So marinse. They're the army by which other armies are measured. When you build your army, you usually think about how easily you can kill marine equivalents. When discussing armies, one tends to compare an army's speed, offense, defense, special abilities, fluff, and so on to that of marines. I feel that, as a result, marines have become the "balanced" army. They're not really great at anything. They're not terrible at anything. They have special toys that let them be shooty or stabby, but they're generally less shooty or stabby than xenos factions that specialize at those things. They're durable, but they're not necron durable. They're not bad at shooting, but they're not bad at melee either.
Having a jack-of-all-trades army is a fine thing, and I'm glad it exists in 40k. That said... I don't think the marine aesthetic is really served by being "balanced generalists." In the books...
*keeps talking over the audible groans...*
...In the books, marines don't fight by being "balanced." They fight by being walking tanks with devastating, brutal weaponry. Two guys shake off volleys of incoming lasfire, then tear apart entire platoons in hand to hand To me, marines make less sense standing between the abilities of various xenos and more sense simply being better than everyone else.
Now let's be clear, I'm not primarily a marine player. I play with my various flavors of eldar way more than my marines. I'm collecting tyranids, and I have my eyes on daemons. Much as I like my marines, they were mostly gifts, not purchases. So when I say, "make marines better than everyone else," I'm not speaking from fanboyishness. In the 40k universe, marines are, essentially, Gary Stues. They're scary even to the eldar who are centuries (or millenia) more experienced and more technologically advanced. They're the guys who send a squad or two to rescue an entire planet from an ork invasion. does it make sense for them to kick as much butt as they do? Probably not, but kicking that much butt is their *thing*. They're defined by their plot armor and implausible level of badassery. As a player who faces marines more often than I use them, I'm fine with this. But marines don't feel that way on the battlefield.
Eldar are fast. Orks are numerous and silly. 'Crons are implacable and durable. IG have big guns but die in droves. 'Nids are monsters surrounded by endless swarms. But marines? They don't feel like walking tanks or legends who can take on impossible odds. They feel like guard vets in mildly better armor.
So, what I'm getting around to asking is this: What are your thoughts on someone homebrewing pseudo movie marines? Not quite so pricey, low in number, or potent as movie marines, but dramatically better than normal marines are right now. I'm imagining something like marines with multiple wounds, bolters with more shots and rending, FNP as a default rule all around, that sort of thing. Maybe let characters be especially powerful (making sergeants comparable to HQs) so that the guys the camera zooms in on are consistently imposing. You know. As opposed to being like my power fist sergeant who can't seem to down a single necron. The idea isn't to boost the overall power of marines as an army. It's to boost the power (and points cost) of each individual marine so that they actually feel like plot-armored nightmares who shrug off enemy fire with ease rather than just being slightly better shots in slightly better armor compared to IG vets.
AnomanderRake wrote: What makes your Movie Marines army list better/more valid than any of the ten thousand others you will find digging back through Proposed Rules?
The point of this thread is less to discuss specific tweaks and changes. I'm well aware that there are plenty solid efforts to that effect on these very forums. The reason I created this thread is to discuss if such an effort is even reasonable/necessary/sound like something that would be fun to play with. I can see many people arguing for marines who are more potent on an individual basis. I can also see many people handwaiving it as an effort to make marines better at winning games. That's why I'm not asking *how* you'd make marines more powerful. I'm asking if they *should* be more powerful. Y'know. On a model-by-model basis. Not as an army.
I don't think marine should be more «elite», maybe a little bit better by extanding their gear a little bit and some funky one use only special rules like prefered ennemy, furious charge, split fire or for tactical, devastator and assault squads (close combat weapon and pistols). I have two main argument for this.
The first one is based on perspective. In Space Marine piece of fictions, Space Marines are awesome. The same is true for all the other factions. In Gaunt Ghosts, guards are awesome and can even kick Space Marine butt. Thus Space Marines incredible feets is more a question of perception distorted by the massive numbers of shorts and novels featuring them. By all account, all the other xenos species have their own brand of awesome, plot armored elite. Space Marines are very powerful warriors who fight equally supernaturally strong foes and are, on an individual basis, stronger than all of them.
The other reason is game wise. If Space Marines get much stronger than everybody else while still remaining well balanced, their army, already the one with the largest unit selection, special character list, customisation and attention will became even more tentalising. This will transform all the other armies in either sandbags villains or support cast of cheerleaders and shmucks. Thats why I am very wary of those kinds of suggestion. Maybe you can dissipate my doubts, but I will need some good argument to be convinced.
They have the Marines you're thinking about, they just made them something like 6.5" tall and called them "Imperial Knights". But you could paint them like your favourite Marine's colours. They even have the giant pauldrons to paint Chapter markings on.
Sad that your chainsword doesn't eviscerate everything it touches? Knights don't have that problem! And a couple of Knights probably could chop through a platoon.
epronovost wrote: I don't think marine should be more «elite», maybe a little bit better by extanding their gear a little bit and some funky one use only special rules like prefered ennemy, furious charge, split fire or for tactical, devastator and assault squads (close combat weapon and pistols). I have two main argument for this.
The first one is based on perspective. In Space Marine piece of fictions, Space Marines are awesome. The same is true for all the other factions. In Gaunt Ghosts, guards are awesome and can even kick Space Marine butt. Thus Space Marines incredible feets is more a question of perception distorted by the massive numbers of shorts and novels featuring them. By all account, all the other xenos species have their own brand of awesome, plot armored elite. Space Marines are very powerful warriors who fight equally supernaturally strong foes and are, on an individual basis, stronger than all of them.
The other reason is game wise. If Space Marines get much stronger than everybody else while still remaining well balanced, their army, already the one with the largest unit selection, special character list, customisation and attention will became even more tentalising. This will transform all the other armies in either sandbags villains or support cast of cheerleaders and shmucks. Thats why I am very wary of those kinds of suggestion. Maybe you can dissipate my doubts, but I will need some good argument to be convinced.
Very good points here. That said, I'd like to play devil's advocate and pick at those points a bit.
Giving marines some small offensive buffs like limited use furious charge or an improved profile on the bolter or better gear options in general would certainly help give them more teeth. That said, an unlucky marine getting dropped by a single lasgun round still feels a bit... off. I don't want marines to be unkillable, but I *do* think they should feel tough as nails when you're playing with them. As I mentioned above, my eldar feel fast. On a good day, they even feel skilled with their weapons. I can't say that my marines generally feel tough and durable except maybe for that terminator with FNP who had some tremendous luck once. Once marines get within range of the enemy, they start dropping fast. Not as fast as, say, guardsmen, but pretty fast.
As for each faction having their own plot armored elites, that is an excellent point. However, marine, as the favored sons of GW, are at their core a bit more special than the other super cool guys out there. My beloved exarchs are multiple millenias old, completely obsessed with war, have inhuman reflexes and advanced alien technology, yet they don't feel like the types to come walking out of a burning building the way marines do. Coming out on top when they shouldn't is just part of who they are. I can read about Joe Schmoe the Tac marine going toe to toe with a dark eldar archon and coming out on top and be fine with it (points costs and logic be darned) because that's just a part of the marines' character. Which is completely "unfair," but rather than see it as atrocious Gary Stuery, I see it as a potentially fun type of army. Currently, marines don't really feel like that.
As for an increased power level being a problem, I really don't see this being an issue. Remember, the idea isn't to make marines better as an army or to make them better at winning games. It's just to make each individual model better so that the army as a whole feels more appropriate to its fluff. Making marines better means upping their points cost means fewer marines on the table means the army is (hopefully) still balanced against other armies out there. Think of, for instance, grey knights. Grey knights are harder to kill than normal marines, have better weapons than normal marines, have extra special powers over normal marines, etc. They also bring a lot fewer models to the table. A given grey knight might treat a few ork boys as "sandbags," but he should. Boyz/gaunts/guardsmen are meant to be the mooks that get killed in droves by more powerful enemies. And that's fine. They cost less, so you don't mind losing them as much. A unit of boyz can still beat a unit of grey knights. It's just that each individual grey knight comes closer to *feeling* more appropriately durable and powerful than the average marine does. Enemy heavy hitters would still hit heavily. It's just that the marines would (theoretically) feel a bit more appropriately powerful.
When marines come at me, I want to see a handful of small squads that refuse to go down and hit hard. I want to feel like each one of these mon-keigh abominations I'm fighting with is a truly impressive threat that gives even my aspect warriors trouble. Currently, their model count is somewhat comparable to mine, and a guardsman who gets lucky can drop a marine with a single punch.
A great idea in theory, but impossible unless you:
1. Rework the entire ruleset from ground up. You won't have enough granularity unless you move to a more complex system (D10? D20?). The current 40k game breaks extremely fast as you try to make it fluffy, as I found to my chagrin in a Proposed Rules thread from a time back. You'd need to redesign the whole game for it to be able to contain the variety.
2. Rework the hobby design. As it is currently, you can have two armies where one consists of more Tactical Space Marines than the opponent has Imperial Guardsmen and it's still a fair fight (because the latter has transports, upgrades...). The hobby is designed accordingly, with Guardsmen not really being that much easier and less time-consuming to build and paint (and cheaper) than Space Marines. The inevitable consequence is that when two players have invested equally into 40k, the Guard player won't have that many more models than the Marine player. If you reworked the game to become lore-correct, it would no longer be compatible with its own hobby (and let's be honest, the game is designed around the models and their sales, not the other way around, so there's definitely that reason for things being the way they are). The solution would be to rework the models too. Make Space Marine squads small and expensive and IG squads big and cheap. SM models could be truescaled (7'6"-8' ish to keep it average between depictions so that the fans of each interpretation can cry equally) and thus be like just a few guys per box, with plenty of options, while IG could get their ridiculous proportions toned down and be changed to cheaper 20-man squads.
This all assumes that we are just talking IG and SM. Compared to the former, Eldar are also a damn sight more powerful in the lore than they are in the game, so they would need adjusting too. Actually, pretty much all armies would. Some armies are better balanced against each other than others. Eldar and SM for example; their battlefield combat matches their lore combat well, once you account for what is obviously broken (hi wave serpents). IG, however, really throw a spanner in that - they are superpowered FPS-protagonist humans for some reason, and the only reason they don't kick more butt than they do in-game is because they are going up against figurative demigods of war.
Naturally, this all is a fethton of work and would require redesigning EVERYTHING in 40k, rules and models. That is why it won't happen. 40k does gradual changes. Marines now are different from Marines of second edition, but changes have all been comparatively subtle and gradual. A Tactical Squad of 2nd ed is not that far from their brothers in 7th.
I have often argued for more powerful Marines (and Eldar, and certain Tyranids, and certain Orks, and Necrons, and Daemons...). Say what you want about the consistency of the background, I can safely say that the perfect average (and/or median?) would put a Marine in PA as far more powerful than his current incarnation. But over time I have realised that 40k has become a game that can't contain its own lore. That is why I have mostly moved to RPGs these days, because they can.
TL;DR: It would be cool and I'd like it. But it's too much change, too much work, for GW, and for the people who are already in 40k. So perhaps the status quo is better after all - once you acknowledge that it's basically an 'arcade' game that has no relation or link to its own background whatsoever, it becomes easier to enjoy it. It has more in common with a TCG than an RTS.
Edit: Before IG fans come and bite my throat off, this is just my opinion that I've formed after years of observation - most of my life, in fact.
The problem is if you made space marines better and adjusted the points appropriatly they would actually become a worse army game play wise. Counter intuitive I know, but take a list of only captains and chapter masters, even give them access to heavy and special weapons lists. Then see how many games you win.
Even lists which are sternguard heavy aren't exactly optimal and that's only giving them a veteran stat line and special issue ammo. If you wanted them upgraded further than that the problem exacerbates.
Really, CSM's crappy rule that forces them to always challenge should come with the benefit of never fleeing from combat (as Sweeping Advance is the main reason people complain about CSM not having ATSKNF).
Necron Player answering "Should Necron Warriors be more elite?"
A: Hell yes! They should make Necron Warriors more elite by giving them access to a S9 AP1 Melta Pistol- Or - a S7 AP3 Rapid Fire weapon (maybe we could tone that madness down with the Gets Hot special rule) - Or - a Grav Weapon, - OR-, at the very least, give them a Flamer or a Combi-Weapon, for the love of things holy. And now for the stuff that won't pass muster at my flgs: for kicks, lets give 1 in 10 of them a laundry list of Heavy Weapons to pick from. 3+ armor save sounds pretty tough, make it happen! Then lets give them grenades, not one kind, but two kinds. But that's not enough: then we should give them And They Shall Know No Fear. That's a gak-ton of special rules! Let stop while we're ahead, looks pretty Elite to me![
Oops...not done yet.
Lets give 1 of them access to a Power Weapon or Power Fist, and at least a Plasma Pistol.
jasper76 wrote: Necron Player answering "How do I make my Necron Warriors more elite?"
They should make Necron Warriors more elite by giving them access to a S9 AP1 Melta Pistol- Or - a S7 AP3 Rapid Fire weapon (maybe we could tone that madness down with the Gets Hot Special rule) - Or - a Grav Weapon, - OR-, at the very least, give them a Flamer, for the love of things holy. And now for the stuff that won't pass muster at my flgs: for kicks, lets give 1 in 10 of them a laundry list of Heavy Weapons to pick from. 3+ armor save sounds pretty tough, make it happen! Then lets give them grenades, not one kind, but two kinds. But that's not enough: then we should give them And They Shall Know No Fear. That's a gak-ton of special rules! Let stop while we're ahead, looks pretty Elite to me!
Aside from the reply being unnecessarily snarky, I agree that Necrons would need some degree of power (and price...) increase if Marines get one.
A Necron Warrior should still not be a match for a Tactical Marine 1v1, but once you get into Immortal+ territory, it gets less easy.
jasper76 wrote: Necron Player answering "How do I make my Necron Warriors more elite?"
They should make Necron Warriors more elite by giving them access to a S9 AP1 Melta Pistol- Or - a S7 AP3 Rapid Fire weapon (maybe we could tone that madness down with the Gets Hot Special rule) - Or - a Grav Weapon, - OR-, at the very least, give them a Flamer, for the love of things holy. And now for the stuff that won't pass muster at my flgs: for kicks, lets give 1 in 10 of them a laundry list of Heavy Weapons to pick from. 3+ armor save sounds pretty tough, make it happen! Then lets give them grenades, not one kind, but two kinds. But that's not enough: then we should give them And They Shall Know No Fear. That's a gak-ton of special rules! Let stop while we're ahead, looks pretty Elite to me!
Aside from the reply being unnecessarily snarky, I agree that Necrons would need some degree of power (and price...) increase if Marines get one.
A Necron Warrior should still not be a match for a Tactical Marine 1v1, but once you get into Immortal+ territory, it gets less easy.
Snark apologized for. I get a little put off by SM players saying their basic 13 ppm troops aren't elite enough, when they already have a gazillion special rules.
Also necrons have ld10, a 4+/5+ extra special save, which in most cases will be in a list with access to reroll 1's, guns which cause auto glances and wounds on 6's so don't need to pay extra for special weapons, access to 2 of the best transports in the game. Oh and have accessbto relentless from an almost always taken formation.
Necron warriors with 4+ rp and a reroll of 1's are only slightly less durable overall than terminators.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also marines are 14ppm. Melta is st8 and plasma is ap2.
Edit - found the maths I did in another thread:
Against ap5 st7 or lower warriors only have a 20.8% chance of failing a save which is far closer to a termis 16.7% chance of failing than a powerarmoured 33.3% chance of failing.
Against ap3 and 4 they have a 41.4% chance of failing (this is their weak spot).
Against ap2 st7 or lower they have a better chance than termis (41.4% against 66.7% chance of failing)
Against ap2 st8 or higher they again have a better chance than termis (55.5% against 66.7%).
They are slightly less durable than termis overall I'd say due to the ap3-4 gap, but cost less than a 1/3 of the price.
Termis have arguably worse firepower due to gauss but much better close combat ability and usrs such as ATSKNF and deepstrike. Warriors have access to Nightscythes and Ghost Arks.
jasper76 wrote: Necron Player answering "How do I make my Necron Warriors more elite?"
They should make Necron Warriors more elite by giving them access to a S9 AP1 Melta Pistol- Or - a S7 AP3 Rapid Fire weapon (maybe we could tone that madness down with the Gets Hot Special rule) - Or - a Grav Weapon, - OR-, at the very least, give them a Flamer, for the love of things holy. And now for the stuff that won't pass muster at my flgs: for kicks, lets give 1 in 10 of them a laundry list of Heavy Weapons to pick from. 3+ armor save sounds pretty tough, make it happen! Then lets give them grenades, not one kind, but two kinds. But that's not enough: then we should give them And They Shall Know No Fear. That's a gak-ton of special rules! Let stop while we're ahead, looks pretty Elite to me!
Aside from the reply being unnecessarily snarky, I agree that Necrons would need some degree of power (and price...) increase if Marines get one.
A Necron Warrior should still not be a match for a Tactical Marine 1v1, but once you get into Immortal+ territory, it gets less easy.
Snark apologized for. I get a little put off by SM players saying their basic 13 ppm troops aren't elite enough, when they already have a gazillion special rules.
That's just people wanting the models they use a lot to be better, even if you play for fun, it's still fun to win ya know? But it is annoying. I think Marines are fine where they are, the bolter is a great weapon, but the options is why they're worth it. It's not like the Necrons, where you have warriors who all have to use the same Gauss weapons. At the same time, complaining that the marines can take a heavy weapon, and a plasma pistol, and a power sword, and a plasma gun isn't really the best thing to take issue with. I can give a guardsmen unit the same thing.
jasper76 wrote: Necron Player answering "Should Necron Warriors be more elite?"
A: Hell yes! They should make Necron Warriors more elite by giving them access to a S9 AP1 Melta Pistol- Or - a S7 AP3 Rapid Fire weapon (maybe we could tone that madness down with the Gets Hot special rule) - Or - a Grav Weapon, - OR-, at the very least, give them a Flamer or a Combi-Weapon, for the love of things holy. And now for the stuff that won't pass muster at my flgs: for kicks, lets give 1 in 10 of them a laundry list of Heavy Weapons to pick from. 3+ armor save sounds pretty tough, make it happen! Then lets give them grenades, not one kind, but two kinds. But that's not enough: then we should give them And They Shall Know No Fear. That's a gak-ton of special rules! Let stop while we're ahead, looks pretty Elite to me![
Oops...not done yet.
Lets give 1 of them access to a Power Weapon or Power Fist, and at least a Plasma Pistol.
There...now we are done./quote]
The one in ten heavy weapon tends to clash, it's why grey hunters tend to be better.
Adding extra combi weapons is rather expensive, plasma pistols are so horrifically overpriced that one thinks they were still thinking of second edition, 3+ save is worth jack half the time.
Also it's funny how you think think all that is "Special Rules" when it's just wargear options.
jasper76 wrote: Necron Player answering "How do I make my Necron Warriors more elite?"
They should make Necron Warriors more elite by giving them access to a S9 AP1 Melta Pistol- Or - a S7 AP3 Rapid Fire weapon (maybe we could tone that madness down with the Gets Hot Special rule) - Or - a Grav Weapon, - OR-, at the very least, give them a Flamer, for the love of things holy. And now for the stuff that won't pass muster at my flgs: for kicks, lets give 1 in 10 of them a laundry list of Heavy Weapons to pick from. 3+ armor save sounds pretty tough, make it happen! Then lets give them grenades, not one kind, but two kinds. But that's not enough: then we should give them And They Shall Know No Fear. That's a gak-ton of special rules! Let stop while we're ahead, looks pretty Elite to me!
Aside from the reply being unnecessarily snarky, I agree that Necrons would need some degree of power (and price...) increase if Marines get one.
A Necron Warrior should still not be a match for a Tactical Marine 1v1, but once you get into Immortal+ territory, it gets less easy.
Snark apologized for. I get a little put off by SM players saying their basic 13 ppm troops aren't elite enough, when they already have a gazillion special rules.
That's just people wanting the models they use a lot to be better, even if you play for fun, it's still fun to win ya know? But it is annoying. I think Marines are fine where they are, the bolter is a great weapon, but the options is why they're worth it. It's not like the Necrons, where you have warriors who all have to use the same Gauss weapons. At the same time, complaining that the marines can take a heavy weapon, and a plasma pistol, and a power sword, and a plasma gun isn't really the best thing to take issue with. I can give a guardsmen unit the same thing.
I'm not complaining. I actually think a Necron Warrior vs. a Space Marine with the current rules is a nice balance. Necrons shoot Bolters that can hurt anything on a 6, and are tough as gak with RP, but have 0 options, no Searge or Champ or whatever, and a midling 4+ armor save. Marines can stock up with whatever special weapon/heavy weapon combinitation they like, come with grenades, add a Champion with power weapons and another special weapon, are also very very tough with a 3+ armor save, have something better than Fearless, have Chapter Tactics...
..actually, I'm back to my original point. Space Marines are better at 13 ppm than Necron Warriors.
Again -14ppm. Also they are FAR more durable than tactical marines. See above post. They also don't have to pay for extra specials due to gauss.
I'm a necron player as well as a BA player so I'm not being biased.
I'm not complaining. I actually think a Necron Warrior vs. a Space Marine with the current rules is a nice balance. Necrons shoot Bolters that can hurt anything on a 6, and are tough as gak with RP, but have 0 options, no Searge or Champ or whatever, and a midling 4+ armor save. Marines can stock up with whatever special weapon/heavy weapon combinitation they like, add a Champion with power weapons and another special weapon, are also very very tough with a 3+ armor save, have something better than Fearless...
..actually, I'm back to my original point. Space Marines are better at 13 ppm than Necron Warrios..
No they aren't, they can't survive nearly as much as a warrior. And, they don't need any sergeant equivalents, I've had groups of warriors survive crazy amounts of dakka, because statistically, a 4+/4+ is about as good as a 2+ anyways. And, they don't need ASKNF. I've fought them in melee several times, and I haven't had them run as much as my marines, because my marines can't take nearly as much punishment. Your problem seems to be with the lack of options, and that's a decent thing to bring up, because it sucks. But I think warriors are better then Space Marines. When your basic guns can shoot down a Great Unclean One, or a Land Raider, they don't need access to plasma, or melta, or heavy bolters, or sergeants.
Compared to tac marines:
St7 or lower ap5 or worse. Necron - 20.8% chance of fail. SM -33.3%.
St7 or lower ap4. Necron - 41.4%. SM - 33.3%.
St7 or lower ap1-3. Necron - 41.4%. SM - 100%.
St8 or higher ap1-3. Necron - 55.5%. SM - 100%.
St8 or higher ap4. Necron - 55.5%. SM - 33.3%.
St8 or higher ap5 or worse. Necron 30.6%. SM - 33.3%.
The only time a Meq has less of a chance of failing a save is at ap4. Even then it's a 8.1% difference one time and a 22.2% difference the other. When its the other way around and the SM has a worse chance of surviving, its upto a 58.6% difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry - just wanted to do the maths and post the results lol.
Poly Ranger wrote: Compared to tac marines:
St7 or lower ap5 or worse. Necron - 20.8% chance of fail. SM -33.3%.
St7 or lower ap4. Necron - 41.4%. SM - 33.3%.
St7 or lower ap1-3. Necron - 41.4%. SM - 100%.
St8 or higher ap1-3. Necron - 55.5%. SM - 100%.
St8 or higher ap4. Necron - 55.5%. SM - 33.3%.
St8 or higher ap5 or worse. Necron 30.6%. SM - 33.3%.
The only time a Meq has less of a chance of failing a save is at ap4. Even then it's a 8.1% difference one time and a 22.2% difference the other. When its the other way around and the SM has a worse chance of surviving, its upto a 58.6% difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry - just wanted to do the maths and post the results lol.
Fair enough, tends to be more useful.
As it is though, I really do hope an actual 7th edition codex comes for CSM eventually...And that daemonkin are updated as well, I would not wish 6th edition defilers upon any one.
Poly Ranger wrote: Compared to tac marines:
St7 or lower ap5 or worse. Necron - 20.8% chance of fail. SM -33.3%.
St7 or lower ap4. Necron - 41.4%. SM - 33.3%.
St7 or lower ap1-3. Necron - 41.4%. SM - 100%.
St8 or higher ap1-3. Necron - 55.5%. SM - 100%.
St8 or higher ap4. Necron - 55.5%. SM - 33.3%.
St8 or higher ap5 or worse. Necron 30.6%. SM - 33.3%.
The only time a Meq has less of a chance of failing a save is at ap4. Even then it's a 8.1% difference one time and a 22.2% difference the other. When its the other way around and the SM has a worse chance of surviving, its upto a 58.6% difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry - just wanted to do the maths and post the results lol.
Fair enough, tends to be more useful.
As it is though, I really do hope an actual 7th edition codex comes for CSM eventually...And that daemonkin are updated as well, I would not wish 6th edition defilers upon any one.
I wouldn't wait...I think their strategy to "fix" CSM (and sell more Daemon models) looks like it will be through the various Daemonkin codices.
Poly Ranger wrote: Compared to tac marines:
St7 or lower ap5 or worse. Necron - 20.8% chance of fail. SM -33.3%.
St7 or lower ap4. Necron - 41.4%. SM - 33.3%.
St7 or lower ap1-3. Necron - 41.4%. SM - 100%.
St8 or higher ap1-3. Necron - 55.5%. SM - 100%.
St8 or higher ap4. Necron - 55.5%. SM - 33.3%.
St8 or higher ap5 or worse. Necron 30.6%. SM - 33.3%.
The only time a Meq has less of a chance of failing a save is at ap4. Even then it's a 8.1% difference one time and a 22.2% difference the other. When its the other way around and the SM has a worse chance of surviving, its upto a 58.6% difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry - just wanted to do the maths and post the results lol.
Fair enough, tends to be more useful.
As it is though, I really do hope an actual 7th edition codex comes for CSM eventually...And that daemonkin are updated as well, I would not wish 6th edition defilers upon any one.
I wouldn't wait...I think their strategy to "fix" CSM (and sell more Daemon models) looks like it will be through the various Daemonkin codices.
I've been waiting since the tragedy that was the deconstruction of the 3.5 codex into the awful thorpe dex, and then the awful kellydex, at least the Daemonkin are interesting and fluffy.
If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
Jayden63 wrote: If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
Yeah I don't buy that one for a minute , Eldar for example have a hero that dragged an entire craftworld out of the Warp on his own, and defeated an entire Tyranid Swarm on his own.
Most Faction has things like this for the most part, an Ork Warbiker rammed through a Titan On Fire, survived, killed the crew, and took their forever flaming heads with him as trophies.
I think the most nuanced are those of the Tyranids (Who can be beaten slightly), and Tau (And even then Farsight defies that)
Jayden63 wrote: If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
Yeah I don't buy that one for a minute , Eldar for example have a hero that dragged an entire craftworld out of the Warp on his own, and defeated an entire Tyranid Swarm on his own.
Most Faction has things like this for the most part, an Ork Warbiker rammed through a Titan On Fire, survived, killed the crew, and took their forever flaming heads with him as trophies.
I think the most nuanced are those of the Tyranids (Who can be beaten slightly), and Tau (And even then Farsight defies that)
The Tyranid book has them losing basically every meanigful battle (of course with a good show). It's funny, even all the art in the book where they are against another army shows the other army winning.
Is this We can probably find a better phrase here, yes ? reds8n really comparing Warriors with Tactical Marines and thinking he comes off worse? Let me guess, the new Necron codex was a total nerf too, right?
Power fists and plasma pistols are so OP? Go ahead and try taking them and see what happens.
Jayden63 wrote: If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
Agree 100% it gets really tiring to hear how awesome marines are in the background and how that horrible writing should translate to easy wins on the table. Seriously just read something like Brotherhood of the Snake to see how absurd marines can get. Assuming we use this type of fluff to make marines more powerful how fun would playing a game where one player brought 5-10 models that utterly crushed 10 times their numbers be for the non-marine player?
Jayden63 wrote: If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
Agree 100% it gets really tiring to hear how awesome marines are in the background and how that horrible writing should translate to easy wins on the table. Seriously just read something like Brotherhood of the Snake to see how absurd marines can get. Assuming we use this type of fluff to make marines more powerful how fun would playing a game where one player brought 5-10 models that utterly crushed 10 times their numbers be for the non-marine player?
I do not know. The problem of more elite marines to me is that the fluff is way too inconsistent, but since most novels are written from a space marine perspective that point of view is often taken to describe how things should be. If I look at, say, the necron codex. Warriors should now probably have ap3 or even ap2 for gauss to live up to how it is described, tearing holes in any armour. And 4+ reanimation? Necrons just keep getting up. Perhaps it should be 2+, and instead of units dying, when squads are wiped they should perhaps end up in reserves again demonstrating how they are transfered into new bodies and teleported back.
The point is, this would be awful to incorporate into the table top. One could even make a case for there being as much necrons as humans in the galaxy (even though all have not awakened), so perhaps it would make sense from a fluff perspective to keep the units cheap. The fluff is inconsistent, and sometimes too exaggerated for my tastes wandering into the realm of juvenile power fantasies, the novels especially. The novels are inconsistent, the codexes are inconsistent, the novels and codexes are inconsistent with eachother. Until the lore makes sense, I do not think Marines should all be turned into elite units even from a fluff perspective and less so from a gameplay point of view.
Jayden63 wrote: If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
This.
40k's Marine fluff has gotten continually more ridiculous and outrageous over time, to a point where there's no way to reflect them on a table short of giving them the statline of a Dreadknight (only slightly exaggerating in some cases...)
Really, whatever problems some Marine units may have, there's really not a problem with their relative power next for what they're really supposed to be as long as you're not assuming a single Tac squad to engage 12,000 points of Dark Eldar and emerge victorious.
Ashiraya wrote: Edit: Before IG fans come and bite my throat off, this is just my opinion that I've formed after years of observation - most of my life, in fact.
Hey, what about Sisters fans ? We bite your throat too !
Ashiraya wrote: Edit: Before IG fans come and bite my throat off, this is just my opinion that I've formed after years of observation - most of my life, in fact.
Hey, what about Sisters fans ? We bite your throat too !
Vaktathi wrote: 40k's Marine fluff has gotten continually more ridiculous and outrageous over time
I find just as outrageous things in other novels such as Ciaphas Cain - the Berzerker duel was just outright jarring to read.
In truth, handwaving the topic with 'it's all ridiculous' is just ignoring the problem. SM fluff has outliers. As does the fluff of all races. But that does not really make it difficult to see an average, or perhaps a median, forming anyway. One in an area that looks at least somewhat possible physically.
Space Marine's cooperative multiplayer portrays that average somewhat well, I feel, and I can assure you that said average does not constitute a lot of 3+ to hit...
Spoiler:
No, I never tire of linking this video. As an example, it is very good. It portrays the Astartes' passive resilience as active instead for game mechanic purposes (to make it more exciting) but that is not hard to account for.
Jayden63 wrote: If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
Agree 100% it gets really tiring to hear how awesome marines are in the background and how that horrible writing should translate to easy wins on the table. Seriously just read something like Brotherhood of the Snake to see how absurd marines can get. Assuming we use this type of fluff to make marines more powerful how fun would playing a game where one player brought 5-10 models that utterly crushed 10 times their numbers be for the non-marine player?
I think you're missing the part where I mentioned that the idea wasn't to make "easy wins" for the marines. Unless you just mean in general rather than here specifically. The idea is to change the way they "feel" as you play them on the tabletop. As someone pointed out, making them more effective on a guy-by-guy basis but more pricy stands a good chance of actually being less effective. Obviously, you don't want to make it a no-win scenario for the marines, but I'd be fine with them taking a minor dip in overall effectiveness if each individual marine felt satisfyingly badass.
I personally don't see a well done elite marine army featuring as few as 10 bodies in a "normal" sized 40k game, though movie marines were fun. That said, what's wrong with a smaller number of models beating up on a larger number of models? Ten to one might be a bit extreme (except perhaps in the case of swarmy armies), but actually killing each of those marines would theoretically feel much more rewarding for the non-marine player (such as my various eldar). And what's the cut off there? Is a given model not allowed to kill 10 guys? How about 5? Is he allowed to kill more than one enemy? I'm being a bit ridiculous now.
As for over the top shenanigans being "silly" and looking at marine performance realistically, why? In a game about cartoonish space orks and superhumans fighting with chainsaw swords, I will always support humor and rule-of-cool over realism.
What if these "hyper-elite" rules were presented as a variant to standard space marine rules? Something like Codex: Plot Armored Astartes? Have it be something like Move Marines, but with a bit more emphasis on badassery rather than humor. And probably tone down the rules a bit compared to Movie Marines.
When I face marines and wipe out a squad with small arms fire or a squad of incubi or what have you, I never really go, "Oh man! I just took out a space marine! Truly my space elves are powerful!" Instead, I generally go, "Huh. That was surprisingly easy. Why are these astartes such a big deal?" Similarly, when playing with my marines (which is usually as part of a Zone Mortalis game these days), I find myself picking up most of my models as ablative wounds rather than legends of the galaxy. Obviously it would be nice to feel that my army of space marines are the badasses they're made out as, but it would also be nice to feel like I was taking down a truly intimidating threat on a man-by-man basis when fighting against them.
I don't want plot-armoured Astartes. Brothers of the Snake, where a tactical squad tears down thousands of DEldar (who themselves are supposed to be extremely good soldiers, hilariously outclassing IG) doesn't at all result in something good IMO.
Something more sensible like Death of Antagonis makes for a better basis.
Ashiraya wrote: I don't want plot-armoured Astartes. Brothers of the Snake, where a tactical squad tears down thousands of DEldar (who themselves are supposed to be extremely good soldiers, hilariously outclassing IG) doesn't at all result in something good IMO.
Something more sensible like Death of Antagonis makes for a better basis.
I'm only partway through Antagonis right now, so there hasn't been a lot of marine vs non-marine action yet. Zombies not counting because of their strange behavior. That said, I get the impression that the Black dragons as presented in Antagonis are about where I want marines to be. Not unkillable, but not prone to dying to the first volley of lasfire either. You mentioned the Space Marine game earlier, and that's roughly where I want marines to be. They can die after a few good hits, but they never die to the first lucky ork projectile to find them. Though four marines taking on several hundred orks is a bit much. ^_^
Ashiraya wrote: I don't want plot-armoured Astartes. Brothers of the Snake, where a tactical squad tears down thousands of DEldar (who themselves are supposed to be extremely good soldiers, hilariously outclassing IG) doesn't at all result in something good IMO.
Something more sensible like Death of Antagonis makes for a better basis.
I'm only partway through Antagonis right now, so there hasn't been a lot of marine vs non-marine action yet. Zombies not counting because of their strange behavior. That said, I get the impression that the Black dragons as presented in Antagonis are about where I want marines to be. Not unkillable, but not prone to dying to the first volley of lasfire either. You mentioned the Space Marine game earlier, and that's roughly where I want marines to be. They can die after a few good hits, but they never die to the first lucky ork projectile to find them. Though four marines taking on several hundred orks is a bit much. ^_^
Mind you, they never take on more than a dozen or two Orks at once, so it's understandable that the Orks get wrecked.
As for Death of Antagonis, here is the passage I refer to. Mind you, spoilers.
Spoiler:
There was a flash over his head, and a lascannon shot punched into a Bane Wolf’s gas reservoir. The tank exploded, spreading its angry death for dozens of metres around it. This time, it was the men of the Mortisian Guard whose screams were awful and short, and whose skin was puddling in the road. Bisset’s jaw dropped and he threw himself flat. The Leman Russ’s turret rotated in his direction, and the heavy bolter sponson chugged rounds. The turret hadn’t moved half its arc before a second lascannon beam blasted it from the chassis.
Armoured beings stormed past him. They were terrible, golden angels, and they fell upon the Guard with bolter and chainsword. They savaged the units that had escaped the release of the gas and tore the tanks apart. They were monsters who bore the garb of beauty. They were giants in the service of war turned into art. There were only five of them. There were a hundred times as many Guardsmen, and that was far too few. The battle was even more one-sided than the attack on the rebels had been. Within seconds, hulls had been ripped open, treads yanked from wheels and used as whips, and men scythed into shrieking meat. The Chaos Space Marines stood proudly in the carnage, gods well pleased by their allotment of blood. The surviving rebels emerged from their hiding places. They began to cheer, and the cry was taken up by more and more people pouring into the streets.
That is what CSM are about, and SM are entirely on par.
Funny you find something like Cain killing a zerker on his own a terrible thing, but you keep quoting that utterly stupid scene over and over, thread wiping? Really the hell you gotta smoke to come up with that gak
Jayden63 wrote: If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
Agree 100% it gets really tiring to hear how awesome marines are in the background and how that horrible writing should translate to easy wins on the table. Seriously just read something like Brotherhood of the Snake to see how absurd marines can get. Assuming we use this type of fluff to make marines more powerful how fun would playing a game where one player brought 5-10 models that utterly crushed 10 times their numbers be for the non-marine player?
I think you're missing the part where I mentioned that the idea wasn't to make "easy wins" for the marines. Unless you just mean in general rather than here specifically. The idea is to change the way they "feel" as you play them on the tabletop. As someone pointed out, making them more effective on a guy-by-guy basis but more pricy stands a good chance of actually being less effective. Obviously, you don't want to make it a no-win scenario for the marines, but I'd be fine with them taking a minor dip in overall effectiveness if each individual marine felt satisfyingly badass.
I personally don't see a well done elite marine army featuring as few as 10 bodies in a "normal" sized 40k game, though movie marines were fun. That said, what's wrong with a smaller number of models beating up on a larger number of models? Ten to one might be a bit extreme (except perhaps in the case of swarmy armies), but actually killing each of those marines would theoretically feel much more rewarding for the non-marine player (such as my various eldar). And what's the cut off there? Is a given model not allowed to kill 10 guys? How about 5? Is he allowed to kill more than one enemy? I'm being a bit ridiculous now.
As for over the top shenanigans being "silly" and looking at marine performance realistically, why? In a game about cartoonish space orks and superhumans fighting with chainsaw swords, I will always support humor and rule-of-cool over realism.
What if these "hyper-elite" rules were presented as a variant to standard space marine rules? Something like Codex: Plot Armored Astartes? Have it be something like Move Marines, but with a bit more emphasis on badassery rather than humor. And probably tone down the rules a bit compared to Movie Marines.
When I face marines and wipe out a squad with small arms fire or a squad of incubi or what have you, I never really go, "Oh man! I just took out a space marine! Truly my space elves are powerful!" Instead, I generally go, "Huh. That was surprisingly easy. Why are these astartes such a big deal?" Similarly, when playing with my marines (which is usually as part of a Zone Mortalis game these days), I find myself picking up most of my models as ablative wounds rather than legends of the galaxy. Obviously it would be nice to feel that my army of space marines are the badasses they're made out as, but it would also be nice to feel like I was taking down a truly intimidating threat on a man-by-man basis when fighting against them.
The thing is that while Warhammer 40k is full of crazy stuff, it like any other fictional setting needs to maintain a state of disbelief in order for the audience to enjoy it. There a difference between badass super soldiers who in the right situation are worth 10 regular men each and having marines do things that would put superman to shame. Yes they are the best mankind has to offer, however in this setting mankind is supposed to be at a serious disadvantage when facing the many threats that threaten mankind. (Compare a guardsmen to a Necron warrior, the warrior is essentially eternal, has a weapon capable of killing anything, a frame that not is only incredibly resistant but can also rapidly repair itself from weapons that would leave a tank destroyed.) I feel forge world typically does the best job in portraying marines in a badass manner without going into fan boy territory. (Fall of Orpheus versus Brotherhood of the Snake) After all this is a setting were multiple player factions are involved and only having one factions getting to be super awesome at everyone’s else expense is not cool.
Gameplay wise I feel marines are fine durability wise they typically need multiple small arms shots or heavy weapons to be killed (compare how they fare from being hit by a flamer compared to dark Eldar trueborn). It just the game itself has become incredibly hostile to all infantry. Back in 4th the worst you ever had to worry about was battle cannons and Carnifexes, now we have monstrous creatures with plasma battle cannons blowing away squads from across the table or giant super heavies with strength D close combat weapons stomping across the board along with a general increase in available in squad wiping firepower.
Dawn of War had 10 man tactical squads - the marines died relatively easily, just as on tabletop.
Dawn of War 2 has 3 man tactical squads - they're tougher individually but are fewer in number. It felt more 'right' even if the game in general wasn't anywhere near as fun as the first DoW.
If marines were tougher, but fewer in number I would think tabletop would feel closer to the fluff. Is this realistic to do? Well, that's another question entirely
Bobthehero wrote: Funny you find something like Cain killing a zerker on his own a terrible thing, but you keep quoting that utterly stupid scene over and over, thread wiping? Really the hell you gotta smoke to come up with that gak
There is nothing stupid with that at all. Space Marines have repeatedly and extremely consistently been proving themselves as strong enough to tear through metal with ease.
A ripped-off chunk of tank treads is not a practical weapon, but then that was sorta the point of them doing it.
And yes, Cain killing a Zerker on his own is a terrible thing. He would die to the first attack. He is far far slower so dodging is not an option, and he lacks the physical strength necessary to parry a blow from the Berzerker.
In the same vein, Guardsmen can't parry Carnifex attacks, because they lack the physical strength to do so. CSM are not as strong as Carnifex, but they are still strong enough to effectively prevent parrying by mortal men.
Cain is a plot-armoured mess and the setting would have been far better off if the original Cain story had been canned.
Vaktathi wrote: 40k's Marine fluff has gotten continually more ridiculous and outrageous over time
I find just as outrageous things in other novels such as Ciaphas Cain - the Berzerker duel was just outright jarring to read.
I haven't read that book (I think, it's been like 8 years since I've read one of those books), but, just going off "Imperial Commissar kills Berzerker", that's the type of "heroic" achievement one can expect, where it's rare and extremely impressive, without being so absurd as to be unbelievable.
For a hero character worthy of writing amongst the untold billions of the 40k universe, that's not all that unreasonable going off just the feat in and of itself (can't comment to the specifics of the actual fight). Not something you'd expect, but not completely outside the realm of possibility either. Having a Commissar slay a Berzerker in a 40k game is not outside the realm of realm of possibility, even though he'd be at a major disadvantage. That's not particularly hugely egregious, that's certainly possible in a game.
Certainly nothing like Brothers of the Snake where a single "run of the mill" tactical squad slays literally thousands of Dark Eldar with nary a scratch.
In truth, handwaving the topic with 'it's all ridiculous' is just ignoring the problem. SM fluff has outliers. As does the fluff of all races. But that does not really make it difficult to see an average, or perhaps a median, forming anyway. One in an area that looks at least somewhat possible physically.
The problem is that SM fluff has bloated rapidly in ways the other factions have not, and this has coincided with a general fall in fluff quality & quantity for the past in recent years from mainline codex books as well (compare Waaargh! Da Orks to 7E Codex: Orks and you'll see exactly what I mean).
Space Marine's cooperative multiplayer portrays that average somewhat well, I feel, and I can assure you that said average does not constitute a lot of 3+ to hit...
It's a hack-n-slash no different from dozens of others except the skins of the characters. I would hesitate to use anything from that game (fun though it was) as being hugely accurate.
Particularly when most enemies literally do zero damage, manage to miss wildly with automatic fire from standing positions from a few feet away, and in many instances are staring at rocks half the time doing nothing or just track the player character for long periods of time without shooting...or when other SM's show up and the player character cleaves through them too. That Chainsword was certainly far more effective against the Space Marines than their Power Axes were against the Player Character.
It's a muppet mower challenge, as exists in dozens of other game like Unreal, Mass Effect 3, etc, nothing more.
I'm gonna be honest, I can't ever take these complaints seriously. Marines not being good enough, I can sort of agree with, but that's caused by the increasingly devestating weaponry that's become available to many factions.
Marines not living up to their gakky fluff? Just because the majority of 40K novels are badly written and happen to be bolter porn doesn't mean marines should become unstoppable juggernauts.
If someone really wants to do movie marines, they could just field an unbound army of all chapter masters/captains. This is exactly the sort of stuff 7th exists for!
Vaktathi wrote: I haven't read that book (I think, it's been like 8 years since I've read one of those books), but, just going off "Imperial Commissar kills Berzerker", that's the type of "heroic" achievement one can expect, where it's rare and extremely impressive, without being so absurd as to be unbelievable.
For a hero character worthy of writing amongst the untold billions of the 40k universe, that's not all that unreasonable going off just the feat in and of itself (can't comment to the specifics of the actual fight). Not something you'd expect, but not completely outside the realm of possibility either. Having a Commissar slay a Berzerker in a 40k game is not outside the realm of realm of possibility, even though he'd be at a major disadvantage. That's not particularly hugely egregious, that's certainly possible in a game.
Certainly nothing like Brothers of the Snake where a single "run of the mill" tactical squad slays literally thousands of Dark Eldar with nary a scratch.
You have to remember that there is literally one million Space Marines in the entire gargantuan Imperium. Less than one guy per world. And with continent-spanning cities abound, there's a lot of people in the Imperium. Each and every Space Marine is basically a special character in his own right. They are just that rare. There's likely hundreds of thousands of IG Majors for each Astartes. You must apply the 'special character' thing to Astartes too.
Vaktathi wrote: The problem is that SM fluff has bloated rapidly in ways the other factions have not, and this has coincided with a general fall in fluff quality & quantity for the past in recent years from mainline codex books as well (compare Waaargh! Da Orks to 7E Codex: Orks and you'll see exactly what I mean).
Some novels are poorly written, but it does not make them less canon. We can safely ignore Custodes parrying at FTL speeds and Space Marines running fast enough to tear up the metal floor they are running on, but more sensible things can actually still be canon even if they would be found poorly written in a sense of story quality.
Vaktathi wrote: It's a hack-n-slash no different from dozens of others except the skins of the characters. I would hesitate to use anything from that game (fun though it was) as being hugely accurate.
Not its mechanics, but its balance.
Vaktathi wrote: Particularly when most enemies literally do zero damage, manage to miss wildly with automatic fire from standing positions from a few feet away, and in many instances are staring at rocks half the time doing nothing or just track the player character for long periods of time without shooting...or when other SM's show up and the player character cleaves through them too. That Chainsword was certainly far more effective against the Space Marines than their Power Axes were against the Player Character.
It's a muppet mower challenge, as exists in dozens of other game like Unreal, Mass Effect 3, etc, nothing more.
Actually, in that game Shoota Boyz are surprisingly accurate - they do not fire with the wild abandon the fluff usually speaks of, but instead focus fire rather well. While their accuracy is not exactly something to boast with, it's still a far cry from the Orks we know who are more concerned with firing as loudly as possible than hitting their target.
No enemy in the game does zero damage. You can stand next to a Guardsman and let him smack you with the butt of his lasgun, and it will do very very low damage, but it will actually do damage (which it wouldn't lorewise).
The SMs you fight are hilariously resilient (capable of taking something like 9 hits from a Thunder Hammer before going down) but their AI is poorly designed just like CSM in singleplayer; they stand around and fire a burst every now and then, and if you get close they knock you away with their axe occasionally, but otherwise their combat power are accurately portrayed though their behaviour is not.
If they had an advanced AI that sprinted, rolled, charged, hosed you down with concentrated automatic fire when you left cover and all the other things you'd expect of them, they'd be extremely deadly foes and accurate representations of their background, even if you did nothing to touch their stats.
You have to remember that there is literally one million Space Marines in the entire gargantuan Imperium. Less than one guy per world. And with continent-spanning cities abound, there's a lot of people in the Imperium. Each and every Space Marine is basically a special character in his own right. They are just that rare. There's likely hundreds of thousands of IG Majors for each Astartes. You must apply the 'special character' thing to Astartes too.
Yes, they're rare. That doesn't automatically equate each of them to being a Special Character however, Tau aren't particularly hugely more numerous (a few million fire warriors vs trillions of guardsmen) and otherwise every Sister would be a Lord of War by that logic.
Yes, they're rare. But they're not all Special Characters.
Some novels are poorly written, but it does not make them less canon. We can safely ignore Custodes parrying at FTL speeds and Space Marines running fast enough to tear up the metal floor they are running on, but more sensible things can actually still be canon even if they would be found poorly written in a sense of story quality.
GW has no "canon" really. Everything GW publishes, their stance is everything is true and nothing is true.
Not its mechanics, but its balance.
It's pretty identical in balance, number of enemies, etc that I've seen in a huge number of other games. I've played Unreal games killing far more enemies than that video showed (and largely all armed much better), but I'm not going to take that as the reasonable expectation of something from that universe.
Actually, in that game Shoota Boyz are surprisingly accurate - they do not fire with the wild abandon the fluff usually speaks of, but instead focus fire rather well. While their accuracy is not exactly something to boast with, it's still a far cry from the Orks we know who are more concerned with firing as loudly as possible than hitting their target.
And the guardsmen firing literal laser weapons, hitting their targets at the speed of light, missing wildly? The way all the "shooting" NPC's stand there, fire, pause for 3 seconds, then fire again? We're talking a videogame. Both the Orks and Guardsmen likely use very similar AI in that regard.
No enemy in the game does zero damage. You can stand next to a Guardsman and let him smack you with the butt of his lasgun, and it will do very very low damage, but it will actually do damage (which it wouldn't lorewise)
The SMs you fight are hilariously resilient (capable of taking something like 9 hits from a Thunder Hammer before going down) but their AI is poorly designed just like CSM in singleplayer; they stand around and fire a burst every now and then, and if you get close they knock you away with their axe occasionally, but otherwise their combat power are accurately portrayed though their behaviour is not.
If they had an advanced AI that sprinted, rolled, charged, hosed you down with concentrated automatic fire when you left cover and all the other things you'd expect of them, they'd be extremely deadly foes and accurate representations of their background, even if you did nothing to touch their stats.
In which case the video would be defeated as if it were PC's, not AI's you were fighting, the PC would have been dead long before he ever got to the SM's.
These enemies are also coming in in drips and drabs, very little in the way of any realistic military cohesion (which would at least apply to Imperials if not the Orks), and are spoon-feeding the player.
Jayden63 wrote: If anything I think the problem is the fluff. I hate marine fluff because its just so over the top that it becomes silly after a point. I have no problem with named marine heros doing what they do. That's epic stuff, but 10 generic marines pasifying a whole planet. Please. Tabletop Marines are pretty close to what they should be if you actually look at them with more realistic standing army numbers.
Yeah I don't buy that one for a minute , Eldar for example have a hero that dragged an entire craftworld out of the Warp on his own, and defeated an entire Tyranid Swarm on his own.
Most Faction has things like this for the most part, an Ork Warbiker rammed through a Titan On Fire, survived, killed the crew, and took their forever flaming heads with him as trophies.
I think the most nuanced are those of the Tyranids (Who can be beaten slightly), and Tau (And even then Farsight defies that)
The Tyranid book has them losing basically every meanigful battle (of course with a good show). It's funny, even all the art in the book where they are against another army shows the other army winning.
Art imitates life?
The Tyranids have to eventually lose. Otherwise the setting ends...
The Tyranids eat all kinds of stuff in the fluff, even in their own books. People not paying attention simply fixate on the fact that they are eventually stopped, rather than all the things they ate along the way, lol.
BlaxicanX wrote: Loyalist marines don't need to be more elite, non-Marines just need to be weaker.
Now listen here, Marines were T3 in 1st edition, they have gotten more elite over time, guard has had the same dang statline for 7 freakin editions. quit your gubbin.
BlaxicanX wrote: Loyalist marines don't need to be more elite, non-Marines just need to be weaker.
Now listen here, Marines were T3 in 1st edition, they have gotten more elite over time, guard has had the same dang statline for 7 freakin editions. quit your gubbin.
And you could give every guardsman a grenade launcher with vortex grenades, the Emperor was never "killed" he just went to sleep.
Seriously, lots of things have changed drastically since 1st and 2nd.
Also Chaos had aspiring champions rise from the grave as Skeleton Champions in order to purge themselves of their failure...Kinda want those back, they were kinda awesome.
Ashiraya wrote: And yes, Cain killing a Zerker on his own is a terrible thing. He would die to the first attack. He is far far slower so dodging is not an option, and he lacks the physical strength necessary to parry a blow from the Berzerker.
He compensate being a bit slower by a way, way better martial talent, and he did not stop the blow, he deflected it. Requires way less strength.
Vaktathi wrote: I haven't read that book (I think, it's been like 8 years since I've read one of those books), but, just going off "Imperial Commissar kills Berzerker", that's the type of "heroic" achievement one can expect, where it's rare and extremely impressive, without being so absurd as to be unbelievable.
Spoiler:
Well, Cain does not even kill the berserker. Just distract him long enough for Jurgen to melta the CSM away.
You know the saying : a Melta a day keeps the SM away.
(Ciaphas Cain does taunt and humiliate the berserker though, I think this is what is annoying Ashiraya so much. But he is freaking Ciaphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, so he could just as easily juggle with primarchs, date a Culexus assassin, or win a drinking contest against a space wolf if his survival was at stake!)
Ashiraya wrote: In truth, handwaving the topic with 'it's all ridiculous' is just ignoring the problem. SM fluff has outliers. As does the fluff of all races. But that does not really make it difficult to see an average, or perhaps a median, forming anyway. One in an area that looks at least somewhat possible physically.
Just for your interest, every time you speak about outliers, I remember that time you called some source about the marine's height an outliers, while a few days later some other user made a thread listing all reference to marines height and showing actually the height you were presenting was coming from outliers .
He compensate being a bit slower by a way, way better martial talent, and he did not stop the blow, he deflected it. Requires way less strength.
He is not a 'bit' slower. He is way way way slower. As for martial talent, he went up against a superhuman champion of the Lord of Battle. I dare say he'd be very much matched in terms of skill...
Well, Cain does not even kill the berserker. Just distract him long enough for Jurgen to melta the CSM away.
You know the saying : a Melta a day keeps the SM away.
(Ciaphas Cain does taunt and humiliate the berserker though, I think this is what is annoying Ashiraya so much. But he is freaking Ciaphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, so he could just as easily juggle with primarchs, date a Culexus assassin, or win a drinking contest against a space wolf if his survival was at stake!)
Well yes, he has plot armour. That's what I am saying.
Just for your interest, every time you speak about outliers, I remember that time you called some source about the marine's height an outliers, while a few days later some other user made a thread listing all reference to marines height and showing actually the height you were presenting was coming from outliers .
You guys got it all wrong. Instead of elevating marines, everything else should be nerfed! grots should be 1s across the profile. Guardsmen should be 2s across the profile and lasguns s2. Eldar need to be 2s on profiles except for ws and bs of 3 and their guns s2. Orks get ws3 and bs1 and t3. crons are too good n need to be nerfed too with lower profile stats.
1) Individual Marines should be more powerful
2) SM codex should rise in relative power within the meta
Number one entails a points increase. Imagine if you made Marines more 'elite' by turning each Tac Marine into the equivalent of a GK Paladin, with all the appropriate points increases. Would that in any way 'fix' the 'problem' which you are perceiving? The answer is no, it wouldn't, because you'd have fewer models on the table and therefore gain disadvantages in proportion to the advantages. If you really mean number one, then ask yourself if you would rather play GK.
Number two entails a more complex argument, which would require a greater weight of evidence to show that the SM Codex was somehow inferior to other codexes. This argument might fly with DA, but most people probably don't accept it for SM. Consider for example the number of highly placing SM army lists at well attended tournaments- that suggests that the people who have the greatest eye for sheer power consider SMs to be capable of competing fairly, and therefore aren't at the lower ended of the meta for power. If you *still* think number 2, then it is not impossible that all you're actually asking for is 'why can't I be the special snowflake who gets to roflstomp everyone?' This is perhaps motivated by reading SM fiction, and then having your intended kicks of curbstomping people on the tabletop thwarted by the better play of your opponent.
Also, for the record, the 'you' here doesn't mean the original poster, but any hypothetical person to whom the description would apply.
Filch wrote: You guys got it all wrong. Instead of elevating marines, everything else should be nerfed! grots should be 1s across the profile. Guardsmen should be 2s across the profile and lasguns s2. Eldar need to be 2s on profiles except for ws and bs of 3 and their guns s2. Orks get ws3 and bs1 and t3. crons are too good n need to be nerfed too with lower profile stats.
Guardsmen being 2 across the board seems okay. Eldar, not so. If Marines stay as they are, Eldar need no changes either.
I go back to the 5th ed grey knights codex when playing 5th ed. A whole army consisted of 20-30 models tops, and usually wecked face. Many people found this army unfun to play against. There is very little satisfaction gained for finally killing one when half your army has already been devastated and you notice you still have 29 more models to go.
Heck just look at playing against IK now. For the most part bringing anymore than 1 makes the battle pretty much one sided.
Its also why people hate playing against Necron Decurion. Its just no fun when the other guy doesn't die no matter what you do.
And while some of this might sound fine in theory and actually fit the idea of forging a narrative that GW is trying to force down our throats, the table top is ultimately about having fun and I really don't think that true Fluff powered marines would be fun to play against.
Ashiraya wrote: He is not a 'bit' slower. He is way way way slower.
He is a bit slower.
Ashiraya wrote: As for martial talent, he went up against a superhuman champion of the Lord of Battle. I dare say he'd be very much matched in terms of skill...
Nah. He is just that good, the 'serker simply cannot match up.
Anyone who thinks sergeant upgrades are worth much just demonstrared how little they play 40k. ESPECIALLY powerfists and plasma pistols! Go ahead and bring three or four sergeants with PWs and PPs and see how real marine players look at you.
Otherwise i am disgusted with GWs treatment of SMs. Constantly making them cheaper instead of better. It loudly contradicts all of the fluff. Realistically SMs are there best sellers, making SMs a smaller more elite army would translate into a huge sales loss. So we lovers of SMs as a more elite style army need to line up with the people hoping for another chaos 3.5 codex, or a new Sisters book.
Red Marine wrote: Anyone who thinks sergeant upgrades are worth much just demonstrared how little they play 40k. ESPECIALLY powerfists and plasma pistols! Go ahead and bring three or four sergeants with PWs and PPs and see how real marine players look at you.
Otherwise i am disgusted with GWs treatment of SMs. Constantly making them cheaper instead of better. It loudly contradicts all of the fluff. Realistically SMs are there best sellers, making SMs a smaller more elite army would translate into a huge sales loss. So we lovers of SMs as a more elite style army need to line up with the people hoping for another chaos 3.5 codex, or a new Sisters book.
It's been ages since PF's on sarge's was a thing, that hasn't been around since 5th.
And yes, Cain killing a Zerker on his own is a terrible thing. He would die to the first attack. He is far far slower so dodging is not an option, and he lacks the physical strength necessary to parry a blow from the Berzerker.
In the same vein, Guardsmen can't parry Carnifex attacks, because they lack the physical strength to do so. CSM are not as strong as Carnifex, but they are still strong enough to effectively prevent parrying by mortal men.
Cain is a plot-armoured mess and the setting would have been far better off if the original Cain story had been canned.
No, the 40K setting would definitely not be better off without Cain. The Cain books are funny and entertaining, over the top. That's what 40K should be and was always intended to be because when you look at it as anything that is meant to be realistic or serious it falls apart due to all the inconsistency and bad writing.
For people who have read the book in question or don't mind a mild spoiler:
Spoiler:
His "duel" with the Berzerker lasts two swings of the Berzerkers axe before Jurgen obliterates it with a Meltagun.
Cain has well trained reflexes from years of combat against Tyranids, Orks, Necrons and other chaos forces. He has fought alongside Space Marines clearing a space Hulk and survived. Parrying does not require raw strength but a force in the direction you want the strike to go at the right time of the swing. It's like firing a tank shell at sloped armour, even though the round has more than enough momentum to go through if it were to hit it straight, that angle allows the shell to be redirected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: As for martial talent, he went up against a superhuman champion of the Lord of Battle. I dare say he'd be very much matched in terms of skill...
Rage and bloodlust does not a skilled fighter make. Berzerkers are ferocious and very strong but they are also single minded and predictable, kind of like an Ork. Cain's killed plenty of Orks, the principle is the same, just with a lot more armour to get through.
Hey, do not forget to use spoiler tags ! Some people have not read this duel yet.
But yeah, Cain is awesome. We should rename the Rule of Cool into the Rule of Cain. And Ciaphas Cain runs so much on the Rule of Cain that he truly is a HERO OF THE IMPERIUM!!!
Rage and bloodlust does not a skilled fighter make. Berzerkers are ferocious and very strong but they are also single minded and predictable, kind of like an Ork. Cain's killed plenty of Orks, the principle is the same, just with a lot more armour to get through.
Cain is a fencer, a Berzerker is a barbarian.
Except for the fact that Bezerkers are actually skilled fighters, one needs a bit of it to tear from skilled opponents with bladed skill..
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Hey, do not forget to use spoiler tags ! Some people have not read this duel yet.
But yeah, Cain is awesome. We should rename the Rule of Cool into the Rule of Cain. And Ciaphas Cain runs so much on the Rule of Cain that he truly is a HERO OF THE IMPERIUM!!!
Spoiler:
Isn't that how cain wins every fight though? He fences a bit until jurgen can get the melta gun out?
Isn't that how cain wins every fight though? He fences a bit until jurgen can get the melta gun out?
Spoiler:
Except when it is Cain himself burrowing the melta .
But yeah, direct melta to the face is the solution for about any enemy you can encounter in 40k short of a bio-titan. Ork big boss? Melta to the face will take care of it! Greater deamon? Melta to the face will take care of it! Hive Tyrant ? Melta to the face will take care of it! (Demon) Primarch? Melta to the face will take care of it! C'tan? Melta to the face will take care of it!
The only real problem is to take the melta close enough without dying, and getting the time to line up the shot. And also cleaning up afterward .
So a mere marine has no chance whatsoever to survive this.
Rage and bloodlust does not a skilled fighter make. Berzerkers are ferocious and very strong but they are also single minded and predictable, kind of like an Ork. Cain's killed plenty of Orks, the principle is the same, just with a lot more armour to get through.
Cain is a fencer, a Berzerker is a barbarian.
Except for the fact that Bezerkers are actually skilled fighters, one needs a bit of it to tear from skilled opponents with bladed skill..
There's a reason they are WS5 on the tabletop.
And Cain, for all intents and purposes, is basically a Lord Commissar who is also WS5.
Marines need to be tougher - there is no question about this. We are willing to pay for it. Realistically we don't take our armor save half the time anyways - we will pay more to get some durability.
I think the best solution is 2 wounds at a 5-6 point increase across the board on all walking PA. At T5 or a 2+ save it should be a 8-10 point increase.
Maybe it's because I'm middle-aged with grey hair and stuff now (oh god no!), but I just find a lot of the marine fluff infantile. They're not depicted as supersoldiers, but as the power fantasies of children.
I don't think Space Marines need to be tougher. They already are very tough. Only Necron can surpass them in that field and even then not by mutch. Considering who they are, it makes perfect sense from a fluff point of view. The problem isn't the Marines themsleves, it's the constant rise in firepower since the game was rebooted in 3rd eddition. Each eddition has added toys of greater devastating power in larger numbers to the table.
From a fluff perceptive, all Space Marines fans and lovers (which is most people in th hobby) will tell you that in books Space Marines can walk throught Guards and PDF without any problem and they are right. Yet when they see on tabletop their marines getting shot down by guards like turkeys this sometimes come to shock. In books, how many times did the Space Marine heroes fighting against elite trained and experimented guardsmen squad in carapace armor with three plasma guns and an autocannon supported by Chimera crewed by good drivers or worst a Valkyrie?
That's a pretty regular sight on the tabletop. I have yet to see a guard army that doesn't feature at least one squad like this yet in the fluff you almost will never see it. These guys we can reasonnably believe would make Space Marine sweat a lot more and they do on the tabletop. What the game really need to feal more fluffy isn't stronger and tougher Marines (thow I would agree on them having a little boost worth around 2 or 3 points), but less superweappons and more little guys.
My gaming club at my local GW store has actually devised a little house rules for tournament-like games that revolves completly on unit selection. It allows us to make very balanced games with varied list in which Space Marines are tough to crack while allowing all the other armies to remain true to themselves. Strength and toughness are relative to what you face.
Marines are tough, but lack firepower on their staple units because of low model count. This caps the maximum firepower they can deliver, so they end up taking more fire over the course of a game, making them net LESS durable than a list with high firepower. The best defense in this game is a truly a good offense.
-> Marines need 2 wounds
-> Banshees need double the attacks
-> Orkz need to come in pairs
-> Guardsmen need to be half the cost
-> Marines need 3 wounds
...
Doesn't change the fact that marines have only a few viable units and the BA and DA can't even get those. Even the DC are a complete joke in the current meta. Completely outclassed by real assault units like Wraiths and TWC.
AP 1-3 aren't the problem. The problem is Tau and Eldar going "LOLZ eat 60 S6 attacks Astartes!" T4 means nothing. Cover means nothing. Storm shields mean nothing. All that matters is how many points you lose when each "2" or "1" is rolled. The more gear your give you guys, the more points you lose when the power lists rain death.
The AP 2 problem is the gravstar, which also completely dominates marine lists without access to grav cents.
you are looking at it the wrong way. When you complain about a marine getting 1-shot by a lasgun, the other player is getting his wish fufullment over yours.
you also seem to forget that everything in black library is easily considered imperial propaganda, hence the 2 marine gods, gaunts ghosts, and more
I don't care about the Black Library fluff at all. The BL fluff is total crap and has nothing to do with the table top game.
My objection is that most marine units don't do anything like what their OWN CODEX claims they do. But Xenos want to point out frag and krak grenades while they are destroying me from 36" away.
Marine fluff is actually quite realistic if they are in something called "power armor" which shrugs off dmg and makes them punch as hard as their .77 cal explosive bolts. Take them out of that and put them in plot armor and give them ak 47's- then yeah - they are pretty well represented on the tt.
I'm all for tinkering with the rules in your local games if you can find someone who agrees. Sure, make them S5, T5, W2, 5+FNP, and bump their points up. They'll get less powerful as an army if the points go high enough (as has already been stated). Whatever you like that makes the game more fun and fluffy to you and your opponent is fine, the rules in a friendly game are nothing but a shared social contract anyway.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Las guns would be a Kalashnikov. A bolter is very powerful, it's just that many armies use weapons equal to or greater.
lasguns are clearly very weak weapons - they function well with the gard because they have nearly unlimited ammo and they have nearly unlimitted soldiers.
AP- is a good indicator that it's a weak weapon. If you can't penetrate flak armor, mesh armor, or ork "clothing/skin" - it's weak. my .308 rifle (similar round to ak47 in terms of pentration) can penetrate 2 inches of concrete which is clearly tougher than all of these things.
Lasgun hits like a 9 mm - but has unlimited ammo - that's why it's useful.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Las guns would be a Kalashnikov. A bolter is very powerful, it's just that many armies use weapons equal to or greater.
lasguns are clearly very weak weapons - they function well with the gard because they have nearly unlimited ammo and they have nearly unlimitted soldiers.
AP- is a good indicator that it's a weak weapon. If you can't penetrate flak armor, mesh armor, or ork "clothing/skin" - it's weak. my .308 rifle (similar round to ak47 in terms of pentration) can penetrate 2 inches of concrete which is clearly tougher than all of these things.
Lasgun hits like a 9 mm - but has unlimited ammo - that's why it's useful.
No, lasguns are more powerful than modern day rifles, you need to consider what their shooting at, Orks are as tough as SMs, sometimes even tougher, SMs are heavily armored super soldiers. Flack armour is very good protection, our current armies would love to have it, it's just that it pales in comparison to .75 explosive rounds, blasts of thousands of super-strong mono-molecular discs, pulses of magnetically accelerated plasma, and beams of energy that disintragate what they hit.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Las guns would be a Kalashnikov. A bolter is very powerful, it's just that many armies use weapons equal to or greater.
lasguns are clearly very weak weapons - they function well with the gard because they have nearly unlimited ammo and they have nearly unlimitted soldiers.
AP- is a good indicator that it's a weak weapon. If you can't penetrate flak armor, mesh armor, or ork "clothing/skin" - it's weak. my .308 rifle (similar round to ak47 in terms of pentration) can penetrate 2 inches of concrete which is clearly tougher than all of these things.
Lasgun hits like a 9 mm - but has unlimited ammo - that's why it's useful.
No, lasguns are more powerful than modern day rifles, you need to consider what their shooting at, Orks are as tough as SMs, sometimes even tougher, SMs are heavily armored super soldiers. Flack armour is very good protection, our current armies would love to have it, it's just that it pales in comparison to .75 explosive rounds, blasts of thousands of super-strong mono-molecular discs, pulses of magnetically accelerated plasma, and beams of energy that disintragate what they hit.
Ork T-shirts are just leather vests and sometimes an iron shoulder pad though. And it can still stop a lasgun.
In comparison, a bolt shell is comparable to 20mm autocannon rounds of today.
Spoiler:
Keep in mind,
Death of Antagonis wrote:each Space Marine was a main battle tank with legs
And bolters can kill Orks and guardsmen alike in one hit, your point? Yes bolters are powerful, it's just that they aren't more powerful than other race's weapons.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And bolters can kill Orks and guardsmen alike in one hit, your point? Yes bolters are powerful, it's just that they aren't more powerful than other race's weapons.
Depends on the given bolter, and the given weapon you compare it to.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The normal bolter, using normal bolts. If you want to talk special ammunition, that's an entirely different talk.
'Normal' bolters? Do you mean the ones normal humans comfortably fire one-handed, or do you mean the ones they can't even lift and whose recoil would rip off their arms even if they could?
Co'tor Shas wrote: The normal bolter, using normal bolts. If you want to talk special ammunition, that's an entirely different talk.
'Normal' bolters? Do you mean the ones normal humans comfortably fire one-handed, or do you mean the ones they can't even lift and whose recoil would rip off their arms even if they could?
It's not more powerful than any other bolter that uses the same goddam bolts.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The normal bolter, using normal bolts. If you want to talk special ammunition, that's an entirely different talk.
'Normal' bolters? Do you mean the ones normal humans comfortably fire one-handed, or do you mean the ones they can't even lift and whose recoil would rip off their arms even if they could?
It's not more powerful than any other bolter that uses the same goddam bolts.
...The same round can be comfortably fired one-handed and rip off your arms at the same time now?
Co'tor Shas wrote: The normal bolter, using normal bolts. If you want to talk special ammunition, that's an entirely different talk.
'Normal' bolters? Do you mean the ones normal humans comfortably fire one-handed, or do you mean the ones they can't even lift and whose recoil would rip off their arms even if they could?
It's not more powerful than any other bolter that uses the same goddam bolts.
...The same round can be comfortably fired one-handed and rip off your arms at the same time now?
Yep, because GW is amazingly inconsistent. If you haven't figured that out by now, I'm truly surprised. It's like how marines can be 7' tall and 14' tall at the same time.
edit: and really, even if they use different bolters, it doesn't matter, because the direct comparisons of other weapons to bolters used by space marines make any attempt to have them be more powerful null and void.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Las guns would be a Kalashnikov. A bolter is very powerful, it's just that many armies use weapons equal to or greater.
S4 is NOT powerful in this game. Especially when T5 is the new T4.
Try and read what I wrote. It's relative power in game is accurate. Compare it to the Lasgun, which is more powerful than modern day rifles.
Given the rate at which they "wound" unarmored humans, I'm gonna have to disagree. In fact, I'd say most real-world weapons are better than 40K weapons. Because of ballistics, targeting, and range. 40k is the retro, inferior future. 40K is very much like Battletech in that way.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Las guns would be a Kalashnikov. A bolter is very powerful, it's just that many armies use weapons equal to or greater.
lasguns are clearly very weak weapons - they function well with the gard because they have nearly unlimited ammo and they have nearly unlimitted soldiers.
AP- is a good indicator that it's a weak weapon. If you can't penetrate flak armor, mesh armor, or ork "clothing/skin" - it's weak. my .308 rifle (similar round to ak47 in terms of pentration) can penetrate 2 inches of concrete which is clearly tougher than all of these things.
Lasgun hits like a 9 mm - but has unlimited ammo - that's why it's useful.
Pretty sure Serpent Shields are AP - and they tear through everything pretty well.
They are still Lasers, they have no penetration that's the key, the fluff states that a fully charged lasgun shot could tear an arm clean off.
Either way, with MEQ being the standard by which everything is defined, it is the average and thus everyone builds to kill MEQ, as a result what should be an okay statline and unit is what everything is keyed towards being killed through either large amounts of painful wounds (SS), 3+ ignoring weapon (Plasma, Shurikens and such), and as such having an expensive statline that is unable to be used towards paying points for it tends to be a waste. Tacticals are a waste in melee but still have WS4/S4 anyways that they pay for.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The normal bolter, using normal bolts. If you want to talk special ammunition, that's an entirely different talk.
'Normal' bolters? Do you mean the ones normal humans comfortably fire one-handed, or do you mean the ones they can't even lift and whose recoil would rip off their arms even if they could?
It's not more powerful than any other bolter that uses the same goddam bolts.
...The same round can be comfortably fired one-handed and rip off your arms at the same time now?
Yep, because GW is amazingly inconsistent. If you haven't figured that out by now, I'm truly surprised. It's like how marines can be 7' tall and 14' tall at the same time.
I've never seen Marines taller than 10' and that was 1d4chan so I doubt that it's canon.
9', 8', 8'6", 7'6", 7', and 5'6" ish, that I have seen.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Las guns would be a Kalashnikov. A bolter is very powerful, it's just that many armies use weapons equal to or greater.
S4 is NOT powerful in this game. Especially when T5 is the new T4.
Try and read what I wrote. It's relative power in game is accurate. Compare it to the Lasgun, which is more powerful than modern day rifles.
Given the rate at which they "wound" unarmored humans, I'm gonna have to disagree. In fact, I'd say most real-world weapons are better than 40K weapons. Because of ballistics, targeting, and range. 40k is the retro, inferior future. 40K is very much like Battletech in that way.
Wounds a normal human on a 3+, not bad at all in a game of chance. There is only one level better than that, and that is reaching into the level of actually high-powered weapons.
Lasguns wound humans on 4+. And wounds capping out at 2+ is absurd in its own right. Modern weapons have hit rates in the 95%+ range and are designed for very high kill rates against their intended targets.
Even so, 3+ against a regular human is abysmal given the weapon's description.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The normal bolter, using normal bolts. If you want to talk special ammunition, that's an entirely different talk.
'Normal' bolters? Do you mean the ones normal humans comfortably fire one-handed, or do you mean the ones they can't even lift and whose recoil would rip off their arms even if they could?
It's not more powerful than any other bolter that uses the same goddam bolts.
...The same round can be comfortably fired one-handed and rip off your arms at the same time now?
Yep, because GW is amazingly inconsistent. If you haven't figured that out by now, I'm truly surprised. It's like how marines can be 7' tall and 14' tall at the same time.
I've never seen Marines taller than 10' and that was 1d4chan so I doubt that it's canon.
9', 8', 8'6", 7'6", 7', and 5'6" ish, that I have seen.
And exaggeration, but the point still stands. GW writers are inconsistent. It's like how bolters are caseless, and use cases, at the same time.
Martel732 wrote: Lasguns wound humans on 4+. And wounds capping out at 2+ is absurd in its own right. Modern weapons have hit rates in the 95%+ range and are designed for very high kill rates against their intended targets.
Even so, 3+ against a regular human is abysmal given the weapon's description.
That's because it's a game of chance. Things are given a greater chance to survive. A SM hit by a railgun has the samechance to survive a plasma rifle shot, even though the railgun is overly more powerful. If you want to alwas deal damage, perhaps a game of chance that has not 100% is not for you.
Martel732 wrote: Lasguns wound humans on 4+. And wounds capping out at 2+ is absurd in its own right. Modern weapons have hit rates in the 95%+ range and are designed for very high kill rates against their intended targets.
Even so, 3+ against a regular human is abysmal given the weapon's description.
That's because it's a game of chance. Things are given a greater chance to survive. A SM hit by a railgun has the samechance to survive a plasma rifle shot, even though the railgun is overly more powerful. If you want to alwas deal damage, perhaps a game of chance that has not 100% is not for you.
Ashiraya wrote: It's more a problem of the D6 system. I find the RPGs more enjoyable with D100s. Even D10 or D20 would help 40k a lot.
Me too, the DWRPG can get a bit over the top at times, but it makes them feel infinitely more like the SMs depicted in fluff than they do on table top. It allows you to have spacemarines killing dozens of humans withough it being really un-fun for the other players.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Las guns would be a Kalashnikov. A bolter is very powerful, it's just that many armies use weapons equal to or greater.
lasguns are clearly very weak weapons - they function well with the gard because they have nearly unlimited ammo and they have nearly unlimitted soldiers.
AP- is a good indicator that it's a weak weapon. If you can't penetrate flak armor, mesh armor, or ork "clothing/skin" - it's weak. my .308 rifle (similar round to ak47 in terms of pentration) can penetrate 2 inches of concrete which is clearly tougher than all of these things.
Lasgun hits like a 9 mm - but has unlimited ammo - that's why it's useful.
Pretty sure Serpent Shields are AP - and they tear through everything pretty well.
They are still Lasers, they have no penetration that's the key, the fluff states that a fully charged lasgun shot could tear an arm clean off.
Either way, with MEQ being the standard by which everything is defined, it is the average and thus everyone builds to kill MEQ, as a result what should be an okay statline and unit is what everything is keyed towards being killed through either large amounts of painful wounds (SS), 3+ ignoring weapon (Plasma, Shurikens and such), and as such having an expensive statline that is unable to be used towards paying points for it tends to be a waste. Tacticals are a waste in melee but still have WS4/S4 anyways that they pay for.
ehh scatter lasers/serp sheilds are a pretty odd weapon. they have a profile more similar to what a very large low velocity slug would have - kinda like a cannon ball.
lasers are just heat energy essentially. They don't have any kenetic energy. So if they have high str (intensity)- their ap should go up similarly. Higher heat will always do better armor.
Ashiraya wrote: It's more a problem of the D6 system. I find the RPGs more enjoyable with D100s. Even D10 or D20 would help 40k a lot.
Me too, the DWRPG can get a bit over the top at times, but it makes them feel infinitely more like the SMs depicted in fluff than they do on table top. It allows you to have spacemarines killing dozens of humans withough it being really un-fun for the other players.
Agreed, it's very good. You hit the cap for lift/push/carry weights pretty much at character creation, which is odd, and some other things are weird too (our Techmarine can leap something like sixteen meters) but otherwise it's a really solid game.
IMHO persistence is the character feat of the tough and robust Space Marines of the Warhammer universe, thanks to their power armour and superior genetics... But the abundance of AP3 weapons in the game means that most marines are grunts. Therefore, my suggestion would be to up the Armour Save to 2+ (and up the price accordingly as well). Terminators would be AP2 with Toughness 6. Simple and effective!
Riptides and Dreadknights have proven that your armour is not only affecting your save but also your T value, so I don't understand why Termies are not T5 or T6 already.
ehh scatter lasers/serp sheilds are a pretty odd weapon. they have a profile more similar to what a very large low velocity slug would have - kinda like a cannon ball.
lasers are just heat energy essentially. They don't have any kenetic energy. So if they have high str (intensity)- their ap should go up similarly. Higher heat will always do better armor.
ergotoxin wrote: IMHO persistence is the character feat of the tough and robust Space Marines of the Warhammer universe, thanks to their power armour and superior genetics... But the abundance of AP3 weapons in the game means that most marines are grunts. Therefore, my suggestion would be to up the Armour Save to 2+ (and up the price accordingly as well). Terminators would be AP2 with Toughness 6. Simple and effective!
That works out better than many options, but that may shift the meta more towards super low AP weapons and alike, with many codexs following suit (and we sure as hell don't want any more riptide+IA equivalents). Really, the only way to truly fix these problems without just causing the buff/debuff spiral to continue is a from the ground up re-write, with no holding on to the old rules or worrying about cross edition-compatibility with old codexes.
ergotoxin wrote: IMHO persistence is the character feat of the tough and robust Space Marines of the Warhammer universe, thanks to their power armour and superior genetics... But the abundance of AP3 weapons in the game means that most marines are grunts. Therefore, my suggestion would be to up the Armour Save to 2+ (and up the price accordingly as well). Terminators would be AP2 with Toughness 6. Simple and effective!
That works out better than many options, but that may shift the meta more towards super low AP weapons and alike, with many codexs following suit (and we sure as hell don't want any more riptide+IA equivalents). Really, the only way to truly fix these problems without just causing the buff/debuff spiral to continue is a from the ground up re-write, with no holding on to the old rules or worrying about cross edition-compatibility with old codexes.
Ashiraya wrote: Riptides and Dreadknights have proven that your armour is not only affecting your save but also your T value, so I don't understand why Termies are not T5 or T6 already.
T5 termies would make sense (and broadsides after some changes with the HRR and HYMP).
Co'tor Shas wrote: The normal bolter, using normal bolts. If you want to talk special ammunition, that's an entirely different talk.
'Normal' bolters? Do you mean the ones normal humans comfortably fire one-handed, or do you mean the ones they can't even lift and whose recoil would rip off their arms even if they could?
It's not more powerful than any other bolter that uses the same goddam bolts.
...The same round can be comfortably fired one-handed and rip off your arms at the same time now?
There's no statistical difference in the tabletop game - which I assume we're using for reference, since we're talking about orks saving every sixth lasgun wound - between a bolter given to a guardsman sergeant and a bolter given to a marine.
Agreed on the tabletop, though, the extra variation really helps capture the feel of the universe and how powerful a marine might be. Also, it allows a better comparison with firearms - autoguns, which I always assumed to be fairly equivalent to real-world rifles, are about the same as a lasgun. The difference is that they can spit out shots at a much faster rate, but have much less ammo and aren't nearly as reliable.
Both are likely to be laughed off by an ork until you hit him a few times. Neither one is going to be much good against anyone in power armor, unless you're supported by various talents and orders or trying to suppress them. Assuming they CAN be suppressed.
It's much easier to make comparisons with a D100 system than a D6 one. I always looked at the tabletop as an extreme abstraction with concessions needed for gameplay. That ork didn't die to a single lasgun hit, the guardsman had it on semi-auto and was blazing away at the terrifying xenos beast. Nobody forced a combat knife through the marine's power armor in a straight fight, someone blasted at the joints at short range and jammed the blade in there. That kind of thing. Taking the tabletop game at face value just leads to all sorts of silliness.
Auto guns are also slightly less powerful than las guns, but with the accelerates RoF, It generally evens out to the same thing (unless you are playing DH1 with special ammo).
Only War has them at the same damage and range, with the major differences being Reliable for lasguns, rate of fire, and amount of ammo. Autoguns can get special ammunition, but that's offset by the lasgun's power settings.
That's the most up to date one I have, so I dunno if they changed it for DH2!
It has seemed to me that what most people who want "elite" SMs want crisis suits as troops. Which farsight has proved can work, but to keep similar unit sizes the entire SMFoC would have to be re-written, and it would need bigger models (about crisis sized, maybe a bit smaller), and completely new rules. Maybe make and "astarts bolter", a bit like a bolter burst cannon (18" S4 AP5 assault 3-4), and have them able to purchase a secondary special weapon which they can choose to use instead (melta, plasma, rockets, ect.) ect. 2W 4T 3+sv, about the same price as a naked crisis suits a base. Maybe give them pseudo T5, meaning they can only be IDed by S10 or things with ID. Give them an option to take a support system, probably something along the lines of stuff like individual buffs. A 4++, skyfire, split fire, ect.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It has seemed to me that what most people who want "elite" SMs want crisis suits as troops. Which farsight has proved can work, but to keep similar unit sizes the entire SMFoC would have to be re-written, and it would need bigger models (about crisis sized, maybe a bit smaller), and completely new rules. Maybe make and "astarts bolter", a bit like a bolter burst cannon (18" S4 AP5 assault 3-4), and have them able to purchase a secondary special weapon which they can choose to use instead (melta, plasma, rockets, ect.) ect. 2W 4T 3+sv, about the same price as a naked crisis suits a base. Maybe give them pseudo T5, meaning they can only be IDed by S10 or things with ID. Give them an option to take a support system, probably something along the lines of stuff like individual buffs. A 4++, skyfire, split fire, ect.
I think I'll just adress that topic by repeating my first post in the thread.
Spinner wrote: Only War has them at the same damage and range, with the major differences being Reliable for lasguns, rate of fire, and amount of ammo. Autoguns can get special ammunition, but that's offset by the lasgun's power settings.
That's the most up to date one I have, so I dunno if they changed it for DH2!
Actually, never mind, I'm just being stupid. I think I was remember auto pistols stats (1d10+2 I vs 1d10+3 I for autogun and E for las). Las guns had a longer effective range (10m, so +80?m max, and shorter point blank), and autoguns had the ability to do a 10 shot full auto, but they had a clip of 30, whereas lasguns had a clip of 60.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It has seemed to me that what most people who want "elite" SMs want crisis suits as troops. Which farsight has proved can work, but to keep similar unit sizes the entire SMFoC would have to be re-written, and it would need bigger models (about crisis sized, maybe a bit smaller), and completely new rules. Maybe make and "astarts bolter", a bit like a bolter burst cannon (18" S4 AP5 assault 3-4), and have them able to purchase a secondary special weapon which they can choose to use instead (melta, plasma, rockets, ect.) ect. 2W 4T 3+sv, about the same price as a naked crisis suits a base. Maybe give them pseudo T5, meaning they can only be IDed by S10 or things with ID. Give them an option to take a support system, probably something along the lines of stuff like individual buffs. A 4++, skyfire, split fire, ect.
I think I'll just adress that topic by repeating my first post in the thread.
The RPGs are not perfect. We've tweaked them a bit too. But we end up with something that's actually rather immersive, rather than 40k that is about as immersive as an 80's arcade game.
They great thing about FFGs system, is it's damn easy to write rules for. Especially for enemies, although I do tend to get rather complicates with mine.
I am not sure if you would like our RPG group - our Devastator used relentless devastation or whatsitsname and Metal Storm shells to kill 50 Fire Warriors in 5 seconds!
He got a bonus point of Renown for that because it was pretty damn badass, even if they were packed.
ehh scatter lasers/serp sheilds are a pretty odd weapon. they have a profile more similar to what a very large low velocity slug would have - kinda like a cannon ball.
lasers are just heat energy essentially. They don't have any kenetic energy. So if they have high str (intensity)- their ap should go up similarly. Higher heat will always do better armor.
Heat energy is kinetic energy
Theres a simple answer and an advanced answer to this.
The simple answer is that light has no mass and therefore can not have kinetic energy since kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2.
The advanced answer is photons do have a small amount of mass but do not have a resting mass -
Relativistic dynamics tells us that energy E rest energy (0) and kinetic energy T are related by
E=E(0)+T
The photon is characterized by zero rest energy (E(0)=0) and so its energy is kinetic
E=T.
In the case of free (noninteracting) particles twe say that they have kinetic energy is E>R(0)
so yada yada yada...light is not really transfering a lot of kinetic enegy. Negligible when compared to something that has actual mass.
Ashiraya wrote: I am not sure if you would like our RPG group - our Devastator used relentless devastation or whatsitsname and Metal Storm shells to kill 50 Fire Warriors in 5 seconds!
He got a bonus point of Renown for that because it was pretty damn badass, even if they were packed.
Badass indeed - if a bit much for me personally, but we've got slightly different views of Marines. :p Still probably a cool moment on the tabletop! Bet the player was ecstatic.
I'd love to have a game of Only War at the same time as a game of Deathwatch, set during the middle of a massive set-piece battle. The squad and the kill-team probably wouldn't interact much, but they'd see each other's handiwork - maybe the guardsmen have to hide from a rampaging brood of Carnifex while planting demolition charges around a bridge to slow a tyranid advance, and the kill-team has to take the beasts out before they halt an armored counterattack. Maybe the marines need to scythe down waves of gaunts, breaking horde after horde...and then the guardsmen have to deal with the survivors of said firefight congregating on their position. Stuff like that.
Oh, er, right, back on topic.
I'd be in favor of a meeting-in-the-middle approach, honestly. Tone down some of the more over the top marine fluff so they're more elite shock troops than demigods, able to do what they do because of their ability to redeploy and concentrate force more than being superheroes, but maybe give them a bit of a bump in the wargame. It'd need to be done in the middle of a total rework to balance everything. I like Ashiraya's first post here, even if we'd probably go about it in different ways!
I personally enjoy the over-the-top parts of the setting - the fact that a Space Marine, on a personal level, is like a demigod of war next to a normal man (and that this kind of power is necessary to defend the Imperium) is part of the grimdark. This is not just SM > all; I consider Aspect Warriors about on par with Tactical Marines, for example. I just like the parts of the setting that highlights how hopelessly outmatched normal mortal men are in a war between gods and monsters.
Ashiraya wrote: I am not sure if you would like our RPG group - our Devastator used relentless devastation or whatsitsname and Metal Storm shells to kill 50 Fire Warriors in 5 seconds!
He got a bonus point of Renown for that because it was pretty damn badass, even if they were packed.
Badass indeed - if a bit much for me personally, but we've got slightly different views of Marines. :p Still probably a cool moment on the tabletop! Bet the player was ecstatic.
I'd love to have a game of Only War at the same time as a game of Deathwatch, set during the middle of a massive set-piece battle. The squad and the kill-team probably wouldn't interact much, but they'd see each other's handiwork - maybe the guardsmen have to hide from a rampaging brood of Carnifex while planting demolition charges around a bridge to slow a tyranid advance, and the kill-team has to take the beasts out before they halt an armored counterattack. Maybe the marines need to scythe down waves of gaunts, breaking horde after horde...and then the guardsmen have to deal with the survivors of said firefight congregating on their position. Stuff like that.
Oh, er, right, back on topic.
I'd be in favor of a meeting-in-the-middle approach, honestly. Tone down some of the more over the top marine fluff so they're more elite shock troops than demigods, able to do what they do because of their ability to redeploy and concentrate force more than being superheroes, but maybe give them a bit of a bump in the wargame. It'd need to be done in the middle of a total rework to balance everything. I like Ashiraya's first post here, even if we'd probably go about it in different ways!
That's sort of how I've always imagined them (although I also generally imagine an extra 0 or two on army sizes). Space marines are super powerful, and many will rack up hundreds, if not thousands, of kills during there life, but it all depends on what they are facing. We've had assaults consisting of several squads of marines cut down by plasma fire before they can even get close, but at they same time, lasguns tend to do diddly to PA. Most of the time SMs will be facing humans (either defected guard or cultists, not usually known for having lots of plasma/melta weaponry), or orks (who, tough as they might be, tend to die in droves against SMs). Probably fewer than 2500 space marines total, however, have fought he tau (an army known for lots of plasma/high powered weaponry). Eldar have their hand in almost everything, but generally have other people do their fighting their battles for them. Tyranids are pretty easy to kill individualy (even guardsmen can do it), and don't really seem to me to be having a lots of ranged stuff that can really hurt SMs other than acid, which PA will still protect from for a while, but they are still mostly to the galactic east. CSMs are the only one which I find weird, them having generally identical weapons and armour, but I can only assume that they have been so fethed up with their lifetime of sex drugs and rock'n'roll, that they have all forgotten how to fight.
On the contrary, I imagine Guard do most of the heavy lifting towards more mundane foes like lesser Ork warbands and human enemies, whereas SM fight things that IG simply can't take on: like Eldar who run so fast the IG can't turn their guns fast enough to compensate, or Daemons who turn less mentally hardened men insane with their mere presence.
Depend on the story I guess. Marines are much more likely to be put against something like demons or elder than the guard are, but at the same time a small force of marines can turn the tide of battles, or even wars, if there are a few groups. It probably comes down to what that particular chapter/squad is good at. A SM squad that has had lots of experience against demons probably aren't going to be shipped off to fight against the tau.
Just as an aside, in Deathwatch 1 Horde Magnitude is not intended to represent 1 enemy, An enemy is about 5 Horde Magnitude, despending on what the enemy is.So if the Devastator wiped out 50 Mag in one turn, what the designers had in mind was that he killed around 10 Fire Warriors or something like that, not 50.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It doesn't necessarily represent killing either.
Depends on the size of the enemy IIRC (although It has been a while).
Automatically Appended Next Post: The way a heavy bolter is represented in fluff, coupled with the fact they are PCs, killing 10 FWs that quickly is very reasonable. FWs aren't really that tough, no more than regular humans, they just have better armour than guard. Their main thing is killing people from range.
Just before they were gunned down, mind you, our Ultramarine decided it was a good idea to poke out his head from cover. He was headshotted by all the Fire Warriors (he didn't even wear a helmet) and had to burn a fate point. Even then they scorched off his eyes and he had to replace them with cybernetics.
So yeah. Don't be headshotted by 60 Fire Warriors while not wearing a helmet.
The way a heavy bolter is represented in fluff, coupled with the fact they are PCs, killing 10 FWs that quickly is very reasonable. FWs aren't really that tough, no more than regular humans, they just have better armour than guard. Their main thing is killing people from range.
If we are to believe the game, heavy bolter shells are also quite lethal for Fire Warriors, even through their armour.
ehh scatter lasers/serp sheilds are a pretty odd weapon. they have a profile more similar to what a very large low velocity slug would have - kinda like a cannon ball.
lasers are just heat energy essentially. They don't have any kenetic energy. So if they have high str (intensity)- their ap should go up similarly. Higher heat will always do better armor.
Heat energy is kinetic energy
Theres a simple answer and an advanced answer to this.
The simple answer is that light has no mass and therefore can not have kinetic energy since kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2.
The advanced answer is photons do have a small amount of mass but do not have a resting mass -
Relativistic dynamics tells us that energy E rest energy (0) and kinetic energy T are related by E=E(0)+T The photon is characterized by zero rest energy (E(0)=0) and so its energy is kinetic E=T. In the case of free (noninteracting) particles twe say that they have kinetic energy is E>R(0)
so yada yada yada...light is not really transfering a lot of kinetic enegy. Negligible when compared to something that has actual mass.
You're missing out E= hf (Planck constant multiplied by frequency).
You don't need mass to have kinetic energy if you're travelling at the speed of light (which only massless particles can do anyway).
Photons have momentum (and therefore exert forces as per Newtons second law) and energy, otherwise solar sails wouldn't work and photons could not cause ionisation.
To say that photons don't transfer a lot of energy is quite a dangerous statement. Get a high enough frequency (X-ray or Gamma ray) and they are transferring a lot of energy if they hit the right thing. As for momentum, radiation pressure had to be accounted for in the Viking missions otherwise it would have resulted in the spacecraft missing Mars by 15,000km, for example.
ehh scatter lasers/serp sheilds are a pretty odd weapon. they have a profile more similar to what a very large low velocity slug would have - kinda like a cannon ball.
lasers are just heat energy essentially. They don't have any kenetic energy. So if they have high str (intensity)- their ap should go up similarly. Higher heat will always do better armor.
Heat energy is kinetic energy
Theres a simple answer and an advanced answer to this.
The simple answer is that light has no mass and therefore can not have kinetic energy since kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2.
The advanced answer is photons do have a small amount of mass but do not have a resting mass -
Relativistic dynamics tells us that energy E rest energy (0) and kinetic energy T are related by
E=E(0)+T
The photon is characterized by zero rest energy (E(0)=0) and so its energy is kinetic
E=T.
In the case of free (noninteracting) particles twe say that they have kinetic energy is E>R(0)
so yada yada yada...light is not really transfering a lot of kinetic enegy. Negligible when compared to something that has actual mass.
You're missing out E= hf (Planck constant multiplied by frequency).
You don't need mass to have kinetic energy if you're travelling at the speed of light (which only massless particles can do anyway).
Photons have momentum (and therefore exert forces as per Newtons second law) and energy, otherwise solar sails wouldn't work and photons could not cause ionisation.
To say that photons don't transfer a lot of energy is quite a dangerous statement. Get a high enough frequency (X-ray or Gamma ray) and they are transferring a lot of energy if they hit the right thing. As for momentum, radiation pressure had to be accounted for in the Viking missions otherwise it would have resulted in the spacecraft missing Mars by 15,000km, for example.
It's not photons that make a solar sail work. Solar wind in a cornucopia of stuff - a lot that we are uncertain about. It's almost certainly plasma discharge from a star though.
I am agreeing with you though. Light does transfer some kenetic energy to objects it's just not a lot.
Ashiraya wrote: I am not sure if you would like our RPG group - our Devastator used relentless devastation or whatsitsname and Metal Storm shells to kill 50 Fire Warriors in 5 seconds!
I do not like RPG that are too much about throwing dice to simulate beating up bad guys. That works great on video game, but is boring as a RPG.
Last game I played, it was some Exquisite Replica, and after our whole group was arrested by the cops next to the body of a guy one of us shot down, I was the only one to walk out completely free, even though I failed ALL my dice rolls about the interrogation, because my alibi was that good. Who needs to roll dices when you can just play well .
DW is more run and gun fun. DH (and to some extent DH2), is often more intrigue and role-play focused, because your power level is not much more than NPCs (less in the case of many of the demons). This leads to you often doing things like investigations, infiltration, ect so you have enough proof to get the local arbites, ect on you side. Plus, it has sisters in it.
I personally feel that Space marines are well enough rounded that they don't need to be "MORE" elite. A lot of people complain about Terminators and Land Raiders but if you buff them your going to have to suffer a point increase because of how elite they already are. Space Marines are neither the most OP nor the weakest, they are in the top end of the middle, bordering on elite already.
Ghazkuul wrote: I personally feel that Space marines are well enough rounded that they don't need to be "MORE" elite. A lot of people complain about Terminators and Land Raiders but if you buff them your going to have to suffer a point increase because of how elite they already are. Space Marines are neither the most OP nor the weakest, they are in the top end of the middle, bordering on elite already.
Only really due to Grav Cent Deathstars.
And no, Terminators are pretty poor especially for CSM for their cost.
Ghazkuul wrote: I personally feel that Space marines are well enough rounded that they don't need to be "MORE" elite. A lot of people complain about Terminators and Land Raiders but if you buff them your going to have to suffer a point increase because of how elite they already are. Space Marines are neither the most OP nor the weakest, they are in the top end of the middle, bordering on elite already.
I agree
everything else should be less elite and killy.
Otherwise some flavor of 1.5 wounds would be nice. they seem to die just as quickly as guardsmen which is kinda sad :/
Co'tor Shas wrote: Giving them a 6+ or 5+ FNP might be interesting. They would be tougher against small arms, but still die against anti-tank weaponry (as they should).
I feel it needs to be a 6+ otherwise i think plauge marines would be sad pandas. and so would icon of excess
Co'tor Shas wrote: Giving them a 6+ or 5+ FNP might be interesting. They would be tougher against small arms, but still die against anti-tank weaponry (as they should).
I feel it needs to be a 6+ otherwise i think plauge marines would be sad pandas. and so would icon of excess
Well, in my brain, any boosts to loyalist marines would be carried over or similarly implemented in chaos marines. So if, for instance, all marines gained a wound or a point of toughness, so would their chaos equivalents. If this resulted in a current option being unreasonable or redundant, you would modify that option to bring it in line with the new rules.
Not to derail my own thread, but (tac) terminators and land raiders are both considered to be pretty overpriced. So even if their points did go up as a result of making them more individually powerful, it would probably be a relatively small increase to account for their high price. Although being AV 14, I'm not sure I'd want to see the land raider get too much of a boost. It's actually pretty solid defensively, and adding more shots to it or something just seems lazy. I'd rather the land raider just get a modest points reduction.
Similarly, things that already work well such as centurions, thunderfires, etc. either wouldn't get buffed or would get bare minimum buffs to bring them in-line with whatever changes are made to "standard" marines. The idea isn't to turn the thunderfire into an intercontinental artillery piece. It's to keep tac marines from dropping like guardsmen.
Desubot wrote: they seem to die just as quickly as guardsmen which is kinda sad :/
They do not. I know, I play with flamers and heavy flamers!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: Honestly the issue with landraiders is that a single super lucky 10 point melta shots will wreck it to no end.
That is not the problem. The problem is that a super lucky melta shot cannot one-shot a monstrous creature .
Melta : just one shot, very short range, but will definitely annihilate what you are shooting at.
Desubot wrote: Honestly the issue with landraiders is that a single super lucky 10 point melta shots will wreck it to no end.
You need to use a little bit of planing to avoid it
Dont be lazy and just give it ceraimite plating as that would be dull.
i think a slight points decrease or maybe the ability to repair (doesnt it have something like that in fluff?)
Also the fact that it's literally the only assault vehicle and it's one of the most expensive costs in the codex, carrying other very expensive units.
It's got that whole "Eggs in a hand basket" issue, along with a vast majority of other issue, not counting the schizophrenic design of the godhammer (standard) variant.
Desubot wrote: they seem to die just as quickly as guardsmen which is kinda sad :/
They do not. I know, I play with flamers and heavy flamers!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: Honestly the issue with landraiders is that a single super lucky 10 point melta shots will wreck it to no end.
That is not the problem. The problem is that a super lucky melta shot cannot one-shot a monstrous creature .
Melta : just one shot, very short range, but will definitely annihilate what you are shooting at.
Ehhhh im talkign about the 1 shot 1 kill syndrome. never really made sense to me that nearly the same lasgun shot that hurt a guardsman would also equally hurt a marine.
when a marine would be able to take a few shots, and still be trucking most of the time.
Fluff wise the only army that should receive a 6+ FNP would be the orks. The fluff constantly talks about how the orks will suffer gunshot wounds and either ignore them completely or they heal ridiculously quickly.
Ghazkuul wrote: Fluff wise the only army that should receive a 6+ FNP would be the orks. The fluff constantly talks about how the orks will suffer gunshot wounds and either ignore them completely or they heal ridiculously quickly.
Kinda like every Chaos Bezerker, the Nurglites that have their organs hang out and don't care, the fanatical ones who fight on to the death...
Ghazkuul wrote: Fluff wise the only army that should receive a 6+ FNP would be the orks. The fluff constantly talks about how the orks will suffer gunshot wounds and either ignore them completely or they heal ridiculously quickly.
So I take it you're new to Space Marine fluff.
I hope you're enjoying your new 40K hobby. You chose Orks, one of my favorite factions, so you should have fun.
A boltgun round is 4 times as likely to kill a Guardsman as a Marine.
(1)(1/2)(1/3) vs (1)(2/3)(1)
(1/6) vs (4/6)
This 'not more durable' thing is a myth. Not everything is s6+ or ap3-, much less both. Even s6 spam usually isn't ap3.
If you assume anything less than s6 ap3 is useless, well, we play different games.
Shouldn't be too hard to gain some cover, but typically with the amount of S6+ and save ignore abilities against 3+ have basically made for feeling like CSM are overpriced point sinks.
An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.
The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy.
I think I'd love it paired with stacked saves, but those threads quickly go off the rails.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some cover, sure. But let's say you always find ruins for all your Guardsmen. Still twice as likely to die as a Marine.
A boltgun round is 4 times as likely to kill a Guardsman as a Marine.
(1)(1/2)(1/3) vs (1)(2/3)(1)
(1/6) vs (4/6)
This 'not more durable' thing is a myth. Not everything is s6+ or ap3-, much less both. Even s6 spam usually isn't ap3.
If you assume anything less than s6 ap3 is useless, well, we play different games.
Give the guardmen cover and then suddenly become much more cost effective than a marine. Give the marine cover, and they gain nothing. AP 5 is terrible for this exact reason. This is why I'd rather have an Ork shoota over a boltgun.
For more potent weapons, AP 3/2 at least knocks the 3+ save down to a cover save. S6 high ROF spam cares not for any of this and is therefore superior.
With the current cover rules, cheap wounds trump power armor in terms of durability/pt.
1) Cover Saves! Huzzah, with a 4+ cover save, I only lose twice as many Guardsmen as Marines! So I'm clearly just as durable, model-for-model!
Getting 5+ cover is quite likely, but does force your hand deployment-wise when dependant on it. And it reinforces that Guardsmen aren't as elite as Marines.
Saves are just part of the difference. T3 vs T4 matters quite a lot for most small arms in the game.
If all you are worried about is heavy weaponry, then the problem with the game isn't the variation between troop survivability, but rather the ready availability of heavy weapons.
(2) High ROF S6 is rarely AP3. That means a Marine will be anywhere from twice to three times as survivable. Again, that is quite elite. High ROF S6 cares quite a lot about a 3+. If enough S6 is brought to bear to kill the Marines, its a lot more than the amount required to kill the same number of Guardsmen. You may claim that there shouldn't be that much heavy weapon firepower in the game, and I'd agree, but surviving 2-3 times as much of it sure sounds elite to me.
(3) How elite Marines are is a model-to-model comparison. Balance is on a point level, but is a different question.
Bharring wrote: An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.
The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy.
I think I'd love it paired with stacked saves, but those threads quickly go off the rails.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some cover, sure. But let's say you always find ruins for all your Guardsmen. Still twice as likely to die as a Marine.
Armor save modifiers could work with a D10 system or even D12, but not D6.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: 1) Cover Saves! Huzzah, with a 4+ cover save, I only lose twice as many Guardsmen as Marines! So I'm clearly just as durable, model-for-model!
Getting 5+ cover is quite likely, but does force your hand deployment-wise when dependant on it. And it reinforces that Guardsmen aren't as elite as Marines.
Saves are just part of the difference. T3 vs T4 matters quite a lot for most small arms in the game.
If all you are worried about is heavy weaponry, then the problem with the game isn't the variation between troop survivability, but rather the ready availability of heavy weapons.
(2) High ROF S6 is rarely AP3. That means a Marine will be anywhere from twice to three times as survivable. Again, that is quite elite. High ROF S6 cares quite a lot about a 3+. If enough S6 is brought to bear to kill the Marines, its a lot more than the amount required to kill the same number of Guardsmen. You may claim that there shouldn't be that much heavy weapon firepower in the game, and I'd agree, but surviving 2-3 times as much of it sure sounds elite to me.
(3) How elite Marines are is a model-to-model comparison. Balance is on a point level, but is a different question.
I disagree that high ROF S6 cares about 3+ armor. They have enough shots to just get through it. Cheaper models in cover are actually worse for those kinds of weapon, because you are killing so many fewer points with each failed cover save. Model-for-model is a pointless comparison, imo. Everything is in the context of the cost to field the model. The bottom line is that marines lose at least 14 pts per failed save and guard lose 5 pts. Heck, against scatter lasers and shields, guardsmen get their armor saves. Small arms without special rules are largely irrelevant in this game unless they are coming in huge numbers. Boltguns have neither.
A boltgun round is 4 times as likely to kill a Guardsman as a Marine.
(1)(1/2)(1/3) vs (1)(2/3)(1)
(1/6) vs (4/6)
This 'not more durable' thing is a myth. Not everything is s6+ or ap3-, much less both. Even s6 spam usually isn't ap3.
If you assume anything less than s6 ap3 is useless, well, we play different games.
I exaggerate when I say "as easily," but the issue is that when marines drop, they simply drop. On average, a marine should be able to tank a handful of lasgun shots before dropping. However, the chances of him dying to a single lasgun are also pretty high. As indicated by your math, one in every 6 guardsmen to rapid fire at an adeptus astartes will kill him on the first try. I'm pretty sure the imperium is putting more than six guardsmen worth of resources into each marine. It's not bad mechanically, but it is pretty anticlimactic. After undergoing intense surgical and genetic modifications, being given equipment that only they can wield that is valuable enough to have been preserved for millenia, and studying the art of war until they can outmaneuver Ender Wiggin, a five man squad of marines can't take on a single squad of guardsmen without losing a guy.
I don't want invulnerable marines, but something like an extra wound or a "plot point" mechanic that lets them stay alive or make the shot that matters might be nice.
im aware of the fluff for Space marines having a god amount of resilience as far as fluff goes, but I assume they ALSO benefitted from T4 as the answer to the fluff, you know since guardsmen are T3
The sad part in all this is durability is where tactical marines fail the least. T4's stock continues to drop in this game. Orks should be keenly aware of this as well.
Guardsmen shooting stuff:
Marines: (1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 dead Marines per shot
Guardsmen: (1/2)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/6 dead Guardsmen
S6 spam (using SL, so AP6) out of cover kills 10 points of Guardsmen for every 13 points of CSMs it would kill.
Yeah, that isn't so great for Marines, but using a heavy weapon to kill generic troopers with little/no protection is a clear example of overkill, so it should be fewer points. Soaking heavy weapons fire like a champ is a big part of what cheap GEQ armies *do*. Makes sense to me that they would be marginally more survivable per point there.
Guardsmen shooting stuff:
Marines: (1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 dead Marines per shot
Guardsmen: (1/2)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/6 dead Guardsmen
S6 spam (using SL, so AP6) out of cover kills 10 points of Guardsmen for every 13 points of CSMs it would kill.
Yeah, that isn't so great for Marines, but using a heavy weapon to kill generic troopers with little/no protection is a clear example of overkill, so it should be fewer points. Soaking heavy weapons fire like a champ is a big part of what cheap GEQ armies *do*. Makes sense to me that they would be marginally more survivable per point there.
We're never going to quite agree on this, and I don't have a clear idea of what needs to happen, but marines being mowed down like chaff has gotten tiresome over the last three editions. We don't agree on the frequency of this occurrence, but I can tell you that since 5th foot marines are basically dead men.
I knew the game was forever changed when I saw the 5th ed IG book kill 57 marines in one turn with a few fortunate blast markers. Well, changed back to 2nd ed, at any rate.
Functionally, the marines were elite in 3rd ed. And that's about it. I don't know about 4th. But in 2nd, and in 5th onward the generic tactical marine is just a victim.
Martel732 wrote: I knew the game was forever changed when I saw the 5th ed IG book kill 57 marines in one turn with a few fortunate blast markers. Well, changed back to 2nd ed, at any rate.
Functionally, the marines were elite in 3rd ed. And that's about it. I don't know about 4th. But in 2nd, and in 5th onward the generic tactical marine is just a victim.
Been a victim for the whole time I've played this game. When I first started I'd play marines vs DE in 4th edition. Basic DE warriors would beat me in assault with a single syberite with an agonizer. Must played 15 games vs DE - lost every time - those archons.... Not until 5th edition did I see actual competitive marines. Just cause of Vulcan making meltas and heavy flamers twinlinked. Then 5th ed blood angels came out with armywide FNP and fast raorbacks, then spacewolves came out with super greyhunters and long fangs and thunderwolves. Still though - the tactical marine has been gak the whole time and it still is.
The Gak Space marine is still one of the better infantry units in the game. If played right they can hold objectives and play backfield with a combat squad with a heavy weapon. Everyone expects marines to out shoot, out hit, and out assault everyone else. if that were the case nobody would play any army except marines. Marines can out assault Tau but get boned by firepower, Marines can out shoot basic orks but get boned in the assault. Theres a trade off.
Ghazkuul wrote: The Gak Space marine is still one of the better infantry units in the game. If played right they can hold objectives and play backfield with a combat squad with a heavy weapon. Everyone expects marines to out shoot, out hit, and out assault everyone else. if that were the case nobody would play any army except marines. Marines can out assault Tau but get boned by firepower, Marines can out shoot basic orks but get boned in the assault. Theres a trade off.
The problem is they pay for their average specialization in a game where it's better to be all or nothing.
Also they are pretty poor at assaulting in most cases, otherwise Assault Marines would be worth something I suppose.
Martel732 wrote: I knew the game was forever changed when I saw the 5th ed IG book kill 57 marines in one turn with a few fortunate blast markers. Well, changed back to 2nd ed, at any rate.
Functionally, the marines were elite in 3rd ed. And that's about it. I don't know about 4th. But in 2nd, and in 5th onward the generic tactical marine is just a victim.
Been a victim for the whole time I've played this game. When I first started I'd play marines vs DE in 4th edition. Basic DE warriors would beat me in assault with a single syberite with an agonizer. Must played 15 games vs DE - lost every time - those archons.... Not until 5th edition did I see actual competitive marines. Just cause of Vulcan making meltas and heavy flamers twinlinked. Then 5th ed blood angels came out with armywide FNP and fast raorbacks, then spacewolves came out with super greyhunters and long fangs and thunderwolves. Still though - the tactical marine has been gak the whole time and it still is.
While Dark Eldar have historically been a pretty solid hardcounter to MEQ armies, losing assaults to Warriors with anything near regularity just because of an Agonizer is...atypical. On average, on a charge, a Sybarite striking with 4 attacks is going to hit with two, and wound with one, killing a single Space Marine on average, meanwhile the Warriors aren't much better than Guardsmen in close combat.
Assuming a 10man 4E tac marine squad with a powerfist (because the powerfist was never *not* taken pretty much) gets charged by a 10man Warrrior squad with an Agnozier Sybarite, the Warriors inflict 2 wounds total before the Marines strike back, and the marines inflict and average of 3.2 wounds back, marines win. It's really only if you get a 20man Warrior squad that the balance shifts in favor of the DE, and even then really only for the initial Charge.
Wyches were what always borked me in 4E with my CSM's.
Ghazkuul wrote: The Gak Space marine is still one of the better infantry units in the game. If played right they can hold objectives and play backfield with a combat squad with a heavy weapon. Everyone expects marines to out shoot, out hit, and out assault everyone else. if that were the case nobody would play any army except marines. Marines can out assault Tau but get boned by firepower, Marines can out shoot basic orks but get boned in the assault. Theres a trade off.
Except they aren't one of the better units on a per point basis. They are still 14pt/W. In the case of the Tau, the average marine won't survive to out assault them, and in the case of the Ork, can't shoot enough to make a difference in melee. Only marine magic bullet units make them viable. Almost all the classic marine units are crap now.
Bharring wrote: An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.
The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy..
It just needs to not be all or nothing. Keep the AP system, and the the modifier system be far more gradual (reserving -2 or higher for anti-armor weapons). RT and 2E's save modifiers were too common, reducing armor effectiveness far too much. The problem with the AP system is it creates an all or nothing scenario, wherein heavier armored troops have no use for cover except to gain a small save against high AP weapons. Which, of course then became more of a problem as higher (lower?) AP weapons became commonplace. Of course, the other problem was cover become a "save" rather than a to-hit modifier like in most good systems.
A system where a weapon is AP 5/-1 would automatically defeat 5+ or worse, and give a -1 to everything else. A weapon like a plasma gun could (for example) be AP 4/-2, thus defeating most armor, and degrading higher end stuff.
Bharring wrote: An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.
The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy..
It just needs to not be all or nothing. Keep the AP system, and the the modifier system be far more gradual (reserving -2 or higher for anti-armor weapons). RT and 2E's save modifiers were too common, reducing armor effectiveness far too much. The problem with the AP system is it creates an all or nothing scenario, wherein heavier armored troops have no use for cover except to gain a small save against high AP weapons. Which, of course then became more of a problem as higher (lower?) AP weapons became commonplace. Of course, the other problem was cover become a "save" rather than a to-hit modifier like in most good systems.
A system where a weapon is AP 5/-1 would automatically defeat 5+ or worse, and give a -1 to everything else. A weapon like a plasma gun could (for example) be AP 4/-2, thus defeating most armor, and degrading higher end stuff.
That system is something I have thought about for a while, but I think you need a D10 still to get enough graduation between units. The game is much bigger than in 1994 and it has outgrown the D6.
Bharring wrote: An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.
The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy..
It just needs to not be all or nothing. Keep the AP system, and the the modifier system be far more gradual (reserving -2 or higher for anti-armor weapons). RT and 2E's save modifiers were too common, reducing armor effectiveness far too much.
Don't forget that while many weapons had armor save modifiers, there were also to-hit modifiers as well, so while armor in and of itself wasn't quite as valuable, you overall would face fewer casualties from many weapons because they wouldn't hit very often.
Lets take say 3 BS3 autocannons. Under the current system, if you're in cover with MEQ unit, you'd take an average of 0.833 wounds from those 3 autocannons. Now, under 2E, where the AC had a -3 ASM on it, you'd only save on 6's, but because you were in cover they were also only hitting you on 6's, you'd take an average of 0.6944 wounds, and you'd actually be better off than you would now. It makes cover have a lot more purpose.
People are too hung up on just getting to roll that 3+ I've found in my experiences.
with all the upgrades that space marines have gotten in their last codex and im sure they will receive a bunch more in the next codex, I just can't see how they would buff regular tac marines to make them more elite.
Bharring wrote: An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.
The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy..
It just needs to not be all or nothing. Keep the AP system, and the the modifier system be far more gradual (reserving -2 or higher for anti-armor weapons). RT and 2E's save modifiers were too common, reducing armor effectiveness far too much.
Don't forget that while many weapons had armor save modifiers, there were also to-hit modifiers as well, so while armor in and of itself wasn't quite as valuable, you overall would face fewer casualties from many weapons because they wouldn't hit very often.
Lets take say 3 BS3 autocannons. Under the current system, if you're in cover with MEQ unit, you'd take an average of 0.833 wounds from those 3 autocannons. Now, under 2E, where the AC had a -3 ASM on it, you'd only save on 6's, but because you were in cover they were also only hitting you on 6's, you'd take an average of 0.6944 wounds, and you'd actually be better off than you would now. It makes cover have a lot more purpose.
People are too hung up on just getting to roll that 3+ I've found in my experiences.
Yeah, but a .14 difference isn't really addressing the problem, which is overcosted/underperforming Tactical Marines. Basically you're just saying that Tactical Marines were marginalized differently in 2nd than in the current system, lol.
Bharring wrote: An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.
The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy..
It just needs to not be all or nothing. Keep the AP system, and the the modifier system be far more gradual (reserving -2 or higher for anti-armor weapons). RT and 2E's save modifiers were too common, reducing armor effectiveness far too much. The problem with the AP system is it creates an all or nothing scenario, wherein heavier armored troops have no use for cover except to gain a small save against high AP weapons. Which, of course then became more of a problem as higher (lower?) AP weapons became commonplace. Of course, the other problem was cover become a "save" rather than a to-hit modifier like in most good systems.
A system where a weapon is AP 5/-1 would automatically defeat 5+ or worse, and give a -1 to everything else. A weapon like a plasma gun could (for example) be AP 4/-2, thus defeating most armor, and degrading higher end stuff.
That system is something I have thought about for a while, but I think you need a D10 still to get enough graduation between units. The game is much bigger than in 1994 and it has outgrown the D6.
Potentially. D6 will always be a problem. But I've been sticking with it initially, because everything else in the game is statted out for the D6.
Ghazkuul wrote: with all the upgrades that space marines have gotten in their last codex and im sure they will receive a bunch more in the next codex, I just can't see how they would buff regular tac marines to make them more elite.
Bolters being slightly better and/or double Special Weapons on Marines. Nobody wants the Heavy Weapon EVER because the ability to move and actually shoot is necessary. If I want Heavy Weapons, I have Sternguard, Devastators, and Centurions for that purpose.
Bharring wrote: An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.
The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy..
It just needs to not be all or nothing. Keep the AP system, and the the modifier system be far more gradual (reserving -2 or higher for anti-armor weapons). RT and 2E's save modifiers were too common, reducing armor effectiveness far too much.
Don't forget that while many weapons had armor save modifiers, there were also to-hit modifiers as well, so while armor in and of itself wasn't quite as valuable, you overall would face fewer casualties from many weapons because they wouldn't hit very often.
Lets take say 3 BS3 autocannons. Under the current system, if you're in cover with MEQ unit, you'd take an average of 0.833 wounds from those 3 autocannons. Now, under 2E, where the AC had a -3 ASM on it, you'd only save on 6's, but because you were in cover they were also only hitting you on 6's, you'd take an average of 0.6944 wounds, and you'd actually be better off than you would now. It makes cover have a lot more purpose.
People are too hung up on just getting to roll that 3+ I've found in my experiences.
Yeah, but a .14 difference isn't really addressing the problem, which is overcosted/underperforming Tactical Marines. Basically you're just saying that Tactical Marines were marginalized differently in 2nd than in the current system, lol.
That's a nearly 20% improvement in resiliency. But again, the bigger point was that ASM's didn't exist in a vacuum, they functioned together with to-hit modifiers. GW got rid of ASM's but everyone is now always hitting at full ballistic skill all the time.
If we look at something with a smaller ASM, say the humble Lasgun, we see a huge difference. Against a Marine in heavy cover in 2E, you'd inflict an average of 0.02777 wounds, with the Marine saving on 4's due to ASM's. Under the current AP system, you'd inflict 0.05555, *halving* the marine's survivability even though he's now always saving on 3's instead of 4's.
Ashiraya wrote: But everyone got the same use of cover back in those days. It's not inherently part of SM survivability.
Except it's a bonus, Cover still helped everyone, rather then those automatically penetrated by a weapon, or improving armor saves for those with very poor to none.
Martel732 wrote: I knew the game was forever changed when I saw the 5th ed IG book kill 57 marines in one turn with a few fortunate blast markers. Well, changed back to 2nd ed, at any rate.
Functionally, the marines were elite in 3rd ed. And that's about it. I don't know about 4th. But in 2nd, and in 5th onward the generic tactical marine is just a victim.
Been a victim for the whole time I've played this game. When I first started I'd play marines vs DE in 4th edition. Basic DE warriors would beat me in assault with a single syberite with an agonizer. Must played 15 games vs DE - lost every time - those archons.... Not until 5th edition did I see actual competitive marines. Just cause of Vulcan making meltas and heavy flamers twinlinked. Then 5th ed blood angels came out with armywide FNP and fast raorbacks, then spacewolves came out with super greyhunters and long fangs and thunderwolves. Still though - the tactical marine has been gak the whole time and it still is.
While Dark Eldar have historically been a pretty solid hardcounter to MEQ armies, losing assaults to Warriors with anything near regularity just because of an Agonizer is...atypical. On average, on a charge, a Sybarite striking with 4 attacks is going to hit with two, and wound with one, killing a single Space Marine on average, meanwhile the Warriors aren't much better than Guardsmen in close combat.
Assuming a 10man 4E tac marine squad with a powerfist (because the powerfist was never *not* taken pretty much) gets charged by a 10man Warrrior squad with an Agnozier Sybarite, the Warriors inflict 2 wounds total before the Marines strike back, and the marines inflict and average of 3.2 wounds back, marines win. It's really only if you get a 20man Warrior squad that the balance shifts in favor of the DE, and even then really only for the initial Charge.
Wyches were what always borked me in 4E with my CSM's.
I think I was taking 7 mans with a laz cannon or plasma cannon - DE always got to charge first - just turbo boost raider right in front of marines - it gets a 4+ invo for that - and you can't explode it cause moving skimmers 6" were always hull down - on the charge it didn't really matter what was inside. wyches, incubi, or even just warriors - seemed to get wiped everytime. I know it seems nuts but the syberites always seemed to kill 2-3 marines and all losses were before I could strike most the time and i'd lose 2-3 more from the warriors. 3-5 marines attacking back with 1 attack each was a joke. It's really just the fact that they always got to charge and their vehicals being made of paper were more durable than my tanks. Not really much has changed - except you can blow up an open topped vehical pretty easy and now there is over watch and you can glance out armor 10 pretty easy to with just bolters. I also didn't have a lot of unit selection at the time. I got a wirlwind and that helped out a lot in 4ed vs DE but nothing I did would stop that archon from destroying squad after squad. Got to the point were I was playing full mech vs DE cause it was the only thing they didn't charge and get fully evaporated.
Mumblez wrote: I'm gonna be honest, I can't ever take these complaints seriously. Marines not being good enough, I can sort of agree with, but that's caused by the increasingly devestating weaponry that's become available to many factions.
Marines not living up to their gakky fluff? Just because the majority of 40K novels are badly written and happen to be bolter porn doesn't mean marines should become unstoppable juggernauts.
If someone really wants to do movie marines, they could just field an unbound army of all chapter masters/captains. This is exactly the sort of stuff 7th exists for!
My dream marines wouldn't be unstoppable juggernaughts, but having stats of Guard major hero characters with a Marine stat modifier on top of it. So, multiple wounds, multiple attacks and bonus to strength, toughness, initiative and weapon skills.
This would follow the idea of Marines being exceptional individuals going through extremely harsh selection and then uber-elite training and then on top of that are augmented.
Basic problem with Marines is that their stat profile (not counting Armour which is an equivalent of RT terminator armour) is practically unchanged from the times of Rogue Trader where they were a bunch of press-ganged psychopathic hive scum that was given some surgical modifications.
Index Astartes articles have changed the character of marines making the modifications pretty hardcore and later introducing extreme recruitment process that involves brutal trials that weed out anyone who isn't already exceptional.
SM stat profile was created to represent these guys:
Spoiler:
While currently Space Marines are these guys:
Spoiler:
It's not just a question of the novels. Space Marines statline simply represents that something that no longer exists in the Wh40k sense setting and fails to represent what replaced it.
I will just mention this , I am not sure if any one has.
In the beginning of 40k, they started with Imperial Guard human as the yard stick.All other races were developed from and costed from this basic profile.
(As 40k rules are a WHFB clone this makes sense.)
So all factions races were slightly different to humans, and had distinct play styles.
SM were the elite human force , the scalpel of the Imperium, rather than the sledgehammer of the IG.
And because they were FEW in number on the table , they had to be played well.There were no specially developed armies for new player armies back then,
However, over time GW realized that SM were the poster boys of 40k, (The only thing that was not instantly recognizable as ' fantasy in space'.)So spent more time developing and promoting them.
So more people wanted to play SM , unsurprisingly.
However, the super elite force , was not adaptable enough to cover all the play styles new players might like .
So they made the SM the jack of all trades master of none type army.(SM became very forgiving to play when their main weakness of low model count was done away with.)
They basically made the super human elite the new player army of choice.
So rather than being one of many factions with distinct strengths and weaknesses , SM became the army you saw everywhere.
And so to try to claw back some game play , GW gave all other factions the ability to deal with the now common place SM armies.
So in trying to maximize sales of the range GW wanted as the 'face of 40k' they totally messed up the game play and totally ignored the original background that made 40k so appealing to so many people.
IF 40k rules were written specifically for the 40k game play as derived from the background .The developers would start with the basic IG as the yard stick every other faction was developed from and compared to.
Space Marines would be more elite, but also far more expensive in PV.
BUT more importantly there would be a reason to play other armies beyond 'they look nice'.
Mumblez wrote: I'm gonna be honest, I can't ever take these complaints seriously. Marines not being good enough, I can sort of agree with, but that's caused by the increasingly devestating weaponry that's become available to many factions.
Marines not living up to their gakky fluff? Just because the majority of 40K novels are badly written and happen to be bolter porn doesn't mean marines should become unstoppable juggernauts.
If someone really wants to do movie marines, they could just field an unbound army of all chapter masters/captains. This is exactly the sort of stuff 7th exists for!
My dream marines wouldn't be unstoppable juggernaughts, but having stats of Guard major hero characters with a Marine stat modifier on top of it. So, multiple wounds, multiple attacks and bonus to strength, toughness, initiative and weapon skills.
This would follow the idea of Marines being exceptional individuals going through extremely harsh selection and then uber-elite training and then on top of that are augmented.
Basic problem with Marines is that their stat profile (not counting Armour which is an equivalent of RT terminator armour) is practically unchanged from the times of Rogue Trader where they were a bunch of press-ganged psychopathic hive scum that was given some surgical modifications.
Index Astartes articles have changed the character of marines making the modifications pretty hardcore and later introducing extreme recruitment process that involves brutal trials that weed out anyone who isn't already exceptional.
SM stat profile was created to represent these guys:
While currently Space Marines are these guys:
It's not just a question of the novels. Space Marines statline simply represents that something that no longer exists in the Wh40k sense setting and fails to represent what replaced it.
I personally like how Space Marines are already as it emphasises the grimmdark nature of 40k; even humanity's finest are no real match to the atrocities of the galaxy
Yes, SMs should be more elite than the C:SM presents them.
But how is GW supposed to survive if their best-selling army is powered-up far enough so their battleforce box costs 1500 points to deploy?
A force that elite would be fewer models on the table, and GW would sell less stuff.
SGTPozy wrote: I personally like how Space Marines are already as it emphasises the grimmdark nature of 40k; even humanity's finest are no real match to the atrocities of the galaxy
Atrocities of the galaxy like cultists with lasguns and orks with shootas.
Skinnereal wrote: Yes, SMs should be more elite than the C:SM presents them.
But how is GW supposed to survive if their best-selling army is powered-up far enough so their battleforce box costs 1500 points to deploy?
A force that elite would be fewer models on the table, and GW would sell less stuff.
Well, they could make some special quality truescale marine models or something like that and make marines expensive.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Atrocities of the galaxy like cultists with lasguns and orks with shootas.
I am pretty sure that orks are pretty scary. Remember that one time when one almost killed the Emperor? Sure beats what some anonymous space marine can ever hope to achieve, right?
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Atrocities of the galaxy like cultists with lasguns and orks with shootas.
I am pretty sure that orks are pretty scary. Remember that one time when one almost killed the Emperor? Sure beats what some anonymous space marine can ever hope to achieve, right?
I do not think that Ork should be considered representative of his species. Besides, it is in debate how close he was - it is highly possible the Emperor faked it to build a bond with Horus.
SGTPozy wrote: I personally like how Space Marines are already as it emphasises the grimmdark nature of 40k; even humanity's finest are no real match to the atrocities of the galaxy
But that is fake grimdark. The setting is not grimdark for everyone. Nurgle Daemons, for example, are very happy and pleased with the state of things, and live in what is essentially their paradise.
The 'horrors of the galaxy' are not so grimdark if your average fruitshop owner who happened to find a meltagun can kill every last one of them without issues. It becomes 'humanity feth yeah' which is also viable for a setting, but it is not grimdark and it is not really what 40k is going for.
40K is grimdark not only because humanity is fethed, but because you, the human soldier, is a guy in okay armour, with an okay gun, sent to battle demigods of war. And the Space Marines who do compete on that level are brainwashed crazy zealous gene-modified abominations who are not actually human any longer, and you could not become one even if you wanted to sacrifice everything you are to be one. More grimdark!
Ashiraya wrote: I do not think that Ork should be considered representative of his species.
Is she representative of the average ork? Nope. She totally is much more powerful. Should orks be discarded as weak? No. They is a huge range of threat level among the ork species. But they can be incredible opponents, for sure. Some of them are more than any lone marine can chew. And even your average girlz is still a threat.
Ashiraya wrote: The 'horrors of the galaxy' are not so grimdark if your average fruitshop owner who happened to find a meltagun can kill every last one of them without issues.
A melta gun will not help you if you are just a cashier, and some genestealer come for you. Because you will never be able to aim at him. Same if even a small brood of hormagaunts come to eat your entrails. What will you to if termagants riddle your body with worms that eats you from the inside? Worse, what will you do against, say, a cultist with a lasgun? His gun outrange yours by far, and he has better training. You are dead now.
The fact that there are some very close range weapons that are very powerful does not make the setting less grimdark. Use that melta against this enslaver invasion? Oh, wait, you cannot, you are already a puppet to her will! Use that melta gun against that Dark Eldar raid? Who are you kidding now, when you see them it will already be too late! You will be a slave for the pits!
SGTPozy wrote: I personally like how Space Marines are already as it emphasises the grimmdark nature of 40k; even humanity's finest are no real match to the atrocities of the galaxy
There's only 1000 Space Marines per chapter. If they were as soft as in the tabletop game, they'd die out very quickly. I think that a much better representation of the horrors of galaxy is that Imperial Guard which is top 20% of the Imperial Army is considered to be cannon fodder.
Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.
I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .
I think it would be more like 30-35ppm for the basic tactical marine, 40-45ppm for the different veterans, 60-65ppm for terminators, and maybe 100ppm for centurions.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.
I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .
No one is asking for buffs to primarcs. Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.
Xenomancers wrote: Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.
What about daemon princes? What about Carnifex? What about Genestealers? What about 9/10th of the models in the game, actually?
If the points match their value you can leave them the same. Or you can increase their abilities if you want and increase their points as well.
You need to realize that this is a matter of preference to matching a perceived "need" for fluff reasons. Space Marines are pretty balanced right now imo from a tabletop perspective, but could use a few small tweaks here and there( like terminators hence 40gazillion terminator threads in proposed rules)
I'd be fine if SM were made more elite, or if we toned down the other things like eldar and necrons to a reasonable level.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.
I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .
No one is asking for buffs to primarcs. Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.
My vision would be WS 5, BS 5, S 4, T 4, W 3, I 5 A 3 Ld 8 Sv 3+ base Marine.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: My vision would be WS 5, BS 5, S 4, T 4, W 3, I 5 A 3 Ld 8 Sv 3+ base Marine.
Space Marines shooting better than Eldar aspect warriors specialized in shooting makes no sense. Even Eldar snipers do not have BS5. So, no. (Even though I would just LOVE shooting those marines with melta or an exorcist missile launcher. Whooom, there you go with you 3 hp! Instant death baby!)
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.
I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .
No one is asking for buffs to primarcs. Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.
My vision would be WS 5, BS 5, S 4, T 4, W 3, I 5 A 3 Ld 8 Sv 3+ base Marine.
And I'm pretty sure that would be about 35ppm. Not bad actually. Alot of people gripe about having extra T added to them. Although 2W is probably more reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The bs5 and ws5 should probably be reserved for sternguard and vanguard respectively
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.
I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .
No one is asking for buffs to primarcs. Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.
My vision would be WS 5, BS 5, S 4, T 4, W 3, I 5 A 3 Ld 8 Sv 3+ base Marine.
Honestly I would hate to see marine stats go this way, and would rather see GW point out the game better.
small elite army's that you have to grind though( or kill easy under large numbers of heavy weapons due to there high points)
Erode away what fun I have In the game left, and push the fluff that the stats are supposed to represent to its limits.
Realy just don't want to see super marines, where every one is the equal to an autarch or a hereld of a chaos God.
Xenomancers wrote: Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.
What about daemon princes? What about Carnifex? What about Genestealers? What about 9/10th of the models in the game, actually?
Depends - no one is suggesting marines have MC stats. 1 on 1 a marine should still lose to a carifex or a daemon price - but a combat squad should be able to beat one with some losses probably - instead of just getting wrecked. Gene stealers on the other hand are also a pretty poor reflection of what they should be - they too can use buffs.
I'm thinking a marine should probably be something like
ws4 bs4 str 5 t4 w2 i4 a2 ld9 sv 3+/5+i
Bolters w str 4 with shred
relentless
rending CC attacks
Sergeants should have the same stats but have a few upgrade options that allow for split fire, tank hunter, monster hunter, Infiltrate.
Xenomancer, I say leave them at S4 and give the chainsword the profile s+1 ap- so that it is actually worthwhile on assault Marines and sgts. And then maybe 33ppm?
To get the game to properly match its background, we'd need to overhaul the game entirely. We can make some improvements though.
WS3-WS6 is WAY too crowded, whereas WS7-WS10 is a desolate realm.
For instance, I could easily see Eldar and Marines get far higher WS than they have. A Chapter Master with WS8 base should not be out of place. WS5 for Astartes base.
Xenomancers wrote: but a combat squad should be able to beat one with some losses probably - instead of just getting wrecked.
A combat squad should beat a daemon prince? Why bother with becoming one then. Seems pretty weak to me. I mean, generic non-daemon marine HQ can wreck a combat squad without loosing an HP, why should daemon princes be unable to?
Gene stealers on the other hand are also a pretty poor reflection of what they should be - they too can use buffs.
A combat squad should beat a daemon prince? Why bother with becoming one then. Seems pretty weak to me. I mean, generic non-daemon marine HQ can wreck a combat squad without loosing an HP, why should daemon princes be unable to? Gene stealers on the other hand are also a pretty poor reflection of what they should be - they too can use buffs.
DP should definitely beat combat squad 1 on 1, but it should not be a smooth win. SM are very strong defensively.
The DP, with its S/T5, also needs buffs. It's pretty pathetic as it is. Remove its reliance on wings and psychic powers by nerfing them, and buff its baseline abilities.
The same invulnerable as terminators? Making Iron Halo and Rosarius basically useless? Just, why? They need no invulnerable.
Terminators are -weak-. They too need buffs. Rosarius and IH is still useful.
Shred for everybody with bolters, then. Marines bolters are the same as everybody else.
Incorrect. Normal humans can't even lift Astartes bolters.
Ashiraya wrote: To get the game to properly match its background, we'd need to overhaul the game entirely. We can make some improvements though.
WS3-WS6 is WAY too crowded, whereas WS7-WS10 is a desolate realm.
For instance, I could easily see Eldar and Marines get far higher WS than they have. A Chapter Master with WS8 base should not be out of place. WS5 for Astartes base.
Indeed. Because why should and assassin be better at fighting than a chapter master with centuries of experience?
Ashiraya wrote: Remove its reliance on wings and psychic powers by nerfing them, and buff its baseline abilities.
I always thought wings should come with a disadvantage not to make them a no-brainer. It is not obvious what it should be for daemon princes because they are not made of real stuff, but for hive tyrants, that should definitely give them at least -1 T, because if you are going to FLY, you certainly need to have a light frame. If you are walking, you can therefore be much more robust.
I always thought wings should come with a disadvantage not to make them a no-brainer. It is not obvious what it should be for daemon princes because they are not made of real stuff, but for hive tyrants, that should definitely give them at least -1 T, because if you are going to FLY, you certainly need to have a light frame. If you are walking, you can therefore be much more robust.
I always thought wings should come with a disadvantage not to make them a no-brainer. It is not obvious what it should be for daemon princes because they are not made of real stuff, but for hive tyrants, that should definitely give them at least -1 T, because if you are going to FLY, you certainly need to have a light frame. If you are walking, you can therefore be much more robust
.
Perhaps rather than a straight up -1T give an upgrade for the same cost as wings to grant +1T that can be taken instead of wings( obviously not being able to take both at the same time)
I always thought wings should come with a disadvantage not to make them a no-brainer. It is not obvious what it should be for daemon princes because they are not made of real stuff, but for hive tyrants, that should definitely give them at least -1 T, because if you are going to FLY, you certainly need to have a light frame. If you are walking, you can therefore be much more robust
.
Perhaps rather than a straight up -1T give an upgrade for the same cost as wings to grant +1T that can be taken instead of wings( obviously not being able to take both at the same time)
They have their 2+ save upgrade that they can take instead of wings, right?
Seems that is not enough, unfortunately. Wings are just too good.
Tbh I think this is a problem with the flyer/FMC rules. Wings grant mobility, that is cool. They also grant way too much survivability.
Ashiraya wrote: Harker is a one-of-a-kind in the entire galaxy.
Yes. But he is carrying a heavy bolter.
Aye. Without ammo, mind you, because his loader carries it. It's also not awfully large for a HB. Looks like a mini-HB to me (compare to the one used by heavy weapons teams)
As said, he is also one-of-a-kind. What he does should not be considered a standard in any shape or form for anyone else.
I think it's okay they did not write 'too heavy for any mortal man to lift except Harker'.
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Xenomancer, I say leave them at S4 and give the chainsword the profile s+1 ap- so that it is actually worthwhile on assault Marines and sgts. And then maybe 33ppm?
Assault marines should probably cost about the same - chainsword should give CC shred to make them worth while!
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Xenomancer, I say leave them at S4 and give the chainsword the profile s+1 ap- so that it is actually worthwhile on assault Marines and sgts. And then maybe 33ppm?
Chainswords with a purpose?! Brilliant!
Though honestly i would rather them be slightly cheaper and give the chain sword shred.
Honestly the 4 across the board stats i think is fine. its above average and makes sense. I think 2 wounds would be better for a slight points increase. but not much else needed otherwise you are literally running around with captain level dudes. I think it would be WAY more interesting to increase stats based on what kind of Vets they get upgraded to. like Sternguard gets a +1 BS instead of a WS, while Vanguard gets a +1 to WS and so on. and the generic +1 attack for both. Ether that or instead of increasing stats you can give them Some kind of Preferred enemy which would make sense for vet type things.
Desubot wrote: I think 2 wounds would be better for a slight points increase. but not much else needed otherwise you are literally running around with captain level dudes.
Well, the point is to make Space Marines slightly above the level of Imperial Guard heroes. These are guys that survived extremely harsh trials and were subjected to lots of training and surgically modified to withstand a lot of punishment.
Desubot wrote: I think 2 wounds would be better for a slight points increase. but not much else needed otherwise you are literally running around with captain level dudes.
Well, the point is to make Space Marines slightly above the level of Imperial Guard heroes. These are guys that survived extremely harsh trials and were subjected to lots of training and surgically modified to withstand a lot of punishment.
Two wounds is pretty significant
Its like getting half your torso shot clean off and still being able to move and function.
Its about as strong as Wraiths are atm and those things are fething scary even when they used to be T4 instead of 5
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Xenomancer, I say leave them at S4 and give the chainsword the profile s+1 ap- so that it is actually worthwhile on assault Marines and sgts. And then maybe 33ppm?
Chainswords with a purpose?! Brilliant!
Though honestly i would rather them be slightly cheaper and give the chain sword shred.
Honestly the 4 across the board stats i think is fine. its above average and makes sense. I think 2 wounds would be better for a slight points increase. but not much else needed otherwise you are literally running around with captain level dudes.
I think it would be WAY more interesting to increase stats based on what kind of Vets they get upgraded to. like Sternguard gets a +1 BS instead of a WS, while Vanguard gets a +1 to WS and so on. and the generic +1 attack for both.
Ether that or instead of increasing stats you can give them Some kind of Preferred enemy which would make sense for vet type things.
I agree - the most important stat change would be making marines 2 wounds - with vets getting bonus to their main stat. I also think a base marine should have 2 attacks as well with vets going to 3 base. Make chain swords shred - bolters shred and wed have some pretty elite marines. Without a bonus to str or an invo save - i think these marines would be fair priced at about 26 points.
As pointed out* in similar threads shred on bolters may be a bit too much. Also with your suggested changes, why would I take a chainsword when I can just use a bolter?
I am a proponent for incentivizing the chainsword so it would either need to be : Bolters un-changed and chainswords gain shred OR go all the way and have bolters gain shred and chainswords get +1s and shred
Personally i really dont want to mess with bolter changes since its an extremely contested subject.
I dont think Marines should naturally have two attacks each. since they are getting a better chance to hit instead of wildly swinging there arms around.
as well they are going faster at intiative 4.
So they are stronger, faster, tougher, and hit better than a normal human.
Desubot wrote: Personally i really dont want to mess with bolter changes since its an extremely contested subject.
I dont think Marines should naturally have two attacks each. since they are getting a better chance to hit instead of wildly swinging there arms around.
as well they are going faster at intiative 4.
So they are stronger, faster, tougher, and hit better than a normal human.
I think attacks is just a measure of ferocity/endurance in close quarters. I think marines endurance is basically unlimited and ferocity should be much higher than your average human - they should have more attacks IMO. How can one be decent in CC with 1 attack?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: Shred on bolters is not going to be too much. Rerolls to wound yes, but it's still just 1/2 S4 shots. You're not going to kill much with it.
I think we can all agree that it is strong - but blade-storm is better - does bladestorm break the game? Kind of...but since bladestorm exists who cares? I'll get shred on bolters and I pay more for it...whats the big deal?
Desubot wrote: Personally i really dont want to mess with bolter changes since its an extremely contested subject.
I dont think Marines should naturally have two attacks each. since they are getting a better chance to hit instead of wildly swinging there arms around. as well they are going faster at intiative 4.
So they are stronger, faster, tougher, and hit better than a normal human.
I think attacks is just a measure of ferocity/endurance in close quarters. I think marines endurance is basically unlimited and ferocity should be much higher than your average human - they should have more attacks IMO. How can one be decent in CC with 1 attack?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: Shred on bolters is not going to be too much. Rerolls to wound yes, but it's still just 1/2 S4 shots. You're not going to kill much with it.
I think we can all agree that it is strong - but blade-storm is better - does bladestorm break the game? Kind of...but since bladestorm exists who cares? I'll get shred on bolters and I pay more for it...whats the big deal?
Ferocity and Endurance would be represented by the attacks ST and the ability to continue fighting (T)
If you end up doubling there attacks they would end up with WAY to many dice
especially if they are charging. even more if they are actually kitted for combat.
Here's how Id do it:
First weapon changes: Bolters gain shred. chainswords become S+1 shred.
Tactical, devastator, and assault Marines would be
Bs4 Ws4 T4 S4 W2 I4 A2 Ld8 Sv3+ for 28ppm with their standard Wargear options. So 140pts for a 5 man squad.
Bikes:
Bs4 Ws4 T5 S4 W2 I4 A2 Ld8 Sv3 for 41ppm. So 123pts for 3.
Sternguard become:
Bs5 Ws4 T4 S4 W2 I4 A3 Ld9 Sv3+ for 38ppm same Wargear and options. So 190pts for 5.
Vanguard become:
Bs4 Ws5 T4 S4 W2 I4 A3 Ld9 Sv3+ 34ppm same Wargear and options. So 170pts for 5.
Terminators and assault terminators:
Bs4 Ws4 S4 T5 W2 I4 A3 Ld10 Sv2+5+ for 50ppm and 55ppm respectively.Add in ignores unwieldy. Same Wargear and options. Brings them 250pts or 275pts for min sized squad.
Centurions:
Bs4 Ws4 S6 T6 W2 I4 A2 ld10 Sv2+ for 75ppm or 225 for 3 without upgrades.
Hqs: All hqs gain +1 w and A and increase in cost by 15pts.
The problem with all this 2 wounds stuff is that weapons which wiped them off the board before will still continue to do so.
A S8 AP2 pie plate from a Riptide doesn't care that each marine has two wounds (unless you also bump them to T5). All that this making Marines more "elite" and representative of their fluff will do is make them even less powerful and less representative of their fluff as they still die just as fast to the stuff which slaughters them now but now there are less models to kill.
You need to either increase the cost of things which are overperforming for their points or nerf those things. Not shift the whole centre in order to include those outliers.
Desubot wrote: Personally i really dont want to mess with bolter changes since its an extremely contested subject.
I dont think Marines should naturally have two attacks each. since they are getting a better chance to hit instead of wildly swinging there arms around.
as well they are going faster at intiative 4.
So they are stronger, faster, tougher, and hit better than a normal human.
I think attacks is just a measure of ferocity/endurance in close quarters. I think marines endurance is basically unlimited and ferocity should be much higher than your average human - they should have more attacks IMO. How can one be decent in CC with 1 attack?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: Shred on bolters is not going to be too much. Rerolls to wound yes, but it's still just 1/2 S4 shots. You're not going to kill much with it.
I think we can all agree that it is strong - but blade-storm is better - does bladestorm break the game? Kind of...but since bladestorm exists who cares? I'll get shred on bolters and I pay more for it...whats the big deal?
Ferocity and Endurance would be represented by the attacks ST and the ability to continue fighting (T)
If you end up doubling there attacks they would end up with WAY to many dice
especially if they are charging. even more if they are actually kitted for combat.
+ Things like chaplains.
How is it way to many dice? at around 28 ppm(the range we are suggesting) they would actually have less attacks per point on the charge than current 14 ppm marines. It would still be a technical downgrade in overall CC power. It would just be harder to whittle down power - more power in challanges - with the ability to get more power into smaller spaces. I'm not even sure the marines we are suggesting would over work better than 14 point marines - they would feel more like marines though - which is what I'm aiming for.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem with all this 2 wounds stuff is that weapons which wiped them off the board before will still continue to do so.
A S8 AP2 pie plate from a Riptide doesn't care that each marine has two wounds (unless you also bump them to T5). All that this making Marines more "elite" and representative of their fluff will do is make them even less powerful and less representative of their fluff as they still die just as fast to the stuff which slaughters them now but now there are less models to kill.
You need to either increase the cost of things which are overperforming for their points or nerf those things. Not shift the whole centre in order to include those outliers.
I dont think much should ever surviving getting microwaved, or shot with an artillery shell, or smashed completely in with a power fist.
It also increases the value of taking those weapons which is always a bonus instead of people just mass spamming ST6.
Edit: @ Xeno i guess you are right. at double the points for basically double the effectiveness at the same piece count but lowers the shooting unless we are completely changing bolters.
Desubot wrote: I think 2 wounds would be better for a slight points increase. but not much else needed otherwise you are literally running around with captain level dudes.
Well, the point is to make Space Marines slightly above the level of Imperial Guard heroes. These are guys that survived extremely harsh trials and were subjected to lots of training and surgically modified to withstand a lot of punishment.
Two wounds is pretty significant
Its like getting half your torso shot clean off and still being able to move and function.
I don't think it represents anything as drastic as getting more wounds is something that generic heroic characters, even unaugmented human ones get.
To me a perfect formula for a Marine is:
Take an imperial guard company commander and then slap on the bonuses that SM gets over an ordinary imperial guard troop. This way one gets a pretty accurate game representation of an augmented brutally selected and trained super-soldier.
Desubot wrote: I think 2 wounds would be better for a slight points increase. but not much else needed otherwise you are literally running around with captain level dudes.
Well, the point is to make Space Marines slightly above the level of Imperial Guard heroes. These are guys that survived extremely harsh trials and were subjected to lots of training and surgically modified to withstand a lot of punishment.
Two wounds is pretty significant
Its like getting half your torso shot clean off and still being able to move and function.
I don't think it represents anything as drastic as getting more wounds is something that generic heroic characters, even unaugmented human ones get.
I always though a Wound would be the threshold of some one being able to continue fighting after being wounded.
I guess being shot into two pieces is a litter drastic
But a normal human getting shot would probably at least be incapacitated from the shock and blood loss while a marine would probably be ok for the time being.
Desubot wrote: I always though a Wound would be the threshold of some one being able to continue fighting after being wounded.
I guess being shot into two pieces is a litter drastic
But a normal human getting shot would probably at least be incapacitated from the shock and blood loss while a marine would probably be ok for the time being.
From what I understand the modifications make them both harder to get wounded (toughness) and much more likely to survive and keep fighting after getting wounded (wounds). Endurance to wounds that is heroic in humans is default in marines.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem with all this 2 wounds stuff is that weapons which wiped them off the board before will still continue to do so.
A S8 AP2 pie plate from a Riptide doesn't care that each marine has two wounds (unless you also bump them to T5). All that this making Marines more "elite" and representative of their fluff will do is make them even less powerful and less representative of their fluff as they still die just as fast to the stuff which slaughters them now but now there are less models to kill.
You need to either increase the cost of things which are overperforming for their points or nerf those things. Not shift the whole centre in order to include those outliers.
I dont think much should ever surviving getting microwaved, or shot with an artillery shell, or smashed completely in with a power fist.
It also increases the value of taking those weapons which is always a bonus instead of people just mass spamming ST6.
Edit: @ Xeno i guess you are right. at double the points for basically double the effectiveness at the same piece count but lowers the shooting unless we are completely changing bolters.
Except most Tau players are already taking at least one Riptide. 2 wound marines just makes the Ion Riptide, which is already too effective for its cost in terms of its durability and firepower, even better against marines. That's not making them change their list, it's just making their list more effective, with no downside.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem with all this 2 wounds stuff is that weapons which wiped them off the board before will still continue to do so.
A S8 AP2 pie plate from a Riptide doesn't care that each marine has two wounds (unless you also bump them to T5). All that this making Marines more "elite" and representative of their fluff will do is make them even less powerful and less representative of their fluff as they still die just as fast to the stuff which slaughters them now but now there are less models to kill.
You need to either increase the cost of things which are overperforming for their points or nerf those things. Not shift the whole centre in order to include those outliers.
I dont think much should ever surviving getting microwaved, or shot with an artillery shell, or smashed completely in with a power fist.
It also increases the value of taking those weapons which is always a bonus instead of people just mass spamming ST6.
Edit: @ Xeno i guess you are right. at double the points for basically double the effectiveness at the same piece count but lowers the shooting unless we are completely changing bolters.
Except most Tau players are already taking at least one Riptide. 2 wound marines just makes the Ion Riptide, which is already too effective for its cost in terms of its durability and firepower, even better against marines. That's not making them change their list, it's just making their list more effective, with no downside.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem with all this 2 wounds stuff is that weapons which wiped them off the board before will still continue to do so.
A S8 AP2 pie plate from a Riptide doesn't care that each marine has two wounds (unless you also bump them to T5). All that this making Marines more "elite" and representative of their fluff will do is make them even less powerful and less representative of their fluff as they still die just as fast to the stuff which slaughters them now but now there are less models to kill.
You need to either increase the cost of things which are overperforming for their points or nerf those things. Not shift the whole centre in order to include those outliers.
I dont think much should ever surviving getting microwaved, or shot with an artillery shell, or smashed completely in with a power fist.
It also increases the value of taking those weapons which is always a bonus instead of people just mass spamming ST6.
Edit: @ Xeno i guess you are right. at double the points for basically double the effectiveness at the same piece count but lowers the shooting unless we are completely changing bolters.
Except most Tau players are already taking at least one Riptide. 2 wound marines just makes the Ion Riptide, which is already too effective for its cost in terms of its durability and firepower, even better against marines. That's not making them change their list, it's just making their list more effective, with no downside.
Then why dont we just nerf the riptide already.
You can't nerf it whilst Wraithknights, Dreadknights and Imperial Knights are still around
feth no. No one is nerfing anything with that crazy as gak Eldar codex around. If anything the majority of factions need buffs to compete with that codex. Only Necrons need the smallest of buffs because they're in a pretty good spot.
The Eldar codex is what really messed up everything.
Gamgee wrote: feth no. No one is nerfing anything with that crazy as gak Eldar codex around. If anything the majority of factions need buffs to compete with that codex. Only Necrons need the smallest of buffs because they're in a pretty good spot.
The Eldar codex is what really messed up everything.
Um... what?
Necrons are top tier.
Eldar as a whole need alot of nerfing so that shouldn't be an issue. Why do you think I would propose reducing everyone's overall powe except Eldar.
As far as I can tell making Space Marines elite isn't for competitive reasons but rather to fit their fluff better.
Do you want to know my opinion of how to fix Eldar?
Completely get rid of SD(every codex). Seriously. Replace every instance of it with S10 ap1 armorbane.
1 in 3 heavy weapons for jetbikes. Both of the heavy weapons become 15pts a piece.
Wraith Knight becomes +90 pts more expensive.
The base, or average statline for combatants is human. Basic IG. Space Marines are considered elite. Twenty-five years of power creep has made people believe that SMs are the baseline. Long ago in the days of Rogue Trader all 4s was considered huge.
GW really needs to reevaluate the stats of ALL armys. Elite guardsmen should be able to get a lot of 4s in their stats. SMs should all be 5s. Eldar guardians shoul have mostly 4s and a few 3s. In this way there'd be a better & finer gradiation between units. As it stands currently the upper reaches of the unit stat lines remain empty. Highlighting the highest, nigh unreachable stratosphere of power but leaving the lower, more average beings in a muddle.
Red Marine wrote: The base, or average statline for combatants is human. Basic IG. Space Marines are considered elite. Twenty-five years of power creep has made people believe that SMs are the baseline. Long ago in the days of Rogue Trader all 4s was considered huge.
GW really needs to reevaluate the stats of ALL armys. Elite guardsmen should be able to get a lot of 4s in their stats. SMs should all be 5s. Eldar guardians shoul have mostly 4s and a few 3s. In this way there'd be a better & finer gradiation between units. As it stands currently the upper reaches of the unit stat lines remain empty. Highlighting the highest, nigh unreachable stratosphere of power but leaving the lower, more average beings in a muddle.
I agree with the notion that the current system does a pretty poor job when it comes to make use of the profile attributes. But it's also true that the D6 system is simply not dynamic enough to do much more.
On the other hand, the biggest issue with space marines is that they're virtually the same as in Rogue Trader (between RT and 7th they got +1 toughness, +1 armor save and ATSKNF). In Rogue Trader they were depicted as elite human soldiers. In the current fluff they tend to be presented as demigods, each one of them a walking tank more than able to decimate entire enemy squads all by himself. Which is ridiculous.
As I see it, there is nothing really wrong with marines in the tabletop rules. Perhaps some minor adjustments could be made. Perhaps the problem doesn't really lie with the marines but with the power creep other units in the game have profited from. Anyway, the problem lies with the fluff. The fluff says godly walking tank, the rules say elite human soldier in power armor. I'd rather go with the marines as they apear in the rules, it makes them look more sympathetic in my eyes and less silly as a whole concept.
Seriously, I find it easier to stick to the game rules (as dire as their current state is) and dismiss most of the fluff as very obvious and silly imperial propaganda. Space Marines? Elite soldiers with the best gear the Imperium can afford (or almost), who excel in highly specialized tasks and love to take the glory and the bright spot at the end of the day. Although the wars are actually won or lost by the IG most of the time.
SGTPozy wrote: Can we make Tau fit the Fire Warrior novel please? I really want Fire Warriors to be as epic as in there
can you please make a different thread?
I don' think he's being serious, I think he's trying to make a point.
I dont know IIRC a lot of his posts are pretty salty to Tau. or he is trying to be ironic. Le internet for ya. But still its not very on topic for a space marine thread.
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Here's how Id do it:
First weapon changes: Bolters gain shred. chainswords become S+1 shred.
Tactical, devastator, and assault Marines would be
Bs4 Ws4 T4 S4 W2 I4 A2 Ld8 Sv3+ for 28ppm with their standard Wargear options. So 140pts for a 5 man squad.
Bikes:
Bs4 Ws4 T5 S4 W2 I4 A2 Ld8 Sv3 for 41ppm. So 123pts for 3.
Sternguard become:
Bs5 Ws4 T4 S4 W2 I4 A3 Ld9 Sv3+ for 38ppm same Wargear and options. So 190pts for 5.
Vanguard become:
Bs4 Ws5 T4 S4 W2 I4 A3 Ld9 Sv3+ 34ppm same Wargear and options. So 170pts for 5.
Terminators and assault terminators:
Bs4 Ws4 S4 T5 W2 I4 A3 Ld10 Sv2+5+ for 50ppm and 55ppm respectively.Add in ignores unwieldy. Same Wargear and options. Brings them 250pts or 275pts for min sized squad.
Centurions:
Bs4 Ws4 S6 T6 W2 I4 A2 ld10 Sv2+ for 75ppm or 225 for 3 without upgrades.
Hqs: All hqs gain +1 w and A and increase in cost by 15pts.
Dear god no. I mean I like some of the changes like chainswords actually doing something, but those point costs man...that's like deathwing levels of bad for what they get. +1a +1w and a shred weapon on the rank and file is not worth doubling their already-significant cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually came up with a rule a long time ago in proposed rules about an astartes rule for both chaos and loyalists that, by incredible resilience, reflexes, or just plain luck, made them unable to be wounded on 2's, regardless of the strength of the weapon. After a bit of play testing, our group liked it, most saying it was either alright or even not enough of a buff, but it's extremely difficult to get any house rule tacked onto the game permanently. (Especially since I and a couple others play tourneys, and we certainly wouldn't want to get used to a house rule that doesn't exist at an event.)
There was a bit of resistance to the idea on dakka, but no one ever provided any play test info where it didn't work decently. \o.o/
Ashiraya wrote: We can obviously conclude that the tabletop game is not accurate, otherwise the Astartes would be long extinct.
Or the fluff is not accurate and they ARE extinct.
Indeed in fact there are no tyranids orks or chaos either they are just a bunch of boogey men designed to scare the imperial populace into submission. Why not right?
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Here's how Id do it:
First weapon changes: Bolters gain shred. chainswords become S+1 shred.
Tactical, devastator, and assault Marines would be
Bs4 Ws4 T4 S4 W2 I4 A2 Ld8 Sv3+ for 28ppm with their standard Wargear options. So 140pts for a 5 man squad.
Bikes:
Bs4 Ws4 T5 S4 W2 I4 A2 Ld8 Sv3 for 41ppm. So 123pts for 3.
Sternguard become:
Bs5 Ws4 T4 S4 W2 I4 A3 Ld9 Sv3+ for 38ppm same Wargear and options. So 190pts for 5.
Vanguard become:
Bs4 Ws5 T4 S4 W2 I4 A3 Ld9 Sv3+ 34ppm same Wargear and options. So 170pts for 5.
Terminators and assault terminators:
Bs4 Ws4 S4 T5 W2 I4 A3 Ld10 Sv2+5+ for 50ppm and 55ppm respectively.Add in ignores unwieldy. Same Wargear and options. Brings them 250pts or 275pts for min sized squad.
Centurions:
Bs4 Ws4 S6 T6 W2 I4 A2 ld10 Sv2+ for 75ppm or 225 for 3 without upgrades.
Hqs: All hqs gain +1 w and A and increase in cost by 15pts.
Dear god no. I mean I like some of the changes like chainswords actually doing something, but those point costs man...that's like deathwing levels of bad for what they get. +1a +1w and a shred weapon on the rank and file is not worth doubling their already-significant cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually came up with a rule a long time ago in proposed rules about an astartes rule for both chaos and loyalists that, by incredible resilience, reflexes, or just plain luck, made them unable to be wounded on 2's, regardless of the strength of the weapon. After a bit of play testing, our group liked it, most saying it was either alright or even not enough of a buff, but it's extremely difficult to get any house rule tacked onto the game permanently. (Especially since I and a couple others play tourneys, and we certainly wouldn't want to get used to a house rule that doesn't exist at an event.)
There was a bit of resistance to the idea on dakka, but no one ever provided any play test info where it didn't work decently. \o.o/
Come again? How would you price them then? That rule idea is interesting, I'll have to try it out.
The game really suffers from its lack of granularity.
This is because of the game's inability to decide if it wants to be a small game or a big game. If it wants to be a big game, you can just simplify it further - a Guardsman squad is one squad point, a Tactical Squad is ten squad points, and so on (maybe not that simple, but you know what I mean) and a D10 or even D20 system if it wants to be small.
Video games typically are so much better at portraying this. For instance, Forbidden Lore:
A Tactical Space Marine has 990 hitpoints. He is heavily armoured (which means he takes ~30% less damage from small arms and other light attacks, although the armour is also contributing to his high HP), and his boltgun inflicts 75 points of damage with a successful hit. It is fired semi-automatically with a good accuracy.
An Imperial Guardsman has 50 hitpoints. He lacks the heavy armour, which means he is less resistant to incoming fire and doesn't contribute as much to his health. His lasgun inflicts 5 points of damage, and is also semi-automatic, with a bit less good accuracy.
In addition, the Space Marine has other benefits, such as resistance to knockdown effects, a special charge move, and far higher melee damage.
Doesn't sound balanced? Well, the Guardsman costs 16 Requisition, and the Tactical Marine costs 450!
The IG faction also has a lot of abilities and benefits to ease reinforcements whereas every dead Tactical Marine really hurts.
In comparison, Eldar also deal very high damage and are faster than Marines, but have very low health - they compensate with a passive evasion ability. CSM have very slightly lower health and deal very slightly lower ranged damage than Marines (presumably due to battered wargear) but deal a bit more melee damage. Orks are between IG and SM, though closer to the former. And so on.
That kind of balance, while fluffly, is not possible on the tabletop for hobby/$$$ reasons but also because of lack of granularity.
I think the table top is perfect for Marines (balance aside). What more can you expect from giant soldiers with loud weapons, bright Armour and thunderous foot steps. They just scream giant targets and well the table top really shows this vital aspect of Space Marine Warfare.
If everything about your faction is seen as a bad thing in war to have in war, then that faction is gonna have a bad time.
In all seriousness I think they are fine really, otherwise it just turns silly.
Swastakowey wrote: I think the table top is perfect for Marines (balance aside). What more can you expect from giant soldiers with loud weapons, bright Armour and thunderous foot steps. They just scream giant targets and well the table top really shows this vital aspect of Space Marine Warfare.
If everything about your faction is seen as a bad thing in war to have in war, then that faction is gonna have a bad time.
In all seriousness I think they are fine really, otherwise it just turns silly.
Well, I would expect nothing less from the guy who only likes IG and thinks everything else is silly. x)
Welcome to 40k, where everything is unrealistic and the one faction that does realistic fighting (Elysians) basically always lose in the fluff, all the time!
Bobthehero wrote: Or ya know, its not fluffly and its yet again another example of Marine wankery
The Marine npc in Only War vs the Guardsman NPC is probably a better match, with the guardsman using super-overcharged shots.
PC versus NPC?
Why not use the Deathwatch PCs versus IGNPCs from Deathwatch instead? C:
Or if we compare NPCs (say, Deathwatch CSMNPCs with Deathwatch IGNPCs) guess what the result is?
Swastakowey wrote: I think the table top is perfect for Marines (balance aside). What more can you expect from giant soldiers with loud weapons, bright Armour and thunderous foot steps. They just scream giant targets and well the table top really shows this vital aspect of Space Marine Warfare.
If everything about your faction is seen as a bad thing in war to have in war, then that faction is gonna have a bad time.
In all seriousness I think they are fine really, otherwise it just turns silly.
Well, I would expect nothing less from the guy who only likes IG and thinks everything else is silly. x)
Welcome to 40k, where everything is unrealistic and the one faction that does realistic fighting (Elysians) basically always lose in the fluff, all the time!
I love Harlequins too...
Catachans are probably the only competent Guard we see by the way. Their way of fighting has proven to work in history (light, cheap and hit and run).
Outside of Balance issues (which effect all factions) why should Space Marines be portrayed as Super Man on the table top? Do you think people will still play 40k if this was changed?
The way they are now is perfect. Otherwise you will end up with Imperial Knight style Space Marines.
Swastakowey wrote: I think the table top is perfect for Marines (balance aside). What more can you expect from giant soldiers with loud weapons, bright Armour and thunderous foot steps. They just scream giant targets and well the table top really shows this vital aspect of Space Marine Warfare.
If everything about your faction is seen as a bad thing in war to have in war, then that faction is gonna have a bad time.
In all seriousness I think they are fine really, otherwise it just turns silly.
Well, I would expect nothing less from the guy who only likes IG and thinks everything else is silly. x)
Welcome to 40k, where everything is unrealistic and the one faction that does realistic fighting (Elysians) basically always lose in the fluff, all the time!
Bobthehero wrote: Or ya know, its not fluffly and its yet again another example of Marine wankery
The Marine npc in Only War vs the Guardsman NPC is probably a better match, with the guardsman using super-overcharged shots.
PC versus NPC?
Why not use the Deathwatch PCs versus IGNPCs from Deathwatch instead? C:
Or if we compare NPCs (say, Deathwatch CSMNPCs with Deathwatch IGNPCs) guess what the result is?
Swastakowey wrote: Outside of Balance issues (which effect all factions) why should Space Marines be portrayed as Super Man on the table top? Do you think people will still play 40k if this was changed?
Space Marines, not Superman.
Space Marines can't fly, or shoot eye beams. Unless they are Libbys.
The way they are now is perfect. Otherwise you will end up with Imperial Knight style Space Marines.
I checked the Deathwatch book, basically, take away a few wounds from the NPCCSM and that gives you the CSM stats from Only War, and even then I am not sure, we've been dealing with Orks, not CSM's. The guardsmen NPC stats are the same as the Renegade milita ones, with a lasgun that can be overloaded to hurt an SM with a high enough roll.
Swastakowey wrote: Outside of Balance issues (which effect all factions) why should Space Marines be portrayed as Super Man on the table top? Do you think people will still play 40k if this was changed?
Space Marines, not Superman.
Space Marines can't fly, or shoot eye beams. Unless they are Libbys.
The way they are now is perfect. Otherwise you will end up with Imperial Knight style Space Marines.
False dilemma.
Really? I hear if they run fast enough they can achieve take off. I also heard they could shoot lasers from their eyes but dont want to look like Imperial Guardsmen. See Space marines have 4 sets of eyes hidden in there. 1 of which is for lasers.
In all seriousness the point was simple. To be clear, when people compare something to superman they generally use superman as the crazy standard of silly OP. It helps exaggerate the point a bit. If it is easier I can use the term movie marines.
Really? Because I heard that 10 was it? or 100 Marines could take over planets. So wouldn't 1 or 2 space marines on a battlefield be fluffy?
A guy earlier mentioned he wanted (jokingly) his fire warriors to be like the ones in a novel. The problem with Space Marines is that the fluff paints them to be demigods sometimes and targets (rightfully so) at other times with anything in between. Making them more elite to match the fluff makes the hard task of actually choosing which fluff to use.
Instead, the current state of space marines is a nice balance. Making them more elite from a rules perspective would be hard. Why? Because they are generalists. If you look at eldar (elites too) they are OP because they went from powerful specialists and crossed over to powerful generalists. Space Marines sit nicely in their generalist role and it's pretty good there. Unfortunately the rest of the game is a bit out of whack.
Swastakowey wrote: Really? I hear if they run fast enough they can achieve take off. I also heard they could shoot lasers from their eyes but dont want to look like Imperial Guardsmen. See Space marines have 4 sets of eyes hidden in there. 1 of which is for lasers.
No.
Swastakowey wrote: In all seriousness the point was simple. To be clear, when people compare something to superman they generally use superman as the crazy standard of silly OP. It helps exaggerate the point a bit. If it is easier I can use the term movie marines.
Exaggeration does not help at all.
Swastakowey wrote: Really? Because I heard that 10 was it? or 100 Marines could take over planets. So wouldn't 1 or 2 space marines on a battlefield be fluffy?
They can't, because they can't hold enough ground to do so.
Swastakowey wrote: A guy earlier mentioned he wanted (jokingly) his fire warriors to be like the ones in a novel.
Which doesn't make sense - the guy in the novel was basically blessed by Khorne which made him into the killing machine he was. He was one of a kind.
Swastakowey wrote: The problem with Space Marines is that the fluff paints them to be demigods sometimes and targets (rightfully so) at other times with anything in between. Making them more elite to match the fluff makes the hard task of actually choosing which fluff to use.
Not at all. You can build a very good image of Space Marines by looking at all their fluff, dismissing the obviously impossible (like their supersonic running) and then using what remains as the standard. It's only a problem if you want it to be.
Swastakowey wrote: Instead, the current state of space marines is a nice balance.
It is not. Not only are Tactical Marines bad units, they also have outdated rules that fail to match their fluff. They are simply bad from every single perspective.
Swastakowey wrote: Making them more elite from a rules perspective would be hard. Why? Because they are generalists.
Not at all. It's easy to ramp up their stats and abilities and adjust the points costs accordingly.
Swastakowey wrote: If you look at eldar (elites too) they are OP because they went from powerful specialists and crossed over to powerful generalists. Space Marines sit nicely in their generalist role and it's pretty good there. Unfortunately the rest of the game is a bit out of whack.
Eldar are OP because they got obscene firepower (among other things) for a too low price.
It does not affect Marines at all, not in this context.
Ok so you ramp up their abilities (makes the game worse by the way. Nothing worse than a book full of special rules), increase all their points costs and then the Marines still suck.
Take the Solitaire. His profile is great, he isn't too expensive is very elite etc. Now imagine having an army of Solitaires. The army would lose badly against most armies.
Space Marines would be a hard fix to make elite. Without dooming them to lose even worse than they may lose now.
One big problem with making marines more elite is that you contribute to the power creep and stat inflation marines have already caused. Elite marines would be fine if they were 5% of the players at most, but in the real world they're the most common faction. So they're inherently not elite, simply because they're by definition the average power level. And if you increase the average power level to temporarily make people think "wow, space marines are awesome" then suddenly all of the elites of every other army become underwhelming. For example, if you make space marines BS 5 then IG veterans, currently average in BS, become below-average. So to make the IG players happy you make veterans/Pask/etc BS 5 to match space marines. Repeat for all other factions and stats, and now we're back to the same state we had before except everyone has bigger numbers on their profile.
And of course one real-world problem with making marines more elite is that GW is never going to make a true low-model-count army. There's a minimum number of models on the table for every army, and that implies a maximum point cost. So if you make every model in an army elite enough to exceed that maximum point cost (as you'd almost certainly do by increasing MEQ power) their point costs won't increase to match their power and you get a blatantly overpowered army like the current Eldar codex.
Not saying Marines should be as strong as Knights.
But it's all about striking a balance.
I originally said knights because they are some of the elites that actually work. They also ignore most enemies weapons among other decent things. Space Marines would not be able to do this.
That balance has been found. Unfortunately other armies can be crazy powerful which makes marines appear mediocre.
Making Marines more elite will more than likely result in them dying worse as they will end up with smaller numbers.
Ashiraya wrote: What if I proxy Space Marines as Knights? CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC:
I model them standing with reeaaaaaaaaaaalllyyyyy big bases so LoS doesn't suffer.
That would be absolutely hilarious.
Ugh. As an IG player I hate the idea of marines being that powerful. But I have to admit that it would be funny to make a full army out of half a tactical squad and completely undermine GW's "whole army of $100 superheavies" plan. For best effect you should use that "buy a whole army of knights, get an exclusive formation free with your purchase" formation.
Ashiraya wrote: What if I proxy Space Marines as Knights? CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC:
I model them standing with reeaaaaaaaaaaalllyyyyy big bases so LoS doesn't suffer.
That would be absolutely hilarious.
That would be fine.
I was gonna make a point that, according to some of the fluff, the big base could represent how much area the marine could cover, the armour could show how Space Marines are immune to lesser guns and the explosion when they die is because marines always die killing enemies or something.
Easy. Cheap. Still kinda lame though.
My IG would hate that stupidity, the novelty would wear off quick.
Ashiraya wrote: I remember Paladins being really solid, for example.
That was mostly because of how they could exploit the stupid wound allocation mechanic in 5th. Once they lost that ability they were a lot less impressive.
I was thinking a statline akin to FW's Gal Vorbak, they are very good at melee and while they suffer from only having a 3+, they are certainly not bad units. Marines should lose some of that melee prowess (they don't need Rending and bucketloads of attacks), and in return get a points drop and some firepower. Seems like a good starting point.
Korinov wrote: On the other hand, the biggest issue with space marines is that they're virtually the same as in Rogue Trader (between RT and 7th they got +1 toughness, +1 armor save and ATSKNF). In Rogue Trader they were depicted as elite human soldiers. In the current fluff they tend to be presented as demigods, each one of them a walking tank more than able to decimate entire enemy squads all by himself. Which is ridiculous.
As I see it, there is nothing really wrong with marines in the tabletop rules. Perhaps some minor adjustments could be made. Perhaps the problem doesn't really lie with the marines but with the power creep other units in the game have profited from. Anyway, the problem lies with the fluff. The fluff says godly walking tank, the rules say elite human soldier in power armor. I'd rather go with the marines as they apear in the rules, it makes them look more sympathetic in my eyes and less silly as a whole concept.
The problem is that the whole fluff was already built about them and it's impossible to go back to Rogue Trader Rulebook stuff which is the only Marine fluff that works with SM stats.
I'd say that in the post-Rogue Trader fluff, a Space Marine is to a basic guardsman like a Tyranid Warrior to a Hormagaunt rather than demigods or walking tanks.
Swastakowey wrote: In all seriousness the point was simple. To be clear, when people compare something to superman they generally use superman as the crazy standard of silly OP. It helps exaggerate the point a bit. If it is easier I can use the term movie marines.
Really? Because I heard that 10 was it? or 100 Marines could take over planets. So wouldn't 1 or 2 space marines on a battlefield be fluffy?
The thing is that 100 Marines would be deployed in such way that they'd come in contact with enemies in a way that they'd have a massive power advantage. For example 10 marines would engage 10 enemies at time and would sequentially inflict massive damage on the enemy force while taking next to no losses. It doesn't require them being supermen.
Of course in a competetive tabletop game there wouldn't be such advantage due to point values.
Also the fluff marines I proposed would hardly be super-heroes. They are simply based on baseline of an imperial guard company commander instead of an imperial guardsman. That is all marines would augmented heroic characters, not augmented ordinary grunts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And of course one real-world problem with making marines more elite is that GW is never going to make a true low-model-count army.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: They are simply based on baseline of an imperial guard company commander instead of an imperial guardsman. That is all marines would augmented heroic characters, not augmented ordinary grunts.
Have you read anything about Catachan? Every IG from there is definitely a heroic character.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: They are simply based on baseline of an imperial guard company commander instead of an imperial guardsman. That is all marines would augmented heroic characters, not augmented ordinary grunts.
Have you read anything about Catachan? Every IG from there is definitely a heroic character.
Or lucky, more likely, given the sheer amount of 'things that will kill you if you get within 1 km'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: I'd say that in the post-Rogue Trader fluff, a Space Marine is to a basic guardsman like a Tyranid Warrior to a Hormagaunt rather than demigods or walking tanks.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: [The problem is that the whole fluff was already built about them and it's impossible to go back to Rogue Trader Rulebook stuff which is the only Marine fluff that works with SM stats.
I'd say that in the post-Rogue Trader fluff, a Space Marine is to a basic guardsman like a Tyranid Warrior to a Hormagaunt rather than demigods or walking tanks.
Considering GW track record, plus what The Ward was allowed to do, I don't think it would be that difficult for them to dismiss virtually all post-RT marine fluff as "imperial propaganda".
Which IMO, looking a it from a realistic viewpoint, could be close to the truth. SM fluff, for the most part, seems to be written from a jingoistic SM point of view all the time. It wouldn't be strange for lobotomized and fanatic elite soldiers to view themselves as demigods if compared to the average guardsman, and to paint themselves as such when writing stories.
Specially those stories where Chaos Space Marines (older, more experienced and blessed by dark powers) are completely crushed and overpowered by the mighty loyalist spessss mehreeeens.
40k fluff simply can't be taken seriously. That's why, even if the rules are a far cry from being a decent core of rules, I find it easier to stick to the WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 A1 marines than to the unstoppable demigods featured in some pieces of fluff.
Korinov wrote: Which IMO, looking a it from a realistic viewpoint, could be close to the truth. SM fluff, for the most part, seems to be written from a jingoistic SM point of view all the time.
Factually incorrect. Almost all is from an omniscient narrator PoV, and there's also a lot of CSM fluff going around.
Example, omniscient narrator in Soul Hunter refers to Astartes as 'immortal'.
Go unbound and proxy them as dreadnoughts or go bonkers for IKs. Just mark facing on the bases and you have everything you need including d weapon in cc heh.
As for fixing marines. 2 wounds because two hearts. Id also make them have bolters, bolt pistols and chainswords by default with the possiblity to switch on the fly, I dont get why tacs carry only knives anyway. It's power armour after all and able to carry some additional weight I guess. Then Id make sm bolters special snowflakes and give them rending also to chainswords.
So 2W, 2 attacks base and rending on weapons (or shred at least), up the points accordingly ofc. That would imo make them scary instead of a sad waste of points they are now. Ofc lot of other changes would have to follow.
I think a lot of people see SM players wanting better stats & assume that we dont expect to pay for it. Id gladly have 20 point marines if they were better marines. As it stands marines stats are technicaly worth 14 points, but the jack-of-all-trades approach just doesn't pan out on the table top.
the trouble is, marines as they are now are very meh. A tactical marine is just so-so on the tabletop when this really should not be the case. Just a few minor improvements would make them better. If lowly guardsmen can get 2nd rank fire (or whatever it is) that allows them to add +1 shot, then why is the basic marine bolter so bad? I would love tactical marines to have a chart of special boosts that it could use each turn. Nothing over the top but just enough to make them tactially flexible. +1 shot (bolter drill), +1 strength (speical ammo), etc. maybe the ability to throw more than 1 krak grenade per sqd, etc. I know some chapter traits give bonuses but I don't have the codex to know what, I just have the DA codex.
It can be very difficult to keep tabletop rules separate from 'fluff', as both are trying to do two completely different things. On one hand, the rules are trying to present a way for players to pitch their lists against another list for a fun, fairly even fight. Fluff, on the other hand, tries to 'sell' you on the army/unit/etc. It's always been an annoying aspect of GW's writing since 1st edition for me: EVERY unit, if read from the fluff, is 'SUPERAWEZOME!!!!'... even if people know that on the table, they suck.
I've never lived anywhere and played with a group where Marines are notoriously 'bad'. As someone else in this thread already said, they're pretty much the 'standard' by which everyone else judges armies on the tabletop. I don't own and haven't owned any full Marine armies in 40K, but when I plan a list, I am usually looked at AP3 where I can get it, because I know a large chunk of the 40k world plays marines.
That being said, I don't think marines need any beefing-up at all, and if it DID happen, I would hope it wouldn't be for 'free'. I mean, I'd love for some of my base troops to have higher T - and I'd happily pay the points for it - but it's not going to happen. Every force really needs a solid 'baseline', and I think the marine's standard profile isn't just a baseline for their list, it's really a baseline for the game as a whole.
Korinov wrote: Considering GW track record, plus what The Ward was allowed to do, I don't think it would be that difficult for them to dismiss virtually all post-RT marine fluff as "imperial propaganda".
Which IMO, looking a it from a realistic viewpoint, could be close to the truth. SM fluff, for the most part, seems to be written from a jingoistic SM point of view all the time. It wouldn't be strange for lobotomized and fanatic elite soldiers to view themselves as demigods if compared to the average guardsman, and to paint themselves as such when writing stories.
Specially those stories where Chaos Space Marines (older, more experienced and blessed by dark powers) are completely crushed and overpowered by the mighty loyalist spessss mehreeeens.
40k fluff simply can't be taken seriously. That's why, even if the rules are a far cry from being a decent core of rules, I find it easier to stick to the WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 A1 marines than to the unstoppable demigods featured in some pieces of fluff.
The thing is that near-unstoppable heroes existed IRL (some Medal of Honour recipents). The space marine recruitment, enhancement and training serve to normalise and enhance this heroism. Carrying a light tank-grade armour also helps.
While there is some obscene stuff in the fluff - the main fluff about armour properties, recruitment process, training and enhancement indicates that enhanced heroic character stat profile is most appropriate.
Making all Marines heroic would from one side made them tougher and more deadly and from the other side, would decrease their amount, making avoiding getting exposed to too many enemy heavy weapons very important. Also, maybe lower amount of models would make marine armies more difficult to play raight and thus less common.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Go unbound and proxy them as dreadnoughts or go bonkers for IKs. Just mark facing on the bases and you have everything you need including d weapon in cc heh.
As for fixing marines. 2 wounds because two hearts. Id also make them have bolters, bolt pistols and chainswords by default with the possiblity to switch on the fly, I dont get why tacs carry only knives anyway. It's power armour after all and able to carry some additional weight I guess. Then Id make sm bolters special snowflakes and give them rending also to chainswords.
I don't think hearts are most important for amount of wounds especially that they are probably better protected than other body parts. Imperial guard company commanders are more common than space marines and don't have two hearts and the insane training that the marines go through but still get 3 wounds and 3 attacks.
The two hearts thing is actually an example of GW writers failing at human anatomy.
In all honesty, I wouldn't mind too much having SM with a Wounds base attribute of 2. Specially for what it could mean for poor old Terminators.
As long as they paid for it in points cost.
Then I'm sure many SM players would complain about meltas and battle cannons being too effective against their heroes, asking for a base T5 and the such.
IMO as I've already said the problem lies with the fluff. Because, more than anything else, it's inconsistent as hell. Most of the time, new writers don't check nor even care about what the previous writers may have stablished. Amidst that general inconsistency, and as far as the current rules go, for me it's easier to stick to RT fluff in regards to Space Marine skills and abilities.
As for training, well, newest Stormtroopers (sorry, Tempestus Scions Magnificus) fluff depicts their training and conditioning as an extremely silly Psycho Murderous Hogwarts School. Tabletop stats? T3, 1 wound, 4+ armor save.
Korinov wrote: The two hearts thing is actually an example of GW writers failing at human anatomy.
Or it just being sci-fi?
IMO as I've already said the problem lies with the fluff. Because, more than anything else, it's inconsistent as hell. Amidst that general inconsistency, and as far as the current rules go, for me it's easier to stick to RT fluff in regards to Space Marine skills and abilities.
Easier, but wrong. It's also simple to form a consistent picture, unless you want to have it inconsistent.
Most of the time, new writers don't check nor even care about what the previous writers may have stablished.
The reason I created this thread is to discuss if such an effort is even reasonable/necessary/sound like something that would be fun to play with. I can see many people arguing for marines who are more potent on an individual basis. I can also see many people handwaiving it as an effort to make marines better at winning games. That's why I'm not asking *how* you'd make marines more powerful. I'm asking if they *should* be more powerful. Y'know. On a model-by-model basis. Not as an army.
I'm being a bit ridiculous now.
.
.
