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

[Wargamer]

It's actually quite depressing how much better Guard are; even if the Marines fire first, they'll be wiped out with half the Guard left standing.

 

Yes, this assumes default weapons and no buffs on either side... but for any buff you give the Marines, the Guard will have points with which to acquire comparable buffs.

 

Put simply, Guardsmen are at least twice as good at dealing damage as Space Marines are.

[BitsHammer]

 

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.

 

Running the math, 10 Tacticals will kill more Guardsman than 30 Guardsman will kill Marines in a single round of shooting, or a single round of shooting and a charge, with no other bonuses factored. The Guard are killing more points in models while the Marines kill more actual bodies.

 

That said, running this out over several turns, I have a feeling that the Marines will feel all loses more acutely and will suffer a faster degradation of performance than the Guard will due to the number of models being vastly different on both sides.

 

Basically, the quantity of Guard is greater than the quality of Marines in this scenario.

 

The scenario goes right off the rails once you get stuff like Orders involved because FRSRF will drag the Marines down faster, leading to an increased loss in performance.

 

Basically, the game is currently too heavily skewed towards higher body counts without enough of a balancing factor to even things out. I don't think this was an intentional thing, but it's definitely a thing we're going to have a problem with going forward.

 

How GW chooses to handle it will likely make or break the game in the long run since it could end up largely invalidating Marines competitively, something I don't see them wanting to have happen considering their renewed interest in tournaments.

 

Now I feel something needs to be said: no discussion is "pointless" or "useless". Discussing the flaws in Marines, as well as how they could possibly be addressed without breaking the game is frankly important. I mean if we want to send anything to GW we first need to reach a consensus, and do to that we need to discuss things. We can't propose solutions to problems as a group if we first don't decide what those solutions are.

 

Failing achieving that it helps us talk about the problems we face with the unit, and ways some of us mitigate those problems on the table.

[Mileposter]

Now I feel something needs to be said: no discussion is "pointless" or "useless". Discussing the flaws in Marines, as well as how they could possibly be addressed without breaking the game is frankly important. I mean if we want to send anything to GW we first need to reach a consensus, and do to that we need to discuss things. We can't propose solutions to problems as a group if we first don't decide what those solutions are.

 

Failing achieving that it helps us talk about the problems we face with the unit, and ways some of us mitigate those problems on the table.

To the first point - for myself, I claimed the thread to prove pointless. Were most of it an actual discussion - or to be drawn into one hereforth - I completely agree with you. But it's become circular in its tangentiality. Offering an alternative or constructive endpoint seems to prove fruitless as they are consistently ignored in favor of rants or personal pursuits.

 

An insiders suggestion: providing solutions is unlikely to be considered by those receiving what is sent, however the intent will be looked to heavily. Spending more effort and time on the intent than the nuances of a specific solution will get you farther in seeing what you'd like be taken into production.

 

As to the second point - that sounds like an awesome topic as well, I'd be a happier participant were that to have taken root. But when those of us who have success with the unit attempted to share that success, or tactics therein, it was not met with any sort of welcome. That discussion seems long gone.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I think there is a consensus that Tactical Squads are lacking - we just don't all agree as to the extent to which this is true, and the reasons for this.

 

Attempting to move this along, here's a list of some of the ideas posted in the threat. Perhaps each of use can rank them in our order of preference, to see if some sort of consensus on what to do can emerge?

 

-Allow Tacticals to get a close combat weapon.

-Points decrease.

-Stats boost (+1 wound and/or something else).

-Boost bolters.

-Give +1 CP for a 10-strong squad.

-Allow Tacs to use Stratagem at a reduced CP cost.

-Have special Stratagems for Tacticals.

-Allow Tacticals to get a combi, a special and a heavy even at 5-strong*

 

*Conversely, allow Crusaders to have that AND a power weapon, and allow Grey Hunters to get double specials plus a combi at 5 strong so that Tacticals don't completely overshadow them.

[Captain Idaho]

That would be a great summary there so we can perhaps start a new thread and get positive?

[Deschenus Maximus]

Good idea.

[Schlitzaf]

Fulkes if you want to the math per actually battlefield conditions (in which it’s highly unlikely for first two game rounds more than 10 Gaurdsman are gonna be in rapid range. Well specifically turn 1 if gaurd go second they should be in rapid range. Or 1 squad of 10 will be. Turn 2 a total of 10-15 should be in rapid range. The exchange comes out that 5 Marines live).

 

You calculate the hypotunese as 24” from the closest model on each edge Squad, furtherest can be no further 6” from the closest (at most you can 6 by 4). However sense your armies start 24” apart, you either have two gaurd squads essentially lined up. Side by side. In which case if the marine squad is 2 by 5. If your total line is greater than 5. The columns beyond 6 and 0 cannot possibly be in rapid range. (As you move diagonally, which is less net movement then moving forward sense if you don’t go diagonally you cannot be in range). Only your front 5 can legally ever end up in rapid. If the marine instead deploys 10 by 1. Same principle applies. Any model beyond column 10 or 0 can never be in rapid at T1. And the marine player can actually if they are clever with casualties pull two of the nearby Gaurdsman out of range entirely.

 

Words; the reason 30 Gaurdsman will lose to 10 attacks. Is one a standard deployment map, they literally cannot bring all their guns into proper rapid range. And one rapid round from a marine squad will effectively kill or neuter. A marine squad shooting even it goes first. (Kills 3 gaurd turn 1). Even in that scenerio where the guard rapid unloads first and takes 2 casualties (and we ignore the first 3 casualties and fact Sgt has LP, so full 40 Shots (the Gaurd should only shoot back with 32. Causing 1.8 wounds in all fairness same as 2 wounds.) Moves 6” Returns fire and kills 4.6 Gaurdsman then charges from one squads (whom move total 18” everyone gonna be in rapid). Charges one of the outer squad or middle. And we see 0.22 dead Marines from overwatch. 9 > 6 > 4 > 2.66 or 7.32 total from shooting and melee. Hit back either 3 or 5 (+2 if you believe they keep Sgt) > 1.5 or 2.5 > 0.5 or 0.83 (add 0.11 for Sgt). So one marine died or one dies from rounding. If Sgt are dead one squads lose 2 or might lose on an tenth. Sgt not dead adjust as needed. However if both shots hit one squad it is wiped.

 

Leaving 34 Gaurdsman. If they were charge larger squad left at 4 Men. They cannot be rapid unless 4 man falls back. In which case you have 30 Gaurd > 15 > 5 > 1.88. Let’s assume 2 dead Marines. They get charged by bigger squad. 10 > 1.66 > 1.44 > 0.98 Gaurd. 9 (add Sgt value) > 4.5 > 1.5. Or 0.5. Marines hit back at 5, 7 > 4.66 > 3.05 > 2. We see a total of 3 Gaurdsman Die, potentially a 4th if no Sgt. 5 > 3.32 > 2.22 > 1.4 from Pistols. 7 > 4.66 > 3.05 > 2. This time or last time we should see another Gaurdsman die from battle shock. (While Adding 3.5 to both brought them less than 7. 3.5 am impossible result one had to be 3 or 4). That is 7-8 dead. Okay they withdrew. 7 Gaurdsman shoot for 14 > 7 > 2.33. Or 0.69. Let’s give it to them. 4 Man. Charged. 8 > 1.33 > 0.88 > 0.66. 7 > 3.5 > 1.2 or 0.4 (0.66 if Sgt). 6 > 4 > 2.66 > 1.77 or 2 More dead. Pistols 4 > 2.66 > 1.77 > 1.2 or one more dead. 6 attacks 1.77, killing over one squads. 3 > 1.5 > 0.5 or one dead. Retreat. 6 > 3 > 1. Overwatch. 4 > 0.66 > 0.44. Per rounding another dead. 2 > 1 > 0.33 (0r 0.44 with Sgt). 4 > 2.66 > 1.88 > 1.22. Pistols. 2 > 1.32 > 0.88 > 0.58. 4 attacks see preforming. Kills off squad. 2 Gaurdsman > 4 > 2 > 0.66 > 0.22. (0.66 Total) Overwatch > 0.44 wounds. They strike 2 > 1 > 0.33 > 0.11 (0.22 with Sgt. Sgt alive kills marine). 3 > 2 > 1.32 > 0.88. Another’s dead guarding. 1 > 0.66 > 0.44 > 0.30. 1.5 wounds. 3 > 2 > 1.32 > 0.88.

 

The Tactical Squads wins. Notice the Gaurdsman recieve numerous extra shots due to ignoring Sgt lack Lasguns or adding Sgt +2 Attacks back in. So tacticals should have 3 models left. 3 Squads of Guardsman lose to 1 Squad of Tacticals

[Zodd1888]

Just one quick point:

 

Yes guard is from a different dex from space marines, this doesn't mean we can't look at efficiency/balance.

 

Imperium allows alliance through detatchments, meaning we'll always see what's more efficient. This usually means minimum PA troops required for the desired detatchments units and another detatchment of guard for bodies/CP.

 

That circumstances around these things aren't mutually exclusive, the totality of the circumstance is part of the issue at hand.

 

I think there is a consensus that Tactical Squads are lacking - we just don't all agree as to the extent to which this is true, and the reasons for this.

 

Attempting to move this along, here's a list of some of the ideas posted in the threat. Perhaps each of use can rank them in our order of preference, to see if some sort of consensus on what to do can emerge?

 

-Allow Tacticals to get a close combat weapon.

-Points decrease.

-Stats boost (+1 wound and/or something else).

-Boost bolters.

-Give +1 CP for a 10-strong squad.

-Allow Tacs to use Stratagem at a reduced CP cost.

-Have special Stratagems for Tacticals.

-Allow Tacticals to get a combi, a special and a heavy even at 5-strong*

 

*Conversely, allow Crusaders to have that AND a power weapon, and allow Grey Hunters to get double specials plus a combi at 5 strong so that Tacticals don't completely overshadow them.

 

-Allow Tacticals to get a close combat weapon.

3 -Points decrease.

2 - Stats boost (+1 wound and/or something else).

1 - Boosting bolters.

-Give +1 CP for a 10-strong squad.

-Allow Tacs to use Stratagem at a reduced CP cost.

-Have special Stratagems for Tacticals.

-Allow Tacticals to get a combi, a special and a heavy even at 5-strong*

 

Those are the three, in order, that provide the best solutions, IMO, without having crazy effects on the meta, or don't cause enough impact on their own.

[Deschenus Maximus]

The Infantry squads deploy 31 inches away from the Tacticals. The Guardsmen win (by a mile). ZOMG! TACTICS!

[kombatwombat]

Schlitzaf, while they put it... bluntly, Deschenus Maximus has a point. You can’t hand one side a deployment or movement advantage without the comparison losing validity.

 

A fairer comparison is to put all models in rapid fire range, and for all shots to happen simultaneously to get rid of first turn advantage. If you do this the Marines simply get flattened. If they are outside rapid fire range but within shooting range it makes no difference. You can tip the scales in their favour by putting all models in charge range. The Marines still get crushed. You can tip the scales even further by not allowing Overwatch. The Marines still die horribly. You can even outright not permit the Guardsmen to swing in combat at all, and even that doesn’t make it a win for the Marines!

[Schlitzaf]

Kombat that is mathematically literally impossible. Bluntly put there is no way for 30 Gaurdsman to get in rapid turn 1 or 2. If you change who goes first the outcome is still the same.

 

If you the marines go second the while Gaurdsman go first. They win even faster. Let me put it this way. There is literally no mathematical way for 20 of those those 30 Gaurdsman to get in rapid range.

 

Repeat after me. There is no mathematical way for 20 of 30 Gaurdsman to get in Rapid Range. A straight line is the short distance between two points. If we line up 10 Marines in front of 10 Gaurdsman 24” Apart. 20 Gaurdsman will be 25” more away, one side moves 6” making it 19”. Other side moves what is 4-5” because diagonal. Make it 15”.

 

It’s not me favoring the marines period. I’ll reiterate for the 4th time in this post. There is bluntly no mathematical way for 20 of the 30 Gaurdsman before turn to get in rapid range. Even then the Marine squad can then move to get out of rapid range from one Squad. Sense moving 6” sides ways means moving effectively 4” going from 15 to 11 and 15 to 19”. Even if the other squads moves all six magical they’ll be in 13”.

 

This is why the comparison fails because in an actual battlefield engagement. There is no mathematical way for 20 of 30 Gaurdsman before turn 3 to effectively bring all their guns to bear inside rapid range. Sorry for beating a dead horse in my post. But I let like my point be lost.

If you care curious if Gaurdsman shot first

 

T1

30 > 15 > 5 > 1.66 (G)

18 (16) > 12 (10.66) > 8 (7) > 5.32 (4.66)

Battleshock assuming 3.5 kills > 8.82 or 2

 

T2

46 (43) > 23 (21.5) > 7.66 (7.33) > 2.55 (2.44)(G)

3 Charge > 12 > 2 > 1.32 > 0.88. (MOver)

4 > 2 > 0.66 > 0.22 (GM)

8 > 5.32 > 3.6 > 2.4 (MM) (Killing Gaurdsman)

 

12 > 8 > 6.32 > 4.22 > 2.8 (M)

13 > 2.14 > 0.77 > 0.26 (GOver)

8 > 5.33 > 3.6 > 2.4 (MarineM)

7 > 3.5 > 1.18 > 0.4 (GM) (round to 1)

Battleshock kills another 2 Gaurdsman

 

T3

Gaurdsman retreat

19 > 9.5 > 3.18 > 1.06 > 1 Marine

10 > 1.66 > 1 > 0.66 (Over)

12 > 6 > 2 > 0.66 (GM)

7 > 5.32 > 3.6 > 2.4. 3 Dead Gaurdsman.

Shock Kills None

 

5 > 3.32 > 2.22 > 1.4

See 7 Above. 4 Dead Gaurdsman.

5 > 2.5 > 0.8 > 0.26!(1 Marine)

Another Gaurdsman dies from battle shock

 

T4

Gaurdsman Retreat

5 > 2.5 > 0.88 > 0.26

Charge

8 > 1.33 > 0.88 > 0.326 (MOverH

See 5. 0.52

6 > 4 > 2.66 > 1.8 or 2 Dead Gaurdsman.

(If other other squad choose to stay result is same save no over and 0.18 more dead Marines)

 

Marine 4 > 2.66 > 1.8 > 1.2 Killing last Gaurdsman or finishing a Squad.

Gaurdsman Over 5 > 0.84 > 33 > 0.11

Attacks 6 > 4 > 2.66 > 1.77. Or Gaurdsman retreated 2 Dead

4 > 2 > 0.66 > 0.22 (another Dead Marine)

 

5 (including LasPistol) > 2.5 > 0.83 > 0.27

5 > 3.32 > 2.2 > 1.4. Killing off Gaurd Squad

 

Like this isn’t me stacking it at all the fact is. 30 Gaurdsman lose to 10 Tacticals.

[The Unseen]

Kombat that is mathematically literally impossible. Bluntly put there is no way for 30 Gaurdsman to get in rapid turn 1 or 2. If you change who goes first the outcome is still the same.

 

If you the marines go second the while Gaurdsman go first. They win even faster. Let me put it this way. There is literally no mathematical way for 20 of those those 30 Gaurdsman to get in rapid range.

 

Repeat after me. There is no mathematical way for 20 of 30 Gaurdsman to get in Rapid Range. A straight line is the short distance between two points. If we line up 10 Marines in front of 10 Gaurdsman 24” Apart. 20 Gaurdsman will be 25” more away, one side moves 6” making it 19”. Other side moves what is 4-5” because diagonal. Make it 15”.

 

It’s not me favoring the marines period. I’ll reiterate for the 4th time in this post. There is bluntly no mathematical way for 20 of the 30 Gaurdsman before turn to get in rapid range. Even then the Marine squad can then move to get out of rapid range from one Squad. Sense moving 6” sides ways means moving effectively 4” going from 15 to 11 and 15 to 19”. Even if the other squads moves all six magical they’ll be in 13”.

 

This is why the comparison fails because in an actual battlefield engagement. There is no mathematical way for 20 of 30 Gaurdsman before turn 3 to effectively bring all their guns to bear inside rapid range

 

Yes, there is. There absolutely is. You run all 3 squads of guardsmen right next to each other, like an intelligent person. No one would actually line up there guardsmen that way. So I'll be the one to reiterate. You. Are. Wrong. With the guardsmen get within rapid fire turn 1? Of course not, but they will all reach rapid fire at the same time, and they win even if marines are the first ones to close within rapid fire range. So quick giving us these bull:cuss "real tabletop" examples that aren't any more realistic than just comparing damage outputs.

[Schlitzaf]

Explain how you do so. Explain how when the closest you are legally able to start with the closest model is 24”. And only way to get closer is by moving diagonally which is net less movement than straight.

 

Hint you cannot

[Beta galactosidase]

There is one very specific problem that happens in games, and it is the other side of the coin of buffing bolters. Any time marines are on the table, with or without buffs, there aren't things for the marines to kill. Really, it doesn't matter if your marines do -1 ap and give cp etc, they are supposed to be good at something and that thing isn't necessary in games.

 

They are supposed to be good at blitzing the heck out of enemies, especially enemy infantry, and making their torsos explode with bolt rounds and precision special weapon shots. That even means stuff like fire warriors, storm troopers, necron warriors, guard vets, and necron immortals. The thing is people don't take those in high amounts, they aren't key units that need to be killed. In sixth and seventh they took t7 and t8 creatures that bolters could barely hurt if at all, and now they take hordes, who of course bolters do not outright destroy. You give them all the -1 ap, rerolls, spec weapons and combat blades you can, it doesn't matter because nobody relies on the professional grade infantry units that space marines are supposed to be able to crush.

 

So this is my problem, my complaint. I want marines fire fighting against renegade storm troopers and DE trueborn to be the center of the game and it doesn't happen for two reasons: secondarily that marines can't do much, and primarily that their intended enemies aren't on the field much.

 

Whatever you do to bolters and marines, there also needs to be a buff to infantry generally. If you have ap-1, rerolls, or triggers on six effects, I want infantry to get bonuses against warmachines that get close, or +1 to wound with shooting if they are nested in cover and didn't move, or small infantry units move faster through cover than large units or large models, or the ability to shoot in the opponent's turn but only for infantry.

 

Infantry don't carry ion accelerators and they can't move 12" over terrain. They need some kind of purpose. I want to see marines destroying storm troopers, and both of them lying in wait to ambush riptides.

 

Insider's perspective: providing solutions is unlikely to be considered by those receiving what is sent, however the intent will be looked to heavily. Spending more effort and time on the intent than the nuances of a specific solution will get you farther in seeing what you'd like be taken into production

 

Yeah, Deschenus and Idaho, this is more important than a list of fixes because so far you don't have a specific enough list of problems to solve..

[Gentlemanloser]

I'd just like to add that out of the 6 standard deployment maps, only 3 have a 24" no mans land.

 

The other 3 are 18".

 

Scouts can start 9" away. Another feather for their rapid fire bolter cap over tacs...

[totgeboren]

Explain how you do so. Explain how when the closest you are legally able to start with the closest model is 24”. And only way to get closer is by moving diagonally which is net less movement than straight.

 

Hint you cannot

 

Eh, I have to ask. Do you know that you can fire one shot up to max range with rapid fire weapons right? Turn 1, if the IG get first turn, they advance and shoot 1 shot each. Everyone can easily be in range (since there is no point spreading out for the guards as blasts don't do much anyway).

If the marines get first turn they have to advance, and then range for the guards is even less of an issue.

And the only way to make the maths meaningful is to have them go simultaneously (since that gives you an average). You could of course give the Tacticals every battlefield advantage, and they would fare better, but the marines will lose a few dudes outside of 12" at the start, and that is well enough to reduce number of wounds they cause to make the impact of morale later on just a detail. Also, why would the IG assault the marines with heavily depleted squads? To just give the marines free kills?

 

Not to mention that the guards could just ignore moving in to rapid fire and retreat as long as the table allows, meaning the marines have basically 0% chance of winning.

[Claws and Effect]

Comparing equal points worth of models is actually kind of silly.

 

Why? Because unit costs aren't balanced against similar units from other codexes. They are balanced within their own codex and nowhere else.

 

Also worth noting is the fact that there is a maximum number of units that makes sense to take. Assuming the hypothetical Guard player is running a Brigade, there is zero reason for him to take more than 6 Infantry squads total. He doesn't need more than that. Most players will take the Troops choices their detachment requires and spend the rest of their points on harder hitting units.

 

Assuming the Marine player is running some combination of Battalion/other detachment, he will have a max of 3 Tactical squads.

 

If you want to run comparative numbers, run them based on what would actually be on the table. Not what you could get for the same points.

 

Ignore points values and compare unit to unit. Unless you really believe the balance point should be 1 Marine unit = 3 units of something else, in which case the whole discussion is silly because GW is never going to balance the game that way.

 

So, who wins? 1 Tactical squad or 1 Infantry squad?

 

I would not be surprised to learn that a Tactical squad would beat a single Troops choice from most other factions. But I'd also be willing to bet that a few would win. A single Infantry squad won't.

[totgeboren]

Comparing equal points worth of models is actually kind of silly.

 

Why? Because unit costs aren't balanced against similar units from other codexes. They are balanced within their own codex and nowhere else.

 

Also worth noting is the fact that there is a maximum number of units that makes sense to take. Assuming the hypothetical Guard player is running a Brigade, there is zero reason for him to take more than 6 Infantry squads total. He doesn't need more than that. Most players will take the Troops choices their detachment requires and spend the rest of their points on harder hitting units.

 

Assuming the Marine player is running some combination of Battalion/other detachment, he will have a max of 3 Tactical squads.

 

If you want to run comparative numbers, run them based on what would actually be on the table. Not what you could get for the same points.

 

Ignore points values and compare unit to unit. Unless you really believe the balance point should be 1 Marine unit = 3 units of something else, in which case the whole discussion is silly because GW is never going to balance the game that way.

 

So, who wins? 1 Tactical squad or 1 Infantry squad?

 

I would not be surprised to learn that a Tactical squad would beat a single Troops choice from most other factions. But I'd also be willing to bet that a few would win. A single Infantry squad won't.

 

This isn't true since GW allowed allies. It was true back in the days, but not today.

If you don't like points comparisons, use Power levels instead. Comparing units on a 1vs1 makes no sense at all. By default basic CSM are in that case 2x as good as Tacticals, since they can field 20 dudes in a unit. That way of thinking is beyond silly.

[Gentlemanloser]

Also in codex balance only *cannot* be true, since wargear costs are shared across factions.

 

All Storm Bolters cost 2 points.  Regardless of who uses them.  They are a 2 point upgrade for BS2+ models, 3+ models or 4+ models.

 

(In before GW messes with a couple of wargear items that don't share the same costs...)

 

Edit: And if you want to compared Just Troop units to Tacticals, fine.

 

My GKT or even Strikes beat your Tacs *every single time*.

 

You can't compare just unit to unit.  That's ridiculous.

[Beta galactosidase]

I mean Totgeboren, he does specify "what you see on a table," which is not 20-model units.

 

The normal extension of his suggestion is to take two lists from the meta, and compare the troops complements that are actually taken to each other - so a blob of guard and some vet squads vs two units of tactical marines. Then you should also compare the performance of the tactical marines killing guard platoons to the performance of other parts of the marine list killing guard platoons.

 

This is in the context of the suggestion. I personally don't think about comparing units in any way.

[Claws and Effect]

It's a perfectly reasonable way to look at it.

 

Who actually uses 9 Infantry squads in a list? I perused the Astra Militarum Army List on this very forum and didn't see any lists with more than 7. Granted I didn't look at every last list, but I can't imagine many people load up on Troops choices instead of tanks and such.

 

It makes more sense, to me at least, to make comparisons based on what you're actually likely to encounter instead of what you could theoretically take for the same points.

 

To that end I would cap my comparison at 3 Tactical squads vs 6 Infantry squads, since that is the most realistic set up in an actual game.

[Gentlemanloser]

And the Custodians run roughshot over everyone.

 

You *have* to compare like for like points.  You cannot base comparisons on units (as the 300 point plus Elite units always win), and you can't even use Power Levels.  Otherwise all my GKT have Hammers, for free, and obliterate *everyone*.

 

Or, we're back to IG kiting infantry and winning by default.

 

Or, 73% of the time the GK win as they DS infront of you, shoot you, and then get a successful charge and wipe you off the board.

[Claws and Effect]

If you really want to take it to extremes, how many Infantry squads can my Fire Raptor take out?

 

It's not as ridiculous as it sounds either, because that's exactly what I use it for: taking out blobs of infantry.

 

That's actually why I see the comparisons as fairly useless. Because they make the unreasonable assumption that you have nothing else in your list that is designed to take out infantry.

 

How many Guard squads can a unit of Aggressors take out? Lots of people have them too.

 

Edit:

 

I see it as perfectly fair that your Grey Knight Troops will beat Tacticals 73% of the time. They are 62% more expensive before any upgrades.

 

If you want to compare based on points, reduce it to a simple question: Does the unit that costs more win the majority of the time?

 

If the answer is "yes" follow it up with another: Is the win percentage high enough to justify the additional cost?

[totgeboren]

I mean Totgeboren, he does specify "what you see on a table," which is not 20-model units.

 

The normal extension of his suggestion is to take two lists from the meta, and compare the troops complements that are actually taken to each other - so a blob of guard and some vet squads vs two units of tactical marines. Then you should also compare the performance of the tactical marines killing guard platoons to the performance of other parts of the marine list killing guard platoons.

 

This is in the context of the suggestion. I personally don't think about comparing units in any way.

 

Sure, comparing what you are likely to see on the table is reasonable, but that it the reason why this debate even exists. Time and again Tacticals are seen to just evaporate under lasgun fire. Or really, under most enemy attention. 

I also understand that some think their Tacticals do just fine. Since some think they are fine, and some do not, we have anecdotal evidence on both sides. This means mathhammer has a role, to show which experience is more statistically likely.

Lo and behold, a poor showing of tacticals is exactly what we should expect statistically, but a quite substantial margin.

 

Comparing 10 tacticals vs 30 guards is perhaps not all that realistic, since very few SM players will field 10-man Tactical units in the first place, and those Tacticals will be hiding as far away from the enemy as possible, simply being used to capture objectives. But sending 10 Tacticals to deal with 30 guards should be a reasonable tactic, given some advantage in the terrain or otherwise. But the maths indicate that even in favourable conditions, the Tacticals will lose after killing just one Guardsman squad. Which is also the experience of many players, hence why some want them improved somehow.

 

 

[Gentlemanloser]

If you want to go to extremes, Tactical squads suck, because my Knight stomps all over them.

 

And this *is* a ridiculous argument.

 

Yes, I'd exactly expect the unit that cost 60%, 100%, 500% more to 'win'.  In every situation.  Which is why any comparison which isn't like for like on points is utterly pointless.