squad in a Drop Pod with a Heavy Flamer, Flamer and 2 Hand Flamers.

 

It was aggressive, fairly cheap and had the numbers to lay the pain on almost any other infantry they encountered. anything short of a MEQ was duly wiped, and even MEQ were forced to take a lot of saves thanks for multiple flame templates, bolter shots and a few frag grenades.

 

Now, in 8th this unit isn't going to work exactly the same. Drop pods are fundamentally overcosted, no longer score and cannot deploy them in Flamer range. But to make up for this, the flamer Overwatch is now stronger, and BA get a combat boost even if they are charged, not to mention being able to charge after firing those bolters. So I'm going to use a Rhino instead if I ever field them with an extra Strom Bolter.

 

To many, this unit seems like a waste, but get two of them or another Tactical Squad with a similar loadout but with a Melta Triad of weapons, add in a captain and you start to form a very solid core of your army able to engage a lot of threats decently.

 

That is what Tacticals are for. They aren't there to steal the day, they're there to supplement, engage and be a nuisance so your enemy dedicates firepower onto them.

[Captain Idaho]

Why is everything always a point for point comparison between units in different armies?

 

GW have always explained the points value of a unit comes primarily from it's use in the army itself.

 

The fact people bring up points values and killing/staying power of units from different Codex books shows they play Kill hammer rather than the mission.

[Gentlemanloser]

Ah the missions...

 

We played one of the new CA missions for our 6k weekend match.

 

And the mission basically lost the game for me at deployment. I played on, but it was an exercise in futility and wasn't enjoyable.

 

It was number 6, can't remember the name.  Split your army in thirds, one starts on board.

 

I deployed first, so has the +1 to first turn.  Won.  Was seized...  Which is an issue in itself.

 

I had 7 units on board, my opponent about twice that.

 

After their movement phase, all but 4 units came on.  So my 7 units on board had to face shooting and CC from almost their entire 6k army.

 

Game didn't fair well after that.

 

That mission is :cuss.  And I won't play it again, regardless of who goes first.

[UnkyHamHam]

I've generally thought that Tacticals have been pretty low tier and pretty much a tax since I started playing in 3rd. However, despite that, they remain one of my favorite units and almost always make my lists. UNLESS, I'm trying to be ultra competitive. Which isn't too often, but still should be stated for the record.

 

I've always struggled with two concepts when it comes to Tacticals. First, is that they require way too much investment to make useful. Special, Heavy, and Combi weapons are a given and an auto include. Because if you aren't taking these, you mine as well take Scouts for better utility and efficiency. Next Power Weapons and Melta Bombs have always helped, but have never been necessary. And just add to the cost. Lastly, transports. Transportation has always been an issue with them. And they are rather expensive now. To really get the best out of the mediocrity of the unit, you have to just keep pouring points into them to justify their place and use. This has obviously always been an issue with Marines, but the most pervasive in Tacticals. At least Tacticals can pay to get teeth unlike Assault marines... But that's another topic.

 

I just find it interesting that almost every other army in the game can bring in their basic troops with little added cost to have them perform. Weather it's a built in faction gimmick or the math is just favorable for their basic wargear, it works. Tacticals have never had a "thing" other than fill troop slots and bring bodies and weapons that the other units in your army do better. There has been a lot of good ideas thrown around in this thread to give them a deserved rule/strategem/gimmick. I honestly think that would go miles.

 

The second concept is more a philosophical difference. And I've always struggled with it. As it has evolved with the game through editions with how missions work. It effects the play style of the faction and how you see marines in the fluff.

 

Do Tacticals exist to buffer, support, and die for the specialist units to destroy enemies with fewer casualties? Or do Specialists exist to look scary and absorb all the heat and attention while Tacticals win you the game?

 

We all know how the fluff works. But i feel that according to the table, most chapters burn through Veterans, Terminators, and Specialists in great excess over losing core troops like Tacticals. I just think it would help if the faction played more like its fluff.

[Prot]

It does feel like PA troops vs PA troops is a very different game than X vs PA troops this edition.

 

I don't think in 7th we cared quite as much for a few reasons:

 

1. AP didn't work quite the same against PA. IE: a Heavy Bolter, or Autocannon, or Assault Cannon, etc, etc, really meant nothing to us. Now it all affects us
2. Formations dictated lists: It didn't matter if you wanted to take 6 squads of Tacts or not... competitively this was dictated to us by formation bonuses.
3. A Basic Bolter PA felt more powerful: IE: Intercessors essentially have 7th ed bolters. Otherwise a very 'potent' hand weapon in 8th doesn't even affect t-shirts.

 

And a big one for me is Drop Pods. Loyalist marines have been able to appear within effective range immediately in past editions. Drop Pods are incredibly downgraded this edition, forcing the player to weather a much larger penalty at range. (this is why we see so many gunlines.)

 

That's just my observations. The edition changes were one thing, but unit changes did a lot too. The guns are different... the delivery system is different. And all bullets modify our armour now.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Why is everything always a point for point comparison between units in different armies?

 

GW have always explained the points value of a unit comes primarily from it's use in the army itself.

 

The fact people bring up points values and killing/staying power of units from different Codex books shows they play Kill hammer rather than the mission.

 

Well when a unit functions along the same line and has similar equipment, one can draw parallels. I wouldn't want to compare Tacticals and say Termagants, because they are so massively different, but Tacticals to Infantry Squads? Why not.

[kombatwombat]

Point for point comparisons and other numerical performance measures are useful because they move the debate away from hand-wavey touchy-feely statements like ‘my Marines don’t feel right’. Without that objectivity, you’re mired in a world of subjectivity, in which you simply cannot have a debate. Instead, you’re basically stuck with one person telling another that red is a better colour than blue because red is prettier. That’s not a debate, it’s an opinion poll.

 

Comparisons within a Codex give you a somewhat objective (if imperfectly so) measure of internal balance. However, by definition, these cannot give any information on external balance. If you have two bags of balls, counting the number of balls in one bag gives you zero information about which bag has more balls. So to deduct an understanding of balance you have to consider the performance of one Codex against another. Combined with the first point, numerical measures of one Codex against another give you an objective view of Codex balance.

 

You can use tournament result data as a good way to qualitatively determine which Codex performs best. This is, however, limited to being qualitative because it doesn’t give the firm objective quantitative data of which units within a Codex are leading the charge. (Actually it can to a degree if you include army lists in the analysis, but that quickly gets to be too much data to readily handle.)

 

So in order to measure a unit’s performance, you have to objectively measure its numerical performance metrics against comparable units both within and outside of its own Codex. Again, taking in all factors within an Codex that can affect the result quickly gets way too data heavy to manipulate, so you have to break it down into digestible chunks, which requires setting limits on the comparison. The onus is on the person making the comparison to list these assumed limits and give some reasoning on why those particular limits were chosen - for example, limiting a units performance to just the unit itself without Stratagems because the Command Points very quickly dry up for one of the factions. The onus is on the person refuting their comparison to provide a just reason why the chosen limits invalidate the comparison.

 

Which is how we get to the straight comparison of Guardsmen to an equivalent points value of Tacticals. The bounds set are those two units within their effective ranges using both combat and shooting with no outside variables such as Stratagems or HQ support that consume other resources difficult to balance. With previous comparisons giving the shooting and combat performance of Marines to be slightly ahead point-for-point, this comparison has isolated enough variables to distil the result down to relative durability of units that perform comparable roles for their given factions.

 

Also, GW threw away the justification that points values come from use within their Codex when they opened the floodgates to Soup armies. You can no longer say Scouts are balanced against their ability to provide chaff infantry to Marine armies when those Marine armies can take Guard infantry; now those Scouts have to stand on their own two feet in the role of chaff infantry.

[Captain Idaho]

Soup armies are a different issue. I'd solve it at a stroke by ruling that an army can only use Stratagems, Faction rules and Relics from the same Codex as the Warlord.

 

It's otherwise irrelevant in this discussion.

 

As for points comparisons; there's no onus on anyone to provide data to refute anything. GW have clearly stated directly in developers notes and interviews that each army determines it's points values primarily on internal balance and works with external balance after but always with an eye towards internal points values.

 

So whilst we might look at Guardsmen and say they're more valuable per point that Space Marines, the comparison is fairly irrelevant since it's the balance of the armies at the end combined with the performance of individual units that matters.

[Schlitzaf]

Furthemore despite what the complainers like to argue you can’t just ‘ally’. Allied Detachment run in 250-350 Points bar Supreme Command and Patrol (and Auxillaries), which isn’t ‘cheap’. Unless you want to stand their and tell me a Land Raider or Storm Raven are ‘Cheap’. Taking an allied detachments generally means no synergy with auras (some exceptions like Celestine and Gulliman).

 

Also for all the flak Tactical Marines get, if I may be that guy, the title says “Troops”. What the bulk of folks here seem to be arguing for is “Tacticals/Chaos Marines” are bad. I know I am beating a dead horse, but it’s a horse that must be beat.

 

Why are Crusader Squads and Grey Hunters good troop choices? It cannot be MSU both squads MSU Builds are not appreciably better than Tacticals or Chaos Marines. They only become appreciably better at at larger squad sizes.

 

I know am beating this poor dead horse even more. But everyone here is talking about ‘Troop Power Armor’ in relation to Tactical Marines. If we accept Tactical Marines are bad, why don’t we look at the two examples of Tactical Equivalents that work with Crusaders and Grey Hunters.

 

While we shouldn’t copy their Loadout (Heavy/Special/Special, Bolter or Chain + Scouts and Bolter/Chain + Double Sgt), as those two armies surrender/give up certain things to have Units that are essentially Tactical+. They should provide the lens for which Tacticals and Chaos Marines can be fixed. (All said I don’t think Tacticals are that bad off in general imho)

[chapter master 454]

Soup armies are a different issue. I'd solve it at a stroke by ruling that an army can only use Stratagems, Faction rules and Relics from the same Codex as the Warlord.

 

It's otherwise irrelevant in this discussion.

 

As for points comparisons; there's no onus on anyone to provide data to refute anything. GW have clearly stated directly in developers notes and interviews that each army determines it's points values primarily on internal balance and works with external balance after but always with an eye towards internal points values.

 

So whilst we might look at Guardsmen and say they're more valuable per point that Space Marines, the comparison is fairly irrelevant since it's the balance of the armies at the end combined with the performance of individual units that matters.

 

False and poor game design if so. Literally then you say that GW balance each army around themselves? Literally saying that a tactical is measured against a terminator or assault marine rather than another similar unit from another army like chaos, imperial guard or the like? This, if the case, means that just by default then balancing is broken and must be fixed by a broader scale points balancing system. Which judging by GWs trend of later codexes being strong is the case.

 

Again, we are the measuring stick. We are the army to beat and that is such a horrible thing to say both for the army and balance: we are one of if not the weakest army in the game. Why play marines? You want tanks then Imperial guard have got you covered. You want good elite choices? Eldar and I suspect Tau once they get their codex have that covered. You want good troops overall? Sorry we are plum out of that but those already mentioned do have some pretty good troops as it stands: Imperial guard just bring a bucket of them, Eldar just have GOOD troops and the Tau strike teams (and even the lesser breacher teams) are excellent troop choices who cost a fraction of the cost of marines and have various benefits from HQs that can be applied to make them stronger (while Tau are struggling, giving their fire warriors a cadre fireblade is HUGE because you can lay out a lot of fire power for little cost).

 

Comparison is needed otherwise this thread is actually pointless. "Why power armour troops are mediocre and what can be done" is the title. This requires compare and contrast to be used and we cannot compare and contrast terminators, centurions or scouts because they are ether part of the problem we are discussing OR are considered better than the other by default and thus we need to know why and thus extrospective comparisons are needed to see what may be wrong and so far we have deduced various issues:

 

1. Points - Tactical marines cost quite a lot for a troop choice that brings not very much to the table. This is a point we must discuss because what do you expect from a 13 point troop choice? Compared to an 8 point troop choice like tau have, I do not expect much from a strike team fire warrior as they are cheap and bring a decent weapon to the game along with respectable stats (having a 4+ save and a str5 gun for 8 points? Awesome). 13 points however by comparison lands us with str 4 gun with less range, we do indeed get better armour and toughness but when we are talking about differences, the strike team will cost 80 points vs 130 points. 50 points. That is massive, they could get a missile pod deployable sentry with those 50 points which will easily cause additional losses to the tactical squad coupled with the str 5 guns doing work while our boltguns may be able to reply, my money is on the fire warriors winning out.

 

2. Stat line - as previously mentioned, marines have what could be considered on the surface a strong stat line for a troop choice. Not going to mince it there, stat wise I think we can agree the stats are representing a good troop choice if we were to strip away the visuals of the unit along with points. What would any of us say to that stat line? Pretty good I would think. However marines are meant to be the ELITE army. ELITE. yet we drop like flys when people point guns at us. Oh yes, we can take a lasgun to the face easy but lasguns never travel on their own, they travel in what could be called Lighthouses if a singular is known as a flashlight. Can a marine with 1 boltgun take on 3 lasguns? Not really.

 

3. Gear - Boltguns suck. They really really suck. Boltguns suck. They really really suck. They always have and effectively marines must be paying some stupid tax then if boltguns are good because compared to the lasgun, +1 strength does not cut mustard. It may be good against T3 but it better then remember that for ever T3 there is about another 2-3 T3 to cut through while for every boltgun there is the whistling wind of misspent points and youth painting that model. 

[Schlitzaf]

10 Marines with Bolter can take on 30 Gaurdsman with Lasgun. And will actually come out the victors ChapterMaster. Because they will delete a Squad of Gaurdsman and half a turn with charging and shooting + Battle Shocks. Gaurdsman simply do not have the availability to bring their bodies to bear in against the Marines.

 

Gaurdsman do more damage per point spent, but that doesn’t mean they appreciably outdamage a Marine in Squad on Squad scenario.

[Wargamer]

Okay, need to retract an earlier statement of mine... plasma is better vs horde.

 

Assuming a plasmagun is 8pts (can't remember off the top of my head) a 10 man plasma squad vs GEQ (T3 5+ save) costs 37.8 points per kill, compared to 43.875 per kill for boltguns.

 

However, against T3 6+ save the bolter marines cost 35.1 points per kill.

 

Looking at the equivalent points values, current bolters achieve 4.74 GEQ kills for a 208 point unit, compared to 5.56 for a 210 point plasma unit.

 

However, against T3 6+ those bolters achieve 5.93 kills for a 208 point unit. which makes them more efficient than plasma.

 

Now this relies on me correctly recalling the cost of a plasmagun to be 8 points, but it does suggest that the fundamental problem is that bolters are simply not good enough at their anti-horde role.

 

EDIT: For further comparison, a squad of ten heavy bolters achieves a cost per kill ratio of just 20.7 points, making them a much more cost effective way of killing Guardsmen. A 207 point unit of heavy bolter Marines would be killing an average of ten Guardsmen per turn, almost double that of our plasma squad!

[Mileposter]

Yes, it's been suggested a few times, the thread is pointless. It's come close to positive and spun out again, to a circular argument that "Things suck" versus "No they don't".

 

"We" cannot fix anything, as we are not GW. Any sort of 'fix' we could conjure here is academic at best, because game designers don't take their direction from homebrew design. They will have far more data about the issues than we do and more variables/hoops they have to jump through than our vacuum scenarios.

 

If we're going to be actually constructive then there is a way to affect real change - but the consistent dissent here isn't it. Marines Codex underperforming is something GW designers will already have been working on in the queue somewhere. Providing more data for them is the way to influence it. Let's collect some, collate it, and present it positively to GW. Not the "This unit is 18.03% more effect at shooting than that one" type of data. But the actual experience data.

 

Things like "Tactical Marines in my meta see constant overshadowing by Scouts" or "When faced against horde lists such as Tyranids, Space Marines seem to not be able to provide any line holders". Mathhammer and tournament data are largely irrelevant because they can already see that information. It's pretty publicly available. Not anecdotal evidence, the long winded "let me tell you a story", but consistent experience. That's valuable to those making the designers decisions.

 

I'd be happy to collect whatever disharmony those of us who want to see changes have and present it in such a format that is likely to be received by the feedback team. I think I saw the Templar(?) folks do something similar here on B&C in a thread and they received very positive responses. We could go that avenue.

 

Otherwise, we're just idle voices on the internet.

[BitsHammer]

Marines will kill, around a max of 10 Guardsmen (assuming a bad Battleshock roll) in that exchange though before getting hit by the other twenty?

 

In a vacuum that works, and is why I don't feel tacticals themselves are the exact problem, but once all the other contributing factors come rolling in then I have to say the battle definitely leans towards the Guardsman's favor. And it's not because he's stronger persay, but because he benefits more from the bonuses his army can give him.

 

Let's be honest, Marines lack a fair amount of tactical flexibility to let them handle wide arrays of threats appropriately without tailoring lists, and their bonuses are often lack luster compared to what we've seen from other armies.

 

Heck, now the Custodes are getting the re-roll 1s aura too, but they do it even better since their whole army hits on 2+ in melee, making it a lot more powerful for them than the Marines (plus you can get more units into range due to the larger base size and small unit sizes).

 

Basically I'm just saying that Marines aren't even the best at the job they do when other armies can get the same rules and use them to greater effect, and we're seeing more flexibility in how they do it as well.

 

If we were to buff the bolter at this point I'm thinking "on a wound roll of a 6 this weapon does an additional wound" would be the limit for it. It's not full on Tesla levels of cascading wounds, but it would offset how poorly the base weapon does against hordes without getting too insane.

 

This of course doesn't fix Tacticals though, it just fixes the bolter itself. Which in turn benefits Bolter Scouts and Sisters which do the same thing as Tacticals by being more fragile in order to bring more guns inside of an army.

 

Honestly in this game, I'm feeling this edition favors more who can throw the most dice during a turn because it does more to win games than trying to bring something that costs more for some supposed increase in "quality". I'm not trying to say Tacticals are useless, but they are an underwhelming choice in this edition with their current buffs and rules.

 

That said, at the end of the day I feel like this may see some addressing in the future (say, in the next Chapter Approved) that helps adjust Marines to make them more capable without just taking Guilliman and running a Smurf Village army.

[Gentlemanloser]

Bolters aren't anti horde by design. They don't really have a role.

 

They are just the base weapon every other marine weapon is built around.

[Wargamer]

Yes, it's been suggested a few times, the thread is pointless. It's come close to positive and spun out again, to a circular argument that "Things suck" versus "No they don't".

 

"We" cannot fix anything, as we are not GW. Any sort of 'fix' we could conjure here is academic at best, because game designers don't take their direction from homebrew design. They will have far more data about the issues than we do and more variables/hoops they have to jump through than our vacuum scenarios.

 

If we're going to be actually constructive then there is a way to affect real change - but the consistent dissent here isn't it. Marines Codex underperforming is something GW designers will already have been working on in the queue somewhere. Providing more data for them is the way to influence it. Let's collect some, collate it, and present it positively to GW. Not the "This unit is 18.03% more effect at shooting than that one" type of data. But the actual experience data.

 

Things like "Tactical Marines in my meta see constant overshadowing by Scouts" or "When faced against horde lists such as Tyranids, Space Marines seem to not be able to provide any line holders". Mathhammer and tournament data are largely irrelevant because they can already see that information. It's pretty publicly available. Not anecdotal evidence, the long winded "let me tell you a story", but consistent experience. That's valuable to those making the designers decisions.

 

I'd be happy to collect whatever disharmony those of us who want to see changes have and present it in such a format that is likely to be received by the feedback team. I think I saw the Templar(?) folks do something similar here on B&C in a thread and they received very positive responses. We could go that avenue.

 

Otherwise, we're just idle voices on the internet.

Yes, but the purpose of the mathhammer is to demonstrate that there is a unit with absolutely no purpose to exist beyond "bringing X instead of Y means you might get more Command Points / a slightly better objective capping unit."

 

Problem is, +2 Command Points doesn't sound that amazing to me, and I've never had a situation where I've been able to use Troops to cap an objective while a non-Troop tried to contest. I'm sure it's happened somewhere, but I don't think it justifies the artificial points hike / damage debuff our troops appear to be paying for it.

[Captain Idaho]

@ Chapter Master 454 - you're taking what I said and taking it to extreme. I said primarily GW base points around internal balance.

 

I didn't once say it's exclusively done. I said the over all balance of the Codex, along with the role of units in the army, is established before comparison with other units and books.

 

I think people skim read too much in this thread as whenever I say anything half of the sentences/paragraph is missed out and a black and white interpretation established.

[BitsHammer]

Bolters aren't anti horde by design. They don't really have a role.

 

They are just the base weapon every other marine weapon is built around.

They aren't on the table, but lore of them punching through horde chaffe and wounding multiple people at a time exists.

[Wargamer]

The bolter does default to anti-horde simply due to being ill suited to damaging high toughness / wounds / save units. Throw a bucket of bolter dice at a Terminator squad and see how little you accomplish.

[BitsHammer]

The bolter does default to anti-horde simply due to being ill suited to damaging high toughness / wounds / save units. Throw a bucket of bolter dice at a Terminator squad and see how little you accomplish.

Not to be contradictory, but that is exactly the method I used with my Sisters in 5th to murder Draigostar armies as well Death Company armies. Throwing lots of dice against elite units can, and does kill them. It's the Guardsman approach to basically killing anything and it works.

 

The thing is that this works better, than say, throwing a bucket of dice against a horde, since each loss doesn't go nearly as far, and now they get full saves against your shots so you can expect hordes to make it into your lines much more intact than they used to.

 

Basically, a bucket of bolter shots is more effective against elite units because you can potentially wipe a unit through the number of saves, but when you throw the same number of shots into a horde there will be a lot more left over to hurt you back than those 5 man Terminator units.

[Wargamer]

 

The bolter does default to anti-horde simply due to being ill suited to damaging high toughness / wounds / save units. Throw a bucket of bolter dice at a Terminator squad and see how little you accomplish.

Not to be contradictory, but that is exactly the method I used with my Sisters in 5th to murder Draigostar armies as well Death Company armies. Throwing lots of dice against elite units can, and does kill them. It's the Guardsman approach to basically killing anything and it works.

 

The thing is that this works better, than say, throwing a bucket of dice against a horde, since each loss doesn't go nearly as far, and now they get full saves against your shots so you can expect hordes to make it into your lines much more intact than they used to.

 

Basically, a bucket of bolter shots is more effective against elite units because you can potentially wipe a unit through the number of saves, but when you throw the same number of shots into a horde there will be a lot more left over to hurt you back than those 5 man Terminator units.

 

Okay, so the caveat that needs to be applied there is this workaround doesn't apply to invun spam. However, if you need to drop a big, tough unit you are almost always better going with mass plasma over mass bolters.

 

I might even do the mathhammer later to confirm this assertion one way or the other. 

[The Unseen]

10 Marines with Bolter can take on 30 Gaurdsman with Lasgun. And will actually come out the victors ChapterMaster. Because they will delete a Squad of Gaurdsman and half a turn with charging and shooting + Battle Shocks. Gaurdsman simply do not have the availability to bring their bodies to bear in against the Marines.

 

Gaurdsman do more damage per point spent, but that doesn’t mean they appreciably outdamage a Marine in Squad on Squad scenario.

No Schlitzaf, they don't.

30 guardsmen absolutely wipe the floor with 10 marines.

I'll run the scenario again for you, but I'm tired of you repeating this actually false statement.

Give me the parameters and I'll lay it out for you, because your just wrong.