I can't stop talking about Tacs n' Sternguard...

[Orkfaeller]

Could a reason why Plasmaguns got unpopular be that even with it Tactical Marines tend to loose against the units the Plasmagun should "conter"?

I mean, If I see my enemy goes for Tzeentch Space Marines, or PsyCannons I dont go for the Plasmagun because they'd lose even with it ( I guess ? )

But otherwhise those units arent big enough of a threat to justifiy the cost?

[Asmon]

The Plasmagun has not for sole purpose to counter ranged units...

[Sub_Zero]

I mean, If I see my enemy goes for Tzeentch Space Marines, or PsyCannons I dont go for the Plasmagun because they'd lose even with it ( I guess ? )

There is a little chance for space marines to win against tzeentch marines. But the victory is reached through bleed and depended on some factors. About psycannons, well I am not quite sure what dps they put out but they never seemed for me as a big threat. At least not as threatening as tzeentch marines are.

Plasma gun "shines" against tyranids. Because they rely heavily on heavy armored synaptic creatures. And the only "vehicle" they have is the hive tyrant whose armor is super heavy infantry. I am talking about their t2 army. But damn their t1 units are getting roasted by flamers so badly. I used to play with double flamer tactical marines. Works very good against standart unit composition (2x termas, warriors with the barbed strangler). But when I switch to plasma guns in t2 the result is not as satisfying as with flamers.

Just adjust the cost to IG plasma guns' cost. And it will be fine.

[Torpid]

Yeah, TCSM will beat tacs overall, however TCSM will lose models before tacs w/ plasma gun do. Furthermore plasma tacs aren't meant to counter TCSM, TCSM are meant to counter tacs.

[Sub_Zero]

When you simulate a fight between two ranged squads you have to put them in equal conditions. No covers and they should start to fire at the same time. One squad awaits and the other one moves forward from the fog of war. The squad who awaits has a little advantage. To get a fair result you have to vice versa these conditions. 1st test - squad "A" awaits and squad "B" moves forward. 2nd test - squad "A" moves forward and squad "B" awaits. I hope you understood. And in case tzeentch marines vs plasma tacs wins the squad that awaits. Of course kraken bolts should be activated in both tests. And if tactical marines use "And they shall know no fear" they will easily win.

[Nurland]

I am not sure that a model with the plasma gun doesn't switch targets (models). Supression teams sometimes can tank 2 shots from snipers without losing a model. That is the provement that a model with the sniper rifle changes targets

Yeah they switch targets sometimes and sometimes they don't switch targets. Same thing with every squad. Anyway, even if they don't make the kill themselves, they have made the targeted model significantly weaker for something else to finish it off.

Also low rate of fire weapons have the advantage that they have some nice damage loaded in them up front (like Snipers and MLs)

Anyway the consensus seems to be that high burst damage and lower attack speed are generally preferred over low burst damage and high attack speed. Ofc there are some exceptions but I really do not feel like Tact Plasma Gun is one of those.

I used to main SM in my earlier days and still play them quite often for luls. They are probably my 2nd strongest faction after Chaos.

[Arbit]

I often see tac models drop before TCSM models. If the tac models are a little scattered, oftentimes 2 tcsm models will fire on a single tac model, and that initial salvo can damn near drop a tac. You also have to sit there and watch your tac HP disappear in large chunks, which leaves you vulnerable to the whole squad dying suddenly (TCSM fire is pretty bursty - take a look at their weapon stats and you'll see they have a frequent reload time but still high dps, which translates into good burst damage). You also have to consider, even if your tacs do manage to drop a csm model without any tac losses, you have to retreat shortly after otherwise you risk losing multiple tac models, plus you're looking at substantial time spent recuperating HP at base. That has some consequences in terms of field presence, obviously.

I know the conventional wisdom is that they're closely matched with the edge to TCSM, but I hardly ever see that borne out in game.

I wouldn't mind a cost decrease for the pgun.

[Sub_Zero]

I believe kraken bolts boost the effectivness of the plasma gun. So it does 48 dps (20% more). Don't forget about buffed bolters. So if you managed to start shooting earlier you will end up with 2-3 models alive. But I agree that in the game we rarely see shootouts like this. Too scared to lose a model.

[Nurland]

EW TCSM model does 52,5 damage per burst to HI (Plasma Gun does 97,5 damage to HI per burst). So the first salvo from 2 TCSM models should take 1/3 of a Tact model hp.

Anyway as previously stated: Plasma Tacs are not meant to solo counter TCSM.

TCSM are more expensive and they are dedicated anti-infantry ranged squad while Tacs are more or less a jack of all trades kind of unit. In othe words: Plasma Tacs are a counter to HI but TCSM are a harder, dedicated counter to HI.

[Black Relic]

TCSM are meant to counter infantry. More so on HI or SHI. I dont even think MoT is really need until t3. CSM do fine already with Eternal War in t2. But one reason why I think like this is probably because I usually get 2 CSM when I play chaos.

As I said a long time ago on this thread Tactical Marines are fine as they are. Just the decrease in repurchase of a weapon upgrade would be a large buff in of its self.

Plasma guns are not bad in the least. They do decent damage to HI and SHI. Just like Missile Launcher to a vehicle, decent damage. IMO they are just there to HELP counter and put pressure on a unit. They aren't supposed to be a hard counter like lascannon to vehicles. If they were, the price would be alot higher than it already is.

SG, as was said before are a soft counter to everything. You pay 30 power and what? 100 req to be able to put pressure on anything you opponent throws at you. After purchasing SG what does it cost to get the counter? Pressing a hotkey or click the ammo type.

If you increase the vengeance rounds to this then Kraken would never be used. So if I had the change it i would be only by 2 or 3 instead of 8. Why? Each ammo type should have a draw back. Here is my thoughts on their ammo types.

Hell fire, is not much use on anything other than commanders and infantry. An very effective but situational ammo type. As everyone knows. Well balance ammo type. and true to the lore which is a bonus.

Dragon Fire, counter to cover\garrisons. Although this ammo type seems to be missing something (maybe a damage increase, or damages all occupants in a garrison rather than one), but being able to have a long range unit that ignores cover bonuses is an amazing perk. But with an awesome perk comes a down side. Not much use out side of that field.

Kraken, Even since the buff to this ammo type i felt against changing it since it cant do alot at a long range now. Does decent damage to HI and SHI. If left unchecked for a few seconds they can lower CSM hp by 1\5th. The CSM have to be in the open but never the less, it now makes SG more threat to HI and SHI. The down side of this ammo type should be obvious. Vehicles and infantry (in which SG already has a counter for).

Vengance, the ammo type puts out quite a bit of DPS make no mistake. The ammo type pressures everything, Infantry, HI,SHI and Vehicles. Just cover is an exception (but SG has a counter for this as well). An ammo type that puts pressure on everything should have some draw back. And this ammo type con is in the form of weapon range and reload time. Which makes sense. Even in TT SG has a shorter range, 18 inches when vengeance rounds are loaded in (AP 3 wooooooo, justs Get Hot! ). An effective ammo type should have its draw back. The only buff the vengeance rounds should get is a plus 2 or 3 to range. Negative on being full range, that would be too much of a buff.

What I posted above is what everyone already knows. Before considering a buff we need to assess what the squad already does. It's what I do before thinking about buffs or changes to the unit. And right now I think the SG is one of the most well rounded squads out there, since they can soft counter every armor type, ignore cover and has one of my favorite ability, They Shall Know No Fear!. Changing SG does not seem at all that necessary or needed atm imo.

[Dark Riku]

And in case tzeentch marines vs plasma tacs wins the squad that awaits. Of course kraken bolts should be activated in both tests.

Tzeench marines will always win this fight.

Changing SG does not seem at all that necessary or needed atm imo.

I agree. They can easily stay the same except they should not lose their exp.
Wouldn't mind some changes that were posted before either though.

[Magus Magi]

I love the discussion that gets generated on these forums. Very civil and well thought out.

Sticking with the plasma gun discussion for a minute:

A plasma gun is currently 60R 30P to upgrade.

Maybe cut the repurchase cost significantly? I'm not sure what would be a reasonable number, but it would reward buying a plasma gun the first time by giving you a cheap special weapon option that you could always feel comfortable switching to. You'd still have to pay the full cost for the flamer (to bash gens) or the missile launcher (because of that pesky vehicle that just showed up).

Going back to the Sternguard:

The statistical increase for letting SG keep their levels wouldn't be very high. That would be a nice way of countering the slightly nauseous feeling you get when selecting the SG upgrade for a Tac squad that is already level 2.

Also, I'm still pretty enthusiastic about the concept I pitched on page 23. Actually, Sub_Zero did a better job of summarizing it than I did in one of his earlier posts. At the risk of repeating myself:

Hellfire: The same but limited to commander armor.
Dragonfire: The same plus increased damage against light infantry (same as hellfire was but without DoT / same killing power in combat but less against retreating units)
Vengeance: Returned to normal range.
Kraken: Increased to the range they were before the rebalancing of damage (compensated for by loss of DoT killing power against light infantry).

Verdict: More Dragonfire round usage, easier counterplay for factions that suffer against SG hellfire rounds now, more unique role for Kraken rounds w/o supplanting Plas Tacs, and less clunky alternation between other rounds and vengeance rounds.

Or...

...it would also be awesome to go with what Riku said...his ideas are grounded in more experience than mine and I'd much rather see the changes he's suggesting than none at all.

[Sub_Zero]

Tzeench marines will always win this fight.

I will ruin your assurance. Watch from 9:30. Tzeentch marines lost. Tactical marines won with the last model remaining. And in my previous tests (retail) tactical marines survived with 3 models (very lucky). The replay also contains lots of tests. So it might be interesting to watch.

[Caeltos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENVB6tjq_M

Thing to take into consideration;

The overall strength of the CSM Inferno Bolter is that they're all pretty strong, however - the Plasma Gun is quite vastly superior, espicially while under Kraken Round effects. And this weapon will always be present due to weapon carrying over effects.

So, during model losses in an engagement, the Space Marines run the risk of losing the following;

12,66 (rough estimate during kraken round effects) of dps value

or

10,4788 dps from a sergeant

the dps drop-off from Space Marine is actually more then half the value of a dps drop-off from Inferno Bolter.

CSM Inferno Bolter (all upgrades) will ALWAYS lose this value of dps from a model loss;

27,225


4 Model Fight - 81,03956 (TACS) vs 108,9 (CSM)

Moar - 3 model fight CSM inflicts 81,675 dps VS 68,37038 OR 70,56236
MOAR - 2 model fight CSM inflicts 54,45 dps VS 57,89158 OR 55,7012

Of course, we need to consider Tacticals have more health as well. But staggering fights, and model losses are the most important factor, tacticals have generaly better overall sustained dps due to the weapon carrying over, whereas CSMs share the trait of continous high damage, instead of "1x super high dps weapon", which means they're more dependant on numbers.

I skipped the 1 model fight, since it's kind of obvious that Space Marines will surpass on almost twice the dps value there (roughly)

I actually did some more math stuff, and it's a big pile of a mess, but overall - it'll generally come down to model losses. But of course, we can't overlook on the cost effiency, where Space Marines wins pretty hands down easy.

670 requsition 70 power (CSM) vs 585 requisition , 55 power

But of course, there are more then just HI effiency and 1v1 nutshell scenarios. Besides, Space Marines cost more to reinforce. But if you can get squad kills from high dps bursts and etc - who really cares what stuff cost to reinforce?