Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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 IG NPCs from Deathwatch instead? C:

Or if we compare NPCs (say, Deathwatch CSM NPCs with Deathwatch IG NPCs) guess what the result is?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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 IG NPCs from Deathwatch instead? C:

Or if we compare NPCs (say, Deathwatch CSM NPCs with Deathwatch IG NPCs) guess what the result is?

NPC vs NPC

 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.

I checked the Deathwatch book, basically, take away a few wounds from the NPC CSM 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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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.

Knights do fine.

Not saying Marines should be as strong as Knights.

But it's all about striking a balance.

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.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Knights do fine.

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.

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.

 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.

Yeah, strength D in melee, immunity to S6 and below, bolters firing two S8 AP3 large blasts is kinda OTT. Still funny though.

I am also still convinced it's possible to find a balance. I remember Paladins being really solid, for example.

 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.

Weren't they quite solid in 6th as well?

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.

Models could be expensive and truescale.

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

I think this is a pretty good way to put it.

 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.

Citation?

Tabletop stats? T3, 1 wound, 4+ armor save.

Training is not what gives you superhuman stats.