Ive been playing marines since the start of 8th and maybe a couple of months before, So im in no way a seasoned vet, but it is definitely apparent to me that the space marine codex is probably the biggest victim of codex creep in the current edition.
Also, whether there was a slight worry of being too OP or just a lack of understanding of how the rules would develop the army as a whole is lacking a huge amount of character compared to recent codices.
CSM are also in a similar boat here but even so, still have access to much more impressive strats and also the ability to create a very effective themed army built around beserkers for example.
So my question is, is there a precedent in either 40k or sigmar for a codex being revised mid edition or are we basically reliant on minor points updates from chapter approved?
It's possible. They definitely didn't understand how stratagems were supposed to work when they wrote Codex Space Marines. Edit: OR they did, but felt it would have been a terrible idea to make the early codexes SO overpowered compared to the index armies that the backlash would have been huge. However as the saying goes, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Stormcast Eternals are just about to get their 3rd codex since AOS was released. So GW aren't afraid to rewrite the posterboys if they need an update.
I think the codex will be replaced when the next wave of Primaris are released.
Between now and then, I would like to see a campaign setting or Chapter Approved update that gave them some new stratagems, points tweaks, and updated the chapter tactics to make them more relevant.
Chapter Approved is designed to do exactly this; make meaningful changes to the game. What I would predict for CA 2018:
Open Play vehicle design rules for more than just the Land Raider. Narrative Play campaign rules. Matched Play terrain rules supplement. Points costs and army adjustments.
a new codex before a new edition is unlikely (granted a new edition could be as simple as a 8.5 edition that just re-releases all the FAQ changes etc in a printed format) more likely would be a supplement that gives marines new units etc that happen to be powerful.
Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
Billagio wrote: Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Chapter Approved is designed to do exactly this; make meaningful changes to the game. What I would predict for CA 2018:
Open Play vehicle design rules for more than just the Land Raider.
Narrative Play campaign rules.
Matched Play terrain rules supplement.
Points costs and army adjustments.
This is kind of my issue though; Marines require more than a points adjustment just to feel on par with other codices- they need a full overhaul.
Stratagems are a major issue. Chapter tactics another.
And the fact that everything is centered around running ultramarines kills me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Billagio wrote: Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
Billagio wrote: Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
Lol. First of all, Marines have had 3 mediocre codexes (SM, Grey Knights and CSM) and the only "race" that doesn't have a codex yet is Orks.
The fact is that the SM codex was, either though malice or incompetence, intentionally made bad so as to not cause index player backlash. Once all the other codexes are released, it's only fair for Marines to be updated to be on par with the rest of the codexes.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Chapter Approved is designed to do exactly this; make meaningful changes to the game. What I would predict for CA 2018:
Open Play vehicle design rules for more than just the Land Raider.
Narrative Play campaign rules.
Matched Play terrain rules supplement.
Points costs and army adjustments.
This is kind of my issue though; Marines require more than a points adjustment just to feel on par with other codices- they need a full overhaul.
Stratagems are a major issue. Chapter tactics another.
And the fact that everything is centered around running ultramarines kills me.
Stratagems aren't that bad really. Imperial Guard strats are worse than Space Marine ones I would say. There are a few losers (Orbital Strike) but plenty of just-fine stratagems (Hellfire Shells).
Chapter tactics aren't really a problem either. The "worst" are arguably Iron Hands, even though they have a better version of Graia's, and the best are arguably either Ultramarines (one which no other army gets) or Raven Guard (present in many armies and often considered one of the best in the game).
As for everything being centered around Ultramarines... well, welcome to Warhammer 40k, you must be new here.
Process wrote: So my question is, is there a precedent in either 40k or sigmar for a codex being revised mid edition or are we basically reliant on minor points updates from chapter approved?
During 3rd ed. Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard, DEldar and Dark Angels all got revised books mid-edition, but that was quite a while ago. Hopefully going forward GW will just update a codex if necessary without waiting for an edition change, like they seem to be doing with Stormcast in AOS.
Billagio wrote: Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
Lol. First of all, Marines have had 3 mediocre codexes (SM, Grey Knights and CSM) and the only "race" that doesn't have a codex yet is Orks.
The fact is that the SM codex was, either though malice or incompetence, intentionally made bad so as to not cause index player backlash. Once all the other codexes are released, it's only fair for Marines to be updated to be on par with the rest of the codexes.
mmmmm. I love the smell of completely unsupported assertions in the morning.
IMO they need to find a better format than new hard copies and/or chapter approved for rules changes within an edition of the game.
Do the digital codices get updated with points/text changes?
The digital codexes got points change updates for Chapter Approved, but not the Chapter Approved Errata. They also did not get any rules changes edited in. TBH the digital codexes (as GW make them) are shamefully amateur in their production.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Chapter Approved is designed to do exactly this; make meaningful changes to the game. What I would predict for CA 2018:
Open Play vehicle design rules for more than just the Land Raider.
Narrative Play campaign rules.
Matched Play terrain rules supplement.
Points costs and army adjustments.
This is kind of my issue though; Marines require more than a points adjustment just to feel on par with other codices- they need a full overhaul.
Stratagems are a major issue. Chapter tactics another.
And the fact that everything is centered around running ultramarines kills me.
Stratagems aren't that bad really. Imperial Guard strats are worse than Space Marine ones I would say. There are a few losers (Orbital Strike) but plenty of just-fine stratagems (Hellfire Shells).
Chapter tactics aren't really a problem either. The "worst" are arguably Iron Hands, even though they have a better version of Graia's, and the best are arguably either Ultramarines (one which no other army gets) or Raven Guard (present in many armies and often considered one of the best in the game).
As for everything being centered around Ultramarines... well, welcome to Warhammer 40k, you must be new here.
The fact that one of the winning stratagems is something you have to hit with for an average of 2 Mortal Wounds should actually speak volumes of how bad the Strategems are as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Graia is better on single wound models and has the little morale clause.
Billagio wrote: Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
Lol. First of all, Marines have had 3 mediocre codexes (SM, Grey Knights and CSM) and the only "race" that doesn't have a codex yet is Orks.
The fact is that the SM codex was, either though malice or incompetence, intentionally made bad so as to not cause index player backlash. Once all the other codexes are released, it's only fair for Marines to be updated to be on par with the rest of the codexes.
Right, so what youre saying is that all the races (or armies, whatever) havnt gotten a codex yet and SM players are already clamoring for a new one. Plenty of other races (im thinking orks here) have had terrible codexes (6th edition anyone when we were first??) and we wernt begging GW to give us a new codex before the new edition. Id argue the current SM codex is miles better than many other races codexs have been over the years
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The fact that one of the winning stratagems is something you have to hit with for an average of 2 Mortal Wounds should actually speak volumes of how bad the Strategems are as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Graia is better on single wound models and has the little morale clause.
Why does on-demand mortal wounds speak volumes about how bad the stratagems are on the whole? You want me to look at my Slaanesh Daemons stratagems or my Imperial Guard stratagems and tell me how likely any given one is to do two mortal wounds? I feel like your vision is skewed. Space Marine stratagems are fine.
Graia is the same on single wound models and far, far worse on multi-wound models. Dramatically so. And the "little morale clause" means nothing; look at most Admech lists that still exist and tell me how many are anticipating losses to morale.
I wouldn't be surprised to - at some point - see a "Primaris Space Marines" codex, featuring only Primaris models as that line expands. Space Marines will need something for sure...and while occasional units are easy to add to a Codex when they're released, I think you'll get to the point where there are a dozen or more Primaris kits which are not in the main codex, so something more official will come out.
SM/CSM need a few updates that are no-brainers, that I hope we can all agree on.
1. Chapter tactics only affect infantry and walkers. Everyone else gets the full benefit of their tactics. Why are these two specifically limited?
2. I would also revise chapter tactics / army buffs, and this isn't specific to SM. -1 to hit is too strong. Army wide rerolls is too strong. It just so happens that some of the SM tactics are really, really bad.
3. Something flavorful in regards to stratagems. Right now they have fairly weak stratagems. The best ones are flak missile and hellfire shells, which are good, but the rest leave a lot to be desired. Especially with the rule of 3 impacting predators and vindicators, making those stratagems very difficult to use.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The fact that one of the winning stratagems is something you have to hit with for an average of 2 Mortal Wounds should actually speak volumes of how bad the Strategems are as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Graia is better on single wound models and has the little morale clause.
Why does on-demand mortal wounds speak volumes about how bad the stratagems are on the whole? You want me to look at my Slaanesh Daemons stratagems or my Imperial Guard stratagems and tell me how likely any given one is to do two mortal wounds? I feel like your vision is skewed. Space Marine stratagems are fine.
Graia is the same on single wound models and far, far worse on multi-wound models. Dramatically so. And the "little morale clause" means nothing; look at most Admech lists that still exist and tell me how many are anticipating losses to morale.
On Demand? Unless you're in a Devastator squad you have to actually hit. It's basically an average of 1 mortal wound because of that.
Also Graia is working on slain models. That means multi-damage does nothing to them. And there ARE people talking up bigger Skitarii groups in the AdMech thread so...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The fact that one of the winning stratagems is something you have to hit with for an average of 2 Mortal Wounds should actually speak volumes of how bad the Strategems are as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Graia is better on single wound models and has the little morale clause.
Why does on-demand mortal wounds speak volumes about how bad the stratagems are on the whole? You want me to look at my Slaanesh Daemons stratagems or my Imperial Guard stratagems and tell me how likely any given one is to do two mortal wounds? I feel like your vision is skewed. Space Marine stratagems are fine.
Graia is the same on single wound models and far, far worse on multi-wound models. Dramatically so. And the "little morale clause" means nothing; look at most Admech lists that still exist and tell me how many are anticipating losses to morale.
Look at orbital bombardment and tell me that space marine strats are fine. How about all the ones giving you access to reroll 1's when you have captains and other characters giving you reroll ALL hits or hits and wounds. How about the one that lets you split a full 10 man unit into 5 man units....when it already has the ability to do that at the start of the game...for free...even though it is useless.
The book has more useless stratagems than any other book. It's "good" stratagems are just direct mortal wounds or damage buffs to units of 3 - which don't in the slightest make up for the armies lack of damage in other places.
Considering they just reprinted the Stormcast Eternal Battletome for AoS just to add in a new 'chamber' of Stormcast, I'm positive that they'll happily do the same thing for Space Marines when new things come out for them.
When that is? Not any time soon. We've got at least the next 6 months to get through, and probably another 6 months after that too.
Marmatag wrote: SM/CSM need a few updates that are no-brainers, that I hope we can all agree on.
1. Chapter tactics only affect infantry and walkers. Everyone else gets the full benefit of their tactics. Why are these two specifically limited?
2. I would also revise chapter tactics / army buffs, and this isn't specific to SM. -1 to hit is too strong. Army wide rerolls is too strong. It just so happens that some of the SM tactics are really, really bad.
3. Something flavorful in regards to stratagems. Right now they have fairly weak stratagems. The best ones are flak missile and hellfire shells, which are good, but the rest leave a lot to be desired. Especially with the rule of 3 impacting predators and vindicators, making those stratagems very difficult to use.
Yeah -1 to hit army wide buff needs to be straight removed.
I could absolutely see a Codex: Space Marines 2.0 in 8th. They are such a major faction that them being in the trash can is just laughable. Point adjustments could 'fix' the competitive problem, but they need a redesign. Making tactical marines 10 points won't really fix the codex the way we want it to be fixed. We want to see marines be strong and live up to their Emperor's finest moniker.
They need a completely new set of stratagems, re-designed chapter tactics, have said chapter tactics work on vehicles, make the standard marine not be less cost efficient than Catachan guardsmen in melee, there needs to be something done about Primaris 2 wound syndrome, make drop pods allow turn 1 deep strike outside your own deployment, give transports something worth carrying, etc etc.
We can make it competitive via point drops sure, but that is lazy and uninspired. I think it is fair to say most people want marines to feel like MARINES and not go back to the spammy hoard army it was in a 7th gladius.
Marmatag wrote: SM/CSM need a few updates that are no-brainers, that I hope we can all agree on.
1. Chapter tactics only affect infantry and walkers. Everyone else gets the full benefit of their tactics. Why are these two specifically limited?
2. I would also revise chapter tactics / army buffs, and this isn't specific to SM. -1 to hit is too strong. Army wide rerolls is too strong. It just so happens that some of the SM tactics are really, really bad.
3. Something flavorful in regards to stratagems. Right now they have fairly weak stratagems. The best ones are flak missile and hellfire shells, which are good, but the rest leave a lot to be desired. Especially with the rule of 3 impacting predators and vindicators, making those stratagems very difficult to use.
1-nothing actually wrong with this, not every army has to adhere to the same rules. and SM are notorius as a whole for neglecting their armored forces (in comparison to other factions) if favor of the "glory of the man in power armor". you just need to balance around that fact.
2-also wrong. nothing wrong with the -1 to hit tactics per say. though I'd restrict it to 18" or even 24" away to make it easier to fight against. that said, SM does have a few weak tactics. (and a few really good ones. RG just overshadows the not-at-all-bad UM or IH, and Sallys are honestly freakishly powerful too)
I'd expect a Codex: Primaris before any sort of generic SM codex. Print a codex specifically for them, add/extend a few new units, then just go on to primarily support it. It's the way GW is going, with just the standard powered armored boys getting phased out in the next 2 editions or so.
That being said, the SM codex is fine. Not great, not top-tier, but fine. It's okay to let something like Drukhari have the spotlight once in a while.
Marmatag wrote: SM/CSM need a few updates that are no-brainers, that I hope we can all agree on.
1. Chapter tactics only affect infantry and walkers. Everyone else gets the full benefit of their tactics. Why are these two specifically limited?
2. I would also revise chapter tactics / army buffs, and this isn't specific to SM. -1 to hit is too strong. Army wide rerolls is too strong. It just so happens that some of the SM tactics are really, really bad.
3. Something flavorful in regards to stratagems. Right now they have fairly weak stratagems. The best ones are flak missile and hellfire shells, which are good, but the rest leave a lot to be desired. Especially with the rule of 3 impacting predators and vindicators, making those stratagems very difficult to use.
1-nothing actually wrong with this, not every army has to adhere to the same rules. and SM are notorius as a whole for neglecting their armored forces (in comparison to other factions) if favor of the "glory of the man in power armor". you just need to balance around that fact.
2-also wrong. nothing wrong with the -1 to hit tactics per say. though I'd restrict it to 18" or even 24" away to make it easier to fight against. that said, SM does have a few weak tactics. (and a few really good ones. RG just overshadows the not-at-all-bad UM or IH, and Sallys are honestly freakishly powerful too)
3-Well, many armies suffer from that issue.
3-
1- everything is wrong with this - every other army has traits affecting their entire army. Your marine hate is showing.
2 - everything is wrong with the -1 to hit trait - it has been for-front of practically every meta list for a reason. It is overpowered and completely invalidates some armies.
3 - some armies don't have great stratagems - TZ is not one of them. Buffing invo saves on units - reroll psychic tests auras - deep strike stratagems available to the whole codex of daemons. Daemons issue is they don't have guns. You have to have guns to win in this game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I'd expect a Codex: Primaris before any sort of generic SM codex. Print a codex specifically for them, add/extend a few new units, then just go on to primarily support it. It's the way GW is going, with just the standard powered armored boys getting phased out in the next 2 editions or so.
That being said, the SM codex is fine. Not great, not top-tier, but fine. It's okay to let something like Drukhari have the spotlight once in a while.
They are litterally dumpster fire. What codex is space marines better than? Other than greyknights?
Martel732 wrote: The Forgeworld guys at Origins did mention that management at GW is displeased with the lack of primaris in tournaments.
Hmmm.... I wonder why there is a lack pf Primaris in tournaments.... It's almost like the rules GW gave them are sub-par. It is almost as if rules sell models.
I told them that, actually. Told them I own many primaris models that sit on the shelf. They can't be used at all after Drukari dropped. They didn't disagree with me, but couldn't openly agree.
Martel732 wrote: I told them that, actually. Told them I own many primaris models that sit on the shelf. They can't be used at all after Drukari dropped. They didn't disagree with me, but couldn't openly agree.
I disagree that they can't be used. I've had some fun games with my Primaris Deathwatch force at my FLGS. I do however entirely agree that their place in a tournament is very limited. They, like codex space marines, can be used in and are entirely capable in more casual type games. The problem is getting that game set up. I set up games with my friends before hand frequently and trying to establish to the other what we consider competitive and non-competitive is a nightmare. It is a sad state for the army when to even attempt to have balanced game you have to be very specific about what kind of game you want to have. I can't walk into a game blind with my Space Marines or more guard or my dark eldar due to the wildly different power levels of so many armies and builds.
Marmatag wrote: SM/CSM need a few updates that are no-brainers, that I hope we can all agree on.
1. Chapter tactics only affect infantry and walkers. Everyone else gets the full benefit of their tactics. Why are these two specifically limited?
2. I would also revise chapter tactics / army buffs, and this isn't specific to SM. -1 to hit is too strong. Army wide rerolls is too strong. It just so happens that some of the SM tactics are really, really bad.
3. Something flavorful in regards to stratagems. Right now they have fairly weak stratagems. The best ones are flak missile and hellfire shells, which are good, but the rest leave a lot to be desired. Especially with the rule of 3 impacting predators and vindicators, making those stratagems very difficult to use.
1-nothing actually wrong with this, not every army has to adhere to the same rules. and SM are notorius as a whole for neglecting their armored forces (in comparison to other factions) if favor of the "glory of the man in power armor". you just need to balance around that fact.
2-also wrong. nothing wrong with the -1 to hit tactics per say. though I'd restrict it to 18" or even 24" away to make it easier to fight against. that said, SM does have a few weak tactics. (and a few really good ones. RG just overshadows the not-at-all-bad UM or IH, and Sallys are honestly freakishly powerful too)
3-Well, many armies suffer from that issue.
3-
1- everything is wrong with this - every other army has traits affecting their entire army. Your marine hate is showing.
2 - everything is wrong with the -1 to hit trait - it has been for-front of practically every meta list for a reason. It is overpowered and completely invalidates some armies.
3 - some armies don't have great stratagems - TZ is not one of them. Buffing invo saves on units - reroll psychic tests auras - deep strike stratagems available to the whole codex of daemons. Daemons issue is they don't have guns. You have to have guns to win in this game.
1-What marine hate? I play thousand sons mostly, even more of my stuff don't even have tactics! (i don't even get it on all walkers and all infantry.) having tactics only effect some of the units is not an issue if the army is properly balanced around that fact so that the units not effected are still useful despite not having tactics and the units with tactics are balanced with the tactics.
2-again, nothing wrong with it as a concept. the EXECUTION was bad, because 12" is just too close before its negated and as such too hard to counter, but had it been longer range (18" or maybe 24"), it wouldn't be an issue, ESPECIALLY on marines that only effect their infantry/bikes (though on eldar it might still be an issue, and admech if admech as a whole was better)
3-never said TZ suffers from bad stratagems (though we also have a fair few who are facepalm worthy), I just said others suffer from it too. also, that's not even saying the SM stratagems aren't bad, so no idea why you are arguing with me on this.
Martel732 wrote: I told them that, actually. Told them I own many primaris models that sit on the shelf. They can't be used at all after Drukari dropped. They didn't disagree with me, but couldn't openly agree.
I disagree that they can't be used. I've had some fun games with my Primaris Deathwatch force at my FLGS. I do however entirely agree that their place in a tournament is very limited. They, like codex space marines, can be used in and are entirely capable in more casual type games. The problem is getting that game set up. I set up games with my friends before hand frequently and trying to establish to the other what we consider competitive and non-competitive is a nightmare. It is a sad state for the army when to even attempt to have balanced game you have to be very specific about what kind of game you want to have. I can't walk into a game blind with my Space Marines or more guard or my dark eldar due to the wildly different power levels of so many armies and builds.
All my games are blind. No quarter. No mercy. No discussion.
Martel732 wrote: I told them that, actually. Told them I own many primaris models that sit on the shelf. They can't be used at all after Drukari dropped. They didn't disagree with me, but couldn't openly agree.
I disagree that they can't be used. I've had some fun games with my Primaris Deathwatch force at my FLGS. I do however entirely agree that their place in a tournament is very limited. They, like codex space marines, can be used in and are entirely capable in more casual type games. The problem is getting that game set up. I set up games with my friends before hand frequently and trying to establish to the other what we consider competitive and non-competitive is a nightmare. It is a sad state for the army when to even attempt to have balanced game you have to be very specific about what kind of game you want to have. I can't walk into a game blind with my Space Marines or more guard or my dark eldar due to the wildly different power levels of so many armies and builds.
All my games are blind. No quarter. No mercy. No discussion.
Well there is your problem. If you want games with weaker forces you are required to communicate. It sucks that we have to do that kind of thing, but it is the law of the land as it were. I feel for ya man, I do.
Marmatag wrote: SM/CSM need a few updates that are no-brainers, that I hope we can all agree on.
1. Chapter tactics only affect infantry and walkers. Everyone else gets the full benefit of their tactics. Why are these two specifically limited?
2. I would also revise chapter tactics / army buffs, and this isn't specific to SM. -1 to hit is too strong. Army wide rerolls is too strong. It just so happens that some of the SM tactics are really, really bad.
3. Something flavorful in regards to stratagems. Right now they have fairly weak stratagems. The best ones are flak missile and hellfire shells, which are good, but the rest leave a lot to be desired. Especially with the rule of 3 impacting predators and vindicators, making those stratagems very difficult to use.
1-nothing actually wrong with this, not every army has to adhere to the same rules. and SM are notorius as a whole for neglecting their armored forces (in comparison to other factions) if favor of the "glory of the man in power armor". you just need to balance around that fact.
2-also wrong. nothing wrong with the -1 to hit tactics per say. though I'd restrict it to 18" or even 24" away to make it easier to fight against. that said, SM does have a few weak tactics. (and a few really good ones. RG just overshadows the not-at-all-bad UM or IH, and Sallys are honestly freakishly powerful too)
3-Well, many armies suffer from that issue.
3-
1- everything is wrong with this - every other army has traits affecting their entire army. Your marine hate is showing.
2 - everything is wrong with the -1 to hit trait - it has been for-front of practically every meta list for a reason. It is overpowered and completely invalidates some armies.
3 - some armies don't have great stratagems - TZ is not one of them. Buffing invo saves on units - reroll psychic tests auras - deep strike stratagems available to the whole codex of daemons. Daemons issue is they don't have guns. You have to have guns to win in this game.
1-What marine hate? I play thousand sons mostly, even more of my stuff don't even have tactics! (i don't even get it on all walkers and all infantry.) having tactics only effect some of the units is not an issue if the army is properly balanced around that fact so that the units not effected are still useful despite not having tactics and the units with tactics are balanced with the tactics.
2-again, nothing wrong with it as a concept. the EXECUTION was bad, because 12" is just too close before its negated and as such too hard to counter, but had it been longer range (18" or maybe 24"), it wouldn't be an issue, ESPECIALLY on marines that only effect their infantry/bikes (though on eldar it might still be an issue, and admech if admech as a whole was better)
3-never said TZ suffers from bad stratagems (though we also have a fair few who are facepalm worthy), I just said others suffer from it too. also, that's not even saying the SM stratagems aren't bad, so no idea why you are arguing with me on this.
Thought you were playing TZ daemons. TS suffer from the same crap codex marines does - it just has a few good units in it where space marines basically has 0 good units. Even Guilliman is a bust. Better buffing an army of IK than his ultra marines.
Martel732 wrote: I told them that, actually. Told them I own many primaris models that sit on the shelf. They can't be used at all after Drukari dropped. They didn't disagree with me, but couldn't openly agree.
I disagree that they can't be used. I've had some fun games with my Primaris Deathwatch force at my FLGS. I do however entirely agree that their place in a tournament is very limited. They, like codex space marines, can be used in and are entirely capable in more casual type games. The problem is getting that game set up. I set up games with my friends before hand frequently and trying to establish to the other what we consider competitive and non-competitive is a nightmare. It is a sad state for the army when to even attempt to have balanced game you have to be very specific about what kind of game you want to have. I can't walk into a game blind with my Space Marines or more guard or my dark eldar due to the wildly different power levels of so many armies and builds.
All my games are blind. No quarter. No mercy. No discussion.
Well there is your problem. If you want games with weaker forces you are required to communicate. It sucks that we have to do that kind of thing, but it is the law of the land as it were. I feel for ya man, I do.
Realistically - this is the truth. You are playing with a handicap - if your opponents refuse to knowledge this - find new opponents.
Martel732 wrote: They'll never acknowledge it, as it diminishes their arm-chair generalship. Remember, BA were "fine" in 7th.
Well, BA were actually fine in 7th. compared to MOST things.
Its just a handful of things were absurdly OP and overshadowed all else.
No one I played against used anything else. Handful becomes 80% as people adapt. I wasn't willing to spend the money and repaint. Am still largely unwilling to. Pay to win is bull$%%^&.
Martel732 wrote: They'll never acknowledge it, as it diminishes their arm-chair generalship. Remember, BA were "fine" in 7th.
Well, BA were actually fine in 7th. compared to MOST things.
Its just a handful of things were absurdly OP and overshadowed all else.
IDK about that. As I recall BA were considered Codex marines -3 for the longest time. I still laugh at how unbelievably long it took their scouts to go from WS/BS3 to WS/BS4.
Martel732 wrote: I told them that, actually. Told them I own many primaris models that sit on the shelf. They can't be used at all after Drukari dropped. They didn't disagree with me, but couldn't openly agree.
I disagree that they can't be used. I've had some fun games with my Primaris Deathwatch force at my FLGS. I do however entirely agree that their place in a tournament is very limited. They, like codex space marines, can be used in and are entirely capable in more casual type games. The problem is getting that game set up. I set up games with my friends before hand frequently and trying to establish to the other what we consider competitive and non-competitive is a nightmare. It is a sad state for the army when to even attempt to have balanced game you have to be very specific about what kind of game you want to have. I can't walk into a game blind with my Space Marines or more guard or my dark eldar due to the wildly different power levels of so many armies and builds.
All my games are blind. No quarter. No mercy. No discussion.
Didn't the grand formation bonus give you a bonus you already had from the core demi-company or something?
Primaris was a horrible idea. They would have been so much better off just making new-wave primarchs, from the geneseed of the fallen ones.
Then, adjust the buffs of all of these guys so it's not as strong but just requires that the model be alive and on the table. Then you don't have marines clustering together in easy-to-attack target blobs, but still getting some benefit from their super HQs, and not being as bland as "let's get MOAR RRERROLLSS"
I really get the impression that GW doesn't understand the relationship between the rules and the game.
Martel732 wrote: I told them that, actually. Told them I own many primaris models that sit on the shelf. They can't be used at all after Drukari dropped. They didn't disagree with me, but couldn't openly agree.
I disagree that they can't be used. I've had some fun games with my Primaris Deathwatch force at my FLGS. I do however entirely agree that their place in a tournament is very limited. They, like codex space marines, can be used in and are entirely capable in more casual type games. The problem is getting that game set up. I set up games with my friends before hand frequently and trying to establish to the other what we consider competitive and non-competitive is a nightmare. It is a sad state for the army when to even attempt to have balanced game you have to be very specific about what kind of game you want to have. I can't walk into a game blind with my Space Marines or more guard or my dark eldar due to the wildly different power levels of so many armies and builds.
All my games are blind. No quarter. No mercy. No discussion.
Didn't the grand formation bonus give you a bonus you already had from the core demi-company or something?
Yeah. It literally had 0 thought put into it. I maintain Death Company from 7th were usable but otherwise it was for all intents and purposes Space Marines -1
Sad but true, leviathans are holding up the dex (they're not even really in the dex so there's that). Vens not so much.
I'm holding out hope for serious changes in CA but at this point I don't see it happening. I think 8th will end up like 7th did once all the dexes are out. There are going to be a ton of mini-supplements that power creep their way into an unbalanced mess (primarch releases, new primaris, CA) where you're going to need 7-8 books to field your army.
GW will make a ton of money and people will hail it as a success (gotta buy all those new dexes, then the models, then the primarchs, then the new paint colors released to paint them and honestly I'll probably do all of that, god I'm dumb).
Meanwhile marines will go from trash tier to god tier which will accelerate the arms race for the next CA where disi cannons will go down to 7 points and all of a sudden your 2k army clocks in at 1500 points so now you'll need new models. Plastic sisters will bust on the scene...
I'd rather a nerf to the better performing armies than a boost to marines but I don't think that's how GW works. They need new hotness, meta shake-ups and new books to maintain an increasing bottom line (you know, shareholders, fiduciary duties and all that).
iGuy91 wrote: I think its likely a 7/10 chance we get a new SM dex after the last announced dex drops for Sisters of Battle.
They need points adjustment, fixed chapter tactics, new set of strategems, and just a general increase in lethality to keep up.
It would take less than 5 hours to write out a CA fix for codex space marines. Points fixes and new stratagems as well as some stats and wargear options. New codex isn't even needed IMO.
Well, I honestly could see GW releasing something like the Angels of Death book for Space Marines, and any other army really. Probably with more or better Chapter Tactics, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagem. It will probably come out at the time they release the next wave of Primaris Space Marines. I would welcome it. The Crimson Fists Chapter Tactic is garbage, as is our Warlord Trait and Stratagem. And it absolutely seems like GW to have us pay money to fix their mistakes.
I have noticed a massive proliferation of multi damage weaponry lately. It seems like every new codex (Necrons, Drukhari, Tau) all have new and efficient ways of killing primaris marines. While I think it's good for the game that there are weapons that counter primaris, the problem is that these are the most efficient guns for a wide variety of roles. People bring disintegrators because they're amazing, destroyers are probably the best necron unit overall, and Primaris get caught in the crossfire of all this stuff. It's the Dark Reaper situation all over again (or maybe that never really went away).
Couple that with the fact that the chapter tactics are inconsistently applied and the stratagems are virtually unusable, and I wouldn't mind having an updated marine codex.
DraxiusII wrote: I have noticed a massive proliferation of multi damage weaponry lately. It seems like every new codex (Necrons, Drukhari, Tau) all have new and efficient ways of killing primaris marines. While I think it's good for the game that there are weapons that counter primaris, the problem is that these are the most efficient guns for a wide variety of roles. People bring disintegrators because they're amazing, destroyers are probably the best necron unit overall, and Primaris get caught in the crossfire of all this stuff. It's the Dark Reaper situation all over again (or maybe that never really went away).
Couple that with the fact that the chapter tactics are inconsistently applied and the stratagems are virtually unusable, and I wouldn't mind having an updated marine codex.
I predicted this, but many posters on here laughed at me. Sorry about your luck, primaris-lovers.
Xenomancers wrote: Just wait till space wolves comes out. Per usual they will be the creme of the crop.
They were hot garbage in 7th edition. Generally speaking GK and SW players are the biggest whiners right up their with Tau players... but wait here comes SM players now.
DraxiusII wrote: I have noticed a massive proliferation of multi damage weaponry lately. It seems like every new codex (Necrons, Drukhari, Tau) all have new and efficient ways of killing primaris marines. While I think it's good for the game that there are weapons that counter primaris, the problem is that these are the most efficient guns for a wide variety of roles. People bring disintegrators because they're amazing, destroyers are probably the best necron unit overall, and Primaris get caught in the crossfire of all this stuff. It's the Dark Reaper situation all over again (or maybe that never really went away).
Couple that with the fact that the chapter tactics are inconsistently applied and the stratagems are virtually unusable, and I wouldn't mind having an updated marine codex.
hey Martel this is your dream buddy you have been waiting for all your life!
There have been plenty of multi-wound weapons since the very beginning of 8th edition. Basically what you are saying is really any multi-wound model is hot garbage but people play Grotesques, Shining Spears, Bullgyrn, Blightlords, Flyrants, vehicles, etc. It is a really dumb argument that holds no merit.
Xenomancers wrote: Just wait till space wolves comes out. Per usual they will be the creme of the crop.
They were hot garbage in 7th edition. Generally speaking GK and SW players are the biggest whiners right up their with Tau players... but wait here comes SM players now.
DraxiusII wrote: I have noticed a massive proliferation of multi damage weaponry lately. It seems like every new codex (Necrons, Drukhari, Tau) all have new and efficient ways of killing primaris marines. While I think it's good for the game that there are weapons that counter primaris, the problem is that these are the most efficient guns for a wide variety of roles. People bring disintegrators because they're amazing, destroyers are probably the best necron unit overall, and Primaris get caught in the crossfire of all this stuff. It's the Dark Reaper situation all over again (or maybe that never really went away).
Couple that with the fact that the chapter tactics are inconsistently applied and the stratagems are virtually unusable, and I wouldn't mind having an updated marine codex.
hey Martel this is your dream buddy you have been waiting for all your life!
Space Wolves were middle road in 7th. Like, did you play at all that edition?
I would not expect a new SM codex this edition, CA should be the mechanism to fix balance issues.
While there have been editions where armies have gotten two codex books, IIRC the last time was 3E, and that was after a major edition update partway through and a 6 year edition lifespan and starting with very thin and lame Codex books for the first couple years.
I expect we may see some additional SM releases to add to the codex, but probably not anything more.
Billagio wrote: Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
In a time when we would wait 6 months in between codex releases, absolutely you wouldn't expect a revised codex. But there have been 17 codex releases since Space Marines, and you can tell the early 8th Ed Index mindset is present in the first 5 codex releases (e.g. traits only applying to infantry whereas other codex traits are faction wide)
I wouldn't be surprised to see a new SM release by the end of the year and am actually expecting it.
Billagio wrote: Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
Lol. First of all, Marines have had 3 mediocre codexes (SM, Grey Knights and CSM) and the only "race" that doesn't have a codex yet is Orks.
The fact is that the SM codex was, either though malice or incompetence, intentionally made bad so as to not cause index player backlash. Once all the other codexes are released, it's only fair for Marines to be updated to be on par with the rest of the codexes.
Right, so what youre saying is that all the races (or armies, whatever) havnt gotten a codex yet and SM players are already clamoring for a new one. Plenty of other races (im thinking orks here) have had terrible codexes (6th edition anyone when we were first??) and we wernt begging GW to give us a new codex before the new edition. Id argue the current SM codex is miles better than many other races codexs have been over the years
Staple for SM players is complaining if they don't get special treatment and being ungracious when they do. Ultramarines are taking top tables. Raven Guard is one of the best chapter tactics available to any army. Iron Hands is Leviathan that doesn't require a Synapse peg. Let's wait for armies to get dexes please, if anyone deserves to jump the queue it's GK, but honestly they are fixable in Chapter Approved. So let's hold our horses and remember that SM isn't the only army in the game.
Billagio wrote: Jesus, Marine players can be spoiled sometimes. Not all the races even have a codex and you have 1 mediocre/crappy codex for 1 edition and are asking for a second one in the same edition...
Lol. First of all, Marines have had 3 mediocre codexes (SM, Grey Knights and CSM) and the only "race" that doesn't have a codex yet is Orks.
The fact is that the SM codex was, either though malice or incompetence, intentionally made bad so as to not cause index player backlash. Once all the other codexes are released, it's only fair for Marines to be updated to be on par with the rest of the codexes.
Right, so what youre saying is that all the races (or armies, whatever) havnt gotten a codex yet and SM players are already clamoring for a new one. Plenty of other races (im thinking orks here) have had terrible codexes (6th edition anyone when we were first??) and we wernt begging GW to give us a new codex before the new edition. Id argue the current SM codex is miles better than many other races codexs have been over the years
Staple for SM players is complaining if they don't get special treatment and being ungracious when they do. Ultramarines are taking top tables. Raven Guard is one of the best chapter tactics available to any army. Iron Hands is Leviathan that doesn't require a Synapse peg. Let's wait for armies to get dexes please, if anyone deserves to jump the queue it's GK, but honestly they are fixable in Chapter Approved. So let's hold our horses and remember that SM isn't the only army in the game.
They aren't the only army, but they are about half the armies, with SM, C:SM, GK, BA, DA, SoB, DG, TS, and SW all suffering from the issues with the marine statline and overpriced vehicles and weapons in one way or another.
SoB are held up by cheaper "Marines," acts of faith, and forge world transports that are actually useful, the chaos versions of Marines have other stuff that isn't terrible like daemons, BA just have the smash captain, and the only other units worth anything are scouts, scout bikers, and devastators (because of one strategem).
DW are the only half decent marine book, and that's only because they have storm bolters and special ammo out the wazoo.
DG, TS are far from needing a new codex, SW havnt gotten their codex yet and I dont know much about the others but yes, my understanding is that most are on the weaker side. This thread is only talking about replacing the SM codex, right?
Still, having a weak codex is nothing new for many armies in the game in previous editions, I dont see why SM should get special treatment and get 2 codexs this edition. They arnt the first army to suffer from codex creep and they wont be the last either.
SW has a dex on the way. BA is one of the bigger threats in the meta. SoB is everywhere. Same with CSM. Did you really put Thousand Sons and DG up there as examples of armies that need buffs before we even finish giving all armies codexes?
There's literally armies without dexes. Almost every dex has imbalances, theres a laundry list of units in my Nid and Tay book that's just pointless, are you including them? let's just never give the other armies a dex until we've achieved perfect internal balance in the other dexes? Nah you just want it for SM right? Seriously it's time we just quit the whining, wait your turn, there is very competitive armies in almost all those books you mention. SM never takes long to get a new codex once it's that season, and you know this isn't going to make GW skip other races, so I don't get the point of some of these posts. Nobodys saying SM codex needs to stay this way forever.
Billagio wrote: DG, TS are far from needing a new codex, SW havnt gotten their codex yet and I dont know much about the others but yes, my understanding is that most are on the weaker side. This thread is only talking about replacing the SM codex, right?
Still, having a weak codex is nothing new for many armies in the game in previous editions, I dont see why SM should get special treatment and get 2 codexs this edition. They arnt the first army to suffer from codex creep and they wont be the last either.
Honestly the two Legions AND the Vanilla CSM codex need serious overhauls. I don't think anyone is saying they don't even though they're written better. It ain't by much though.
SHUPPET wrote: SW has a dex on the way. BA is one of the bigger threats in the meta. SoB is everywhere. Same with CSM. Did you really put Thousand Sons and DG up there as examples of armies that need buffs before we even finish giving all armies codexes?
There's literally armies without dexes. Almost every dex has imbalances, theres a laundry list of units in my Nid and Tay book that's just pointless, are you including them? let's just never give the other armies a dex until we've achieved perfect internal balance in the other dexes? Nah you just want it for SM right? Seriously it's time we just quit the whining, wait your turn, there is very competitive armies in almost all those books you mention. SM never takes long to get a new codex once it's that season, and you know this isn't going to make GW skip other races, so I don't get the point of some of these posts. Nobodys saying SM codex needs to stay this way forever.
Billagio wrote: DG, TS are far from needing a new codex, SW havnt gotten their codex yet and I dont know much about the others but yes, my understanding is that most are on the weaker side. This thread is only talking about replacing the SM codex, right?
Still, having a weak codex is nothing new for many armies in the game in previous editions, I dont see why SM should get special treatment and get 2 codexs this edition. They arnt the first army to suffer from codex creep and they wont be the last either.
Honestly the two Legions AND the Vanilla CSM codex need serious overhauls. I don't think anyone is saying they don't even though they're written better. It ain't by much though.
That's fine but they aren't going to do it all at once. In order of priority for the second wave of dexes I think SM first to set a new baseline for Marines though and then follow it up with GK who need that fix the most
Billagio wrote: DG, TS are far from needing a new codex, SW havnt gotten their codex yet and I dont know much about the others but yes, my understanding is that most are on the weaker side. This thread is only talking about replacing the SM codex, right?
Still, having a weak codex is nothing new for many armies in the game in previous editions, I dont see why SM should get special treatment and get 2 codexs this edition. They arnt the first army to suffer from codex creep and they wont be the last either.
Honestly the two Legions AND the Vanilla CSM codex need serious overhauls. I don't think anyone is saying they don't even though they're written better. It ain't by much though.
That's fine but they aren't going to do it all at once. In order of priority for the second wave of dexes I think SM first to set a new baseline for Marines though and then follow it up with GK who need that fix the most
If they do that though then all the Marine players will be demanding a third codex halfway through the cycle because of codex creep again
Billagio wrote: DG, TS are far from needing a new codex, SW havnt gotten their codex yet and I dont know much about the others but yes, my understanding is that most are on the weaker side. This thread is only talking about replacing the SM codex, right?
Still, having a weak codex is nothing new for many armies in the game in previous editions, I dont see why SM should get special treatment and get 2 codexs this edition. They arnt the first army to suffer from codex creep and they wont be the last either.
Honestly the two Legions AND the Vanilla CSM codex need serious overhauls. I don't think anyone is saying they don't even though they're written better. It ain't by much though.
That's fine but they aren't going to do it all at once. In order of priority for the second wave of dexes I think SM first to set a new baseline for Marines though and then follow it up with GK who need that fix the most
If they do that though then all the Marine players will be demanding a third codex halfway through the cycle because of codex creep again
SHUPPET wrote: SW has a dex on the way. BA is one of the bigger threats in the meta. SoB is everywhere. Same with CSM. Did you really put Thousand Sons and DG up there as examples of armies that need buffs before we even finish giving all armies codexes?
There's literally armies without dexes. Almost every dex has imbalances, theres a laundry list of units in my Nid and Tay book that's just pointless, are you including them? let's just never give the other armies a dex until we've achieved perfect internal balance in the other dexes? Nah you just want it for SM right? Seriously it's time we just quit the whining, wait your turn, there is very competitive armies in almost all those books you mention. SM never takes long to get a new codex once it's that season, and you know this isn't going to make GW skip other races, so I don't get the point of some of these posts. Nobodys saying SM codex needs to stay this way forever.
BA are not a meta threat. You are fething crazy.
Two possibilities, first being that Me, Geoff Robinson, and every other top player saying the same thing are all crazy, or you (the guy who also said Gladius wasn't a meta threat, among other outlandish SM downplay) are just bad. Hmm. Wonder which one is the case.
SHUPPET wrote: SW has a dex on the way. BA is one of the bigger threats in the meta. SoB is everywhere. Same with CSM. Did you really put Thousand Sons and DG up there as examples of armies that need buffs before we even finish giving all armies codexes?
There's literally armies without dexes. Almost every dex has imbalances, theres a laundry list of units in my Nid and Tay book that's just pointless, are you including them? let's just never give the other armies a dex until we've achieved perfect internal balance in the other dexes? Nah you just want it for SM right? Seriously it's time we just quit the whining, wait your turn, there is very competitive armies in almost all those books you mention. SM never takes long to get a new codex once it's that season, and you know this isn't going to make GW skip other races, so I don't get the point of some of these posts. Nobodys saying SM codex needs to stay this way forever.
BA are not a meta threat. You are fething crazy.
Two possibilities, first being that Me, Geoff Robinson, and every other top player saying the same thing are all crazy, or you (the guy who also said Gladius wasn't a meta threat, among other outlandish SM downplay) are just bad. Hmm. Wonder which one is the case.
BA capt and scouts show up in lists. That's all. You guys are gonna get them nerfed while you are at it, too. Making the codex completely useless.
Right now honestly I think I would rather 8.5 edition or 9th edition or whatever GW want to call it but take what they have started with 8th and just make it feel less like a beta version.
Gk and Spacemarines are not in a good place but switch out to a secondary army or even a 3rd or 4th army and a particular codex being bad only effects you by requiring you to give you opponents with that codex some form of handicap.
Right now the lack luster terrain rules and very swingy malstorm of war or the tabling to win BRB missions effect my enjoyment much more than just shelving my marines for 8th edition.
ITC does have some good rules and some mission scoring idea's which help 8th edition feel vaguely deeper on the table top. But the core game should provide this not a bucket load of house rules.
I don’t see SM getting a new codex this edition nor do I think they deserve one. Hopefully though they might get some new Primaris units including a cheaper transport. They aren’t top tier so just learn how to deal with it.
This isnt really about taking top tables, even then i doubt any pure marine list is.
Its more about the fact codexes like Eldar, dark Eldar, Harlequins, Nids, Tau can all churn multiple lists out that are pure, competitive and thematic. Multiple lists, taking a variety of units and don't necessarily rely on CT to be good.
Also its not really about coming before all of the other codexes are finished (bar sisters, as with the model range etc you could be looking at a long wait for that). Im talking about when all books are out, taking a look at how the game and factions play and recognizing the already apparent fact that the marine book/books are on a completely different level right now and that as the first few codexes of the new edition its not the end of the world to release a revised edition of these codexes to bring them on par.
Not a second wave, most armies don't need it.
Its good to hear this has happened in sigmar, was this because of significant flaws with how stormcast played? or more to account for new models?
To account for new models. Stormcast have always been good enough.
My problem with Space Marines is that except for a couple of list archetypes (gulliman razorbacks etc)... almost no 2000 pt pure marines list you can make looks like it is good enough. They always look like you need another 250 points to bring them up to standard.
And given that 250 points is the cost of 5 terminators, or two tactical squads, you can see why.
Regarding Chapter Tactics, I could imagine that GW gives SM and CSM the IG treatment: Infantry, Bikes and Cybots/Helbrutes get the CT they already have and the rest gets something else.
This is exactly the problem. Thinking Space Marines are the only army that has internal balance issues is just the most blinkered view possible. You mention Nids and Tau like half their dexes aren't just pointless inclusion competitively and that's just the two I'm thoroughly versed in. It's this stupid only child syndrome that gives SM players the negative rep they have.
SHUPPET wrote: This is exactly the problem. Thinking Space Marines are the only army that has internal balance issues is just the most blinkered view possible. You mention Nids and Tau like half their dexes aren't just pointless inclusion competitively and that's just the two I'm thoroughly versed in. It's this stupid only child syndrome that gives SM players the negative rep they have.
Well thats not really true is it. The Tau and nid books are relatively internally balanced compared to marines and still offer the capability to run very diverse forces. There are a lot of effective list variations for both of those codexes floating around without having to rely on other books as a crutch.
SHUPPET wrote: This is exactly the problem. Thinking Space Marines are the only army that has internal balance issues is just the most blinkered view possible. You mention Nids and Tau like half their dexes aren't just pointless inclusion competitively and that's just the two I'm thoroughly versed in. It's this stupid only child syndrome that gives SM players the negative rep they have.
Well thats not really true is it. The Tau and nid books are relatively internally balanced compared to marines and still offer the capability to run very diverse forces. There are a lot of effective list variations for both of those codexes floating around without having to rely on other books as a crutch.
Broodlord Old One Eye Harpy Haruspex Crone Lictor Shrikes Skyslashers Maleceptor Pyrovores Tervigon Zoanthropes Tyranid Prime Tyrannocyte Tyrant Guard Toxicrine Dimachaeron Deathleaper Red Terror Trygon Prime every single LOW
and that's just being generous and only including utter garbage units and not including things that just completely outclassed like Biovores, or just useless things like Warriors, Venomthropes and Gargs that see zero play, even though that was the original statement.
Fluffy, and restores some of the power of the army?
If needed you could put some limitation e.g. tac squads only
I really think the nerf to pods (reaction to the daft Battle Company formation in 7th - which was beyond stupid, but could have easily been fixed by making it rhinos only and pods half price or some such) has hampered one of the iconic things space marines do - drop out of the sky on fire and smash things up
Fluffy, and restores some of the power of the army?
If needed you could put some limitation e.g. tac squads only
I really think the nerf to pods (reaction to the daft Battle Company formation in 7th - which was beyond stupid, but could have easily been fixed by making it rhinos only and pods half price or some such) has hampered one of the iconic things space marines do - drop out of the sky on fire and smash things up
Would be a great stratagem to add - 1 CP to allow 1 pod to deep strike out of deployment zone on turn 1... 3 CP for 2.
So you have to pay the 'pod cost and the CP cost to do what they used to do, and can only do it in limited numbers.
Would be worth testing.
These are the kind of stratagems that I believe SM would already have if they were being released today. 12 months ago, the rules writers thought a codex would work if you had 1.5 pages of stratagems where 50% of them were locked to specific units, and the others locked to specific chapters/forge worlds. Like the SM Scout Bikers one, or the Kataphron Destroyers (not breachers!) one in AdMech.
Way too limited in scope and usefulness.
More recent codexes have 2 pages of strats and a fair chunk of them can be used by wider groupings like all INFANTRY or whatever.
There have been plenty of multi-wound weapons since the very beginning of 8th edition. Basically what you are saying is really any multi-wound model is hot garbage but people play Grotesques, Shining Spears, Bullgyrn, Blightlords, Flyrants, vehicles, etc. It is a really dumb argument that holds no merit.
Grotesques have T5, invulnerable save and FNP.. Last time I checked primaris marines have none of those. Oh and double the wounds...Nor do they move what 16", have 4++, shoot/fight with S6(S3 in melee), -4, D2. Nor do they have 3+ wounds and have either 2+ or 4++ mix of unit with ability to get +1 to save roll so 3++...
Lol. You are comparing apples to oranges. Hell just 3 wounds is HUGE as suddenly it takes 2 hits to kill model with D2 weapons that are numerous. So comparing bullgryn to primaris is very disgenious.
SHUPPET wrote: SW has a dex on the way. BA is one of the bigger threats in the meta. SoB is everywhere. Same with CSM. Did you really put Thousand Sons and DG up there as examples of armies that need buffs before we even finish giving all armies codexes?
There's literally armies without dexes. Almost every dex has imbalances, theres a laundry list of units in my Nid and Tay book that's just pointless, are you including them? let's just never give the other armies a dex until we've achieved perfect internal balance in the other dexes? Nah you just want it for SM right? Seriously it's time we just quit the whining, wait your turn, there is very competitive armies in almost all those books you mention. SM never takes long to get a new codex once it's that season, and you know this isn't going to make GW skip other races, so I don't get the point of some of these posts. Nobodys saying SM codex needs to stay this way forever.
I never said I thought they needed new books NOW, before all the other factions get released. You seem to be attributing a SM fan boy rabidity to me that isn't there. I think I probably agree with most of the things you've said, we may just be talking past each other. Obviously Orks, SW, GSC, and sisters are going to get their books before anything happens.
Orks and GSC shouldn't have to wait just because GW messed up Marines so hard. It does seem a bit pointless to come out with SW when half their units are likely to be useless...but what can you do.
I may have been reading into what you initially said, but it seemed like you were saying that we shouldn't even be having this conversation until all the other books were out, which seems strange especially when to me at least the initial subject was framed with the general idea of 'once the other books come out will SM get redone.'
I also think it's possible that CA can go a long way towards making Marines (every faction I mentioned) better by reducing points costs. This would at least let SM be seen on tables again outside of BA captains and 1-2 other units.
However I think that Marines at some point probably deserve more than that at some point, as their units are extremely bland and void of special rules compared to basically any other faction. They basically just got an index+, and it really isn't holding up.
Also I'm sure that there are issues with units in other factions, and of course I think that they should also be corrected. I just don't see the issue being as dire as the SM situation, which seriously effects half the armies in the game. If the SM book gets buffed, half the game improves. If 1 nid unit gets buffed, that unit is buffed. Both need to happen, but they aren't the same situation.
There have been plenty of multi-wound weapons since the very beginning of 8th edition. Basically what you are saying is really any multi-wound model is hot garbage but people play Grotesques, Shining Spears, Bullgyrn, Blightlords, Flyrants, vehicles, etc. It is a really dumb argument that holds no merit.
Grotesques have T5, invulnerable save and FNP.. Last time I checked primaris marines have none of those. Oh and double the wounds...Nor do they move what 16", have 4++, shoot/fight with S6(S3 in melee), -4, D2. Nor do they have 3+ wounds and have either 2+ or 4++ mix of unit with ability to get +1 to save roll so 3++...
Lol. You are comparing apples to oranges. Hell just 3 wounds is HUGE as suddenly it takes 2 hits to kill model with D2 weapons that are numerous. So comparing bullgryn to primaris is very disgenious.
Hahahahahaahahaaaaaaaaano.
Try reading ANYTHING about a units statline before talking about it. Literally everything you listed besides the invuln save, toughness and FNP was a complete fabrication.
Grotesques move 7", have a 5++ base (remember how all the marine players complain that they're shackled to one CT? Yeah, it's a specific CT that gives grots a 4++), don't shoot unless you give them hilariously priced S3 flamers, fight with S5, -2, D1, not S6, -4, D2 lol.
I think you will see a Primaris only codex next. OG Marines will be 'index' bound pretty soon. GW just has to get the rest of the Primaris line out on the shelf first.
SHUPPET wrote: SW has a dex on the way. BA is one of the bigger threats in the meta. SoB is everywhere. Same with CSM. Did you really put Thousand Sons and DG up there as examples of armies that need buffs before we even finish giving all armies codexes?
There's literally armies without dexes. Almost every dex has imbalances, theres a laundry list of units in my Nid and Tay book that's just pointless, are you including them? let's just never give the other armies a dex until we've achieved perfect internal balance in the other dexes? Nah you just want it for SM right? Seriously it's time we just quit the whining, wait your turn, there is very competitive armies in almost all those books you mention. SM never takes long to get a new codex once it's that season, and you know this isn't going to make GW skip other races, so I don't get the point of some of these posts. Nobodys saying SM codex needs to stay this way forever.
I never said I thought they needed new books NOW, before all the other factions get released. You seem to be attributing a SM fan boy rabidity to me that isn't there. I think I probably agree with most of the things you've said, we may just be talking past each other. Obviously Orks, SW, GSC, and sisters are going to get their books before anything happens.
Orks and GSC shouldn't have to wait just because GW messed up Marines so hard. It does seem a bit pointless to come out with SW when half their units are likely to be useless...but what can you do.
I may have been reading into what you initially said, but it seemed like you were saying that we shouldn't even be having this conversation until all the other books were out, which seems strange especially when to me at least the initial subject was framed with the general idea of 'once the other books come out will SM get redone.'
I also think it's possible that CA can go a long way towards making Marines (every faction I mentioned) better by reducing points costs. This would at least let SM be seen on tables again outside of BA captains and 1-2 other units.
However I think that Marines at some point probably deserve more than that at some point, as their units are extremely bland and void of special rules compared to basically any other faction. They basically just got an index+, and it really isn't holding up.
Also I'm sure that there are issues with units in other factions, and of course I think that they should also be corrected. I just don't see the issue being as dire as the SM situation, which seriously effects half the armies in the game. If the SM book gets buffed, half the game improves. If 1 nid unit gets buffed, that unit is buffed. Both need to happen, but they aren't the same situation.
Yup, agree 100%. Marine pricing needs an across-the-board revamp, the Librarius discipline is goddamn TERRIBLE and needs a total redesign outside of maybe null zone and might of heroes, and many weapons and units need the kind of 'flavor pass' we've been getting from index to codex for nearly every other faction. Stratagems, chapter tactics, powers, traits....sounds like a new codex to me, or if you were really feeling nice, a big old free PDF, which would garner some actual serious support for "new GW."
Call me crazy, but I think if you got creative with the tweaks most other factions could be fixed with a CA-style points adjustment and maybe an errata. but marines and, by extension chaos marines need a lot of their stuff redesigned ground up.
As much as I love my Incubi, my Striking Scorpions, my Battle Servitors, fixing those units does not have as wide and as immediate an impact on the overall health of the game as fixing something like a Vindicator, which an actual crapton of units have access to.
SHUPPET wrote: SW has a dex on the way. BA is one of the bigger threats in the meta. SoB is everywhere. Same with CSM. Did you really put Thousand Sons and DG up there as examples of armies that need buffs before we even finish giving all armies codexes?
There's literally armies without dexes. Almost every dex has imbalances, theres a laundry list of units in my Nid and Tay book that's just pointless, are you including them? let's just never give the other armies a dex until we've achieved perfect internal balance in the other dexes? Nah you just want it for SM right? Seriously it's time we just quit the whining, wait your turn, there is very competitive armies in almost all those books you mention. SM never takes long to get a new codex once it's that season, and you know this isn't going to make GW skip other races, so I don't get the point of some of these posts. Nobodys saying SM codex needs to stay this way forever.
I never said I thought they needed new books NOW, before all the other factions get released. You seem to be attributing a SM fan boy rabidity to me that isn't there. I think I probably agree with most of the things you've said, we may just be talking past each other. Obviously Orks, SW, GSC, and sisters are going to get their books before anything happens.
Orks and GSC shouldn't have to wait just because GW messed up Marines so hard. It does seem a bit pointless to come out with SW when half their units are likely to be useless...but what can you do.
I may have been reading into what you initially said, but it seemed like you were saying that we shouldn't even be having this conversation until all the other books were out, which seems strange especially when to me at least the initial subject was framed with the general idea of 'once the other books come out will SM get redone.'
I also think it's possible that CA can go a long way towards making Marines (every faction I mentioned) better by reducing points costs. This would at least let SM be seen on tables again outside of BA captains and 1-2 other units.
However I think that Marines at some point probably deserve more than that at some point, as their units are extremely bland and void of special rules compared to basically any other faction. They basically just got an index+, and it really isn't holding up.
Also I'm sure that there are issues with units in other factions, and of course I think that they should also be corrected. I just don't see the issue being as dire as the SM situation, which seriously effects half the armies in the game. If the SM book gets buffed, half the game improves. If 1 nid unit gets buffed, that unit is buffed. Both need to happen, but they aren't the same situation.
Well I agree with what your saying, and I'm all for SM getting improved, and them being first in line once everyone has dexes. It's kinda hard to know whos saying what but I'm disagreeing with the guys saying to skip the other dexes, and the guys saying only SM needs an updated dex and no Xenos faction, and that all Xenos apparently have great excellent internal balance. It's just a different level of reality for some people. If you disagree with that blinkered approach, then say it to them, there is too many rational SM players just giving this gak a pass because its their own race.
As much as I love my Incubi, my Striking Scorpions, my Battle Servitors, fixing those units does not have as wide and as immediate an impact on the overall health of the game as fixing something like a Vindicator, which an actual crapton of units have access to.
The Vindicator is possibly the easiest fix of any Marine unit in the game; give it the Grinding Advance rule that Leman Russes have - i.e. shoot twice if it moved up to half its M stat, and doesn’t suffer the -1 to hit for moving and shooting the Demolisher Cannon. Bing bang boom, done. Maybe bump its points up a little to bring it into line with the Leman Russ.
On the other hand, if you fix the S 4 T 4 W 1 Sv 3+ statline that Marines are plagued with, I think you might actually fix nearly a hundred units in one go.
SickSix wrote: I think you will see a Primaris only codex next. OG Marines will be 'index' bound pretty soon. GW just has to get the rest of the Primaris line out on the shelf first.
This conspiracy theory is running since before the SM codex is even out.
And it was debunked many times. there are NO plans to index the regular marines any time soon.
As much as I love my Incubi, my Striking Scorpions, my Battle Servitors, fixing those units does not have as wide and as immediate an impact on the overall health of the game as fixing something like a Vindicator, which an actual crapton of units have access to.
The Vindicator is possibly the easiest fix of any Marine unit in the game; give it the Grinding Advance rule that Leman Russes have - i.e. shoot twice if it moved up to half its M stat, and doesn’t suffer the -1 to hit for moving and shooting the Demolisher Cannon. Bing bang boom, done. Maybe bump its points up a little to bring it into line with the Leman Russ.
On the other hand, if you fix the S 4 T 4 W 1 Sv 3+ statline that Marines are plagued with, I think you might actually fix nearly a hundred units in one go.
por que no los dos? Vindy was just one example I had on my mind. I think you could go the "marines are 2W, primaris and terminators are 3W" route. I think the "lets just delete primaris and make the rgular marines have all the same rules" idea is a fantasy at this point, just practically not going to happen as GW is committed. But 3W would fix the major primaris problem of hyper-weakness to flat 2D weaponry.
SickSix wrote: I think you will see a Primaris only codex next. OG Marines will be 'index' bound pretty soon. GW just has to get the rest of the Primaris line out on the shelf first.
This conspiracy theory is running since before the SM codex is even out.
And it was debunked many times. there are NO plans to index the regular marines any time soon.
maybe in a few years. but not soon.
I don't think they are suggesting that oldscale marines are getting Indexed any time soon. I think the suggestion is that they might split Primaris off into a separate Codex if they get another wave of releases. Which is plausible, given how many Datasheets are already in the Marines Codex.
That could mean that oldscale armies are stuck with Chapter Approved for any improvements for a long time of course.
My sense is that 40K will not see edition changes but rather evolve through revised Codices and Chapter Approved. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new SM Codex in the next year.
An indicator could be the upcoming Space Wolves Codex. Space Wolves have always been a little different, but if we see big changes in yheir core "space marnie" aspects then perhaps a new SM Codex is not far off?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: My sense is that 40K will not see edition changes but rather evolve through revised Codices and Chapter Approved. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new SM Codex in the next year.
An indicator could be the upcoming Space Wolves Codex. Space Wolves have always been a little different, but if we see big changes in yheir core "space marnie" aspects then perhaps a new SM Codex is not far off?
I would have agreed until we got AoS 2.0
I think that throws everything up in the air again. Though if we do get a new edition I expect it to be a minor one, where 8e Codexes are still valid.
SickSix wrote: I think you will see a Primaris only codex next. OG Marines will be 'index' bound pretty soon. GW just has to get the rest of the Primaris line out on the shelf first.
This conspiracy theory is running since before the SM codex is even out.
And it was debunked many times. there are NO plans to index the regular marines any time soon.
maybe in a few years. but not soon.
I don't think they are suggesting that oldscale marines are getting Indexed any time soon. I think the suggestion is that they might split Primaris off into a separate Codex if they get another wave of releases. Which is plausible, given how many Datasheets are already in the Marines Codex.
That could mean that oldscale armies are stuck with Chapter Approved for any improvements for a long time of course.
They can't do that without decoupling the primaris from the chapter tactics, and they can't decouple them.
As long they share "normarines" chapter tactics, having the two in two seperate books would cause as uproar for selling two books for what is essentially one army.
If they try to decouple, it would cause an uproar because players of the biggest player base would be outraged that their army is suddenly not an army and is split to two.
Either way, its backlash from the marines, and as marines are about 50% of the community, they cant afford it.
SickSix wrote: I think you will see a Primaris only codex next. OG Marines will be 'index' bound pretty soon. GW just has to get the rest of the Primaris line out on the shelf first.
This conspiracy theory is running since before the SM codex is even out.
And it was debunked many times. there are NO plans to index the regular marines any time soon.
maybe in a few years. but not soon.
I don't think they are suggesting that oldscale marines are getting Indexed any time soon. I think the suggestion is that they might split Primaris off into a separate Codex if they get another wave of releases. Which is plausible, given how many Datasheets are already in the Marines Codex.
That could mean that oldscale armies are stuck with Chapter Approved for any improvements for a long time of course.
They can't do that without decoupling the primaris from the chapter tactics, and they can't decouple them.
As long they share "normarines" chapter tactics, having the two in two seperate books would cause as uproar for selling two books for what is essentially one army.
If they try to decouple, it would cause an uproar because players of the biggest player base would be outraged that their army is suddenly not an army and is split to two.
Either way, its backlash from the marines, and as marines are about 50% of the community, they cant afford it.
I'm less secptical of the idea. There's be whining online for sure, but if it was reasonably strong Marine players would get over it quickly.
GW over the last few years have shown they are willing to take big risks of they think it's the right decision for the long term.
SickSix wrote: I think you will see a Primaris only codex next. OG Marines will be 'index' bound pretty soon. GW just has to get the rest of the Primaris line out on the shelf first.
This conspiracy theory is running since before the SM codex is even out.
And it was debunked many times. there are NO plans to index the regular marines any time soon.
maybe in a few years. but not soon.
I don't think they are suggesting that oldscale marines are getting Indexed any time soon. I think the suggestion is that they might split Primaris off into a separate Codex if they get another wave of releases. Which is plausible, given how many Datasheets are already in the Marines Codex.
That could mean that oldscale armies are stuck with Chapter Approved for any improvements for a long time of course.
They can't do that without decoupling the primaris from the chapter tactics, and they can't decouple them.
As long they share "normarines" chapter tactics, having the two in two seperate books would cause as uproar for selling two books for what is essentially one army.
If they try to decouple, it would cause an uproar because players of the biggest player base would be outraged that their army is suddenly not an army and is split to two.
Either way, its backlash from the marines, and as marines are about 50% of the community, they cant afford it.
Plus, they're only beaten out in whining volume and intensity by Sisters of Battle players, but that's like saying an air raid klaxon is drowned out by the sound of a supernova.
SHUPPET wrote: This is exactly the problem. Thinking Space Marines are the only army that has internal balance issues is just the most blinkered view possible. You mention Nids and Tau like half their dexes aren't just pointless inclusion competitively and that's just the two I'm thoroughly versed in. It's this stupid only child syndrome that gives SM players the negative rep they have.
Well thats not really true is it. The Tau and nid books are relatively internally balanced compared to marines and still offer the capability to run very diverse forces. There are a lot of effective list variations for both of those codexes floating around without having to rely on other books as a crutch.
Broodlord (Overcosted - legit needs a buff)
Old One Eye (Overcosted - probably a good thing - carnifex are OP)
Harpy (Not actaully that bad)
Haruspex (should hit on 3's)
Crone (not actaully that bad)
Lictor (not bad)
Shrikes (not bad - no models - why 5+ save?)
Skyslashers (Not bad just has no models)
Maleceptor (Not bad - can be used effectively - Just strange 3 attacks with 4+ to hit d6 damage weapon - strong psychic)
Pyrovores (Great against any CC army)
Tervigon (Legit trash - no arguement)
Zoanthropes (Actaully pretty good unit - spamming Neuros is better though)
Tyranid Prime (Overcosted but amazing buff for warriors - I use it in competitive games and it does well)
Tyrannocyte (Legit trash - you actually have scary stuff to put in it though)
Tyrant Guard (Mandatory for swarmlord...not really sure why this is on the list)
Toxicrine (Fantastic unit - try using it)
Dimachaeron (Weird rules - use Toxicrine instead)
Deathleaper (Was great in index then became trash - use index rules and you good)
Red Terror (Trash - agree)
Trygon Prime (Hummm - slgihtly more expensive trygon with better shooting attack and synapse...trygon better cause doesn't need the synapse but that doesn't make the prime worthless)
every single LOW (I'm not so sure how terrible the CC haridrule is - he has a nice flamer attack and brutal CC that is almost automatic turn 1 with swarmy. Not enough defense though - rest are trash - agreed)
and that's just being generous and only including utter garbage units and not including things that just completely outclassed like Biovores, or just useless things like Warriors, Venomthropes and Gargs that see zero play, even though that was the original statement.
SO MUCH INTERNAL BALANCE
"only MY army needs fixes!"
You are being a little harsh on a lot of these units - I responded in parenthesis.
Marine issues are much more drastic by like another scale shift. Practically everything on that list has a marine counterpart that is much worse. Warriors aren't trash BTW. They are a very good unit. Hive Gaurd are just OP.
zedsdead wrote: My Pods are pissed because all of the dust thats collected on them this past year.
Make them free. Burn a CP to use one. Fixed
Exactly - I've suggested this many times. When armies can deep strike for CP - drop pods CAN NOT COST POINTS lol.
Or, get this - they CAN cost points, because they DON'T cost CP.
:thinking:
Marines get both worlds; Infiltrate for CP, or Drop Pods for points.
What is a CP worth...is it worth anywhere near 70 points? NO. For 180 points you get 5 CP and 3 10 man infantry squads and 2 hq's. Even if you were just buying the points and not getting 3 very useful anti infantry units putting out a combined 120 str 3 shots that can hold objectives. The cost of a cp if 180 for 5 cp is the messure. Is 36 points. So should we start there for the drop pods cost? Then factor in the 12 wounds to 38 - the 4 shots to 120. This makes a drop pod worth maybe 10-20 points - not 70.
Billagio wrote: Not to mention other armies have drop pods (tyranids) do they get CP only ones as well?
Tyranids have a Deep Strike stratagem I'm pretty sure.
Interesting, didnt know that
Hive Fleet Jormungandr does, but it isn't as simple as just deep strike - it allows you to deep strike an Infantry unit alongside a Ravener brood or a Mawloc, Trygon or Trygon Prime that deep strikes using their abilities.
Also; do Marine tactics and stratagems seem "lackluster", only because they were the first ones to use them?
People think "everyone got what Marines got" - when the only reason they think that, is because Marines were the first army released with the same rules that EVERYONE uses.
They're referred to as "Chapter Tactics", just because they were the first to use UNIVERSAL tactics/stratagems. Sure, some are reworded or slightly different, but they're all cut from the same cloth.
I'm going to concede that GW gotten better at designing factions and armies as the edition goes on -- but that's not the whole story.
There's also the aspect of "Imperial" as a faction itself; if it weren't for that, armies would be better designed in a codex-inclusive only fashion, and players would also have to adapt to using different units, and different roles.
As it stands now - why take anything except Imperial Guard, plus whatever melee BA/SM etc units to plug holes and fill weaknesses that the IG codex has?
"It'll be great" they said. "Once your army's folded into the Vanilla Codex you'll get updates every edition and won't have to be a crappy army!" they said.
And now I'm an entitled whiner because I'm dissatisfied with my army getting shafted for the fourth edition in a row and I should just shut up and think of how the poor, oppressed Xenos never get anything nice ever and how awful and selfish I am for wanting an army that isn't "the same as everyone else, except worse".
Billagio wrote: Not to mention other armies have drop pods (tyranids) do they get CP only ones as well?
Tyranids have a Deep Strike stratagem I'm pretty sure.
Interesting, didnt know that
Hive Fleet Jormungandr does, but it isn't as simple as just deep strike - it allows you to deep strike an Infantry unit alongside a Ravener brood or a Mawloc, Trygon or Trygon Prime that deep strikes using their abilities.
Yeah, Tyranids have a whole slurry of options for DS. Besides just the Flying stuff stuff they get:
Raveners: Who tunnel in themselves. Trygon/Trygon-Primes: Which also tunnel in but can bring along a unit of troops (Which Tyranids have a ton of.) Tyrannocyte: The Tyranid Drop Pod which can bring up to 20 infantry (single unit though), or a single monster. (Like a Super Drop Pod that can even deliver vehicles) Jorm Stratagem: Which allows you to bring along any infantry alongside another burrowing unit for a CP. Which is also stackable without limit, I think. This allows for cheap DSing of all sorts of fun stuff, like Hive Guard and Zoanthropes. For extra kicks they have a Deep Striking building that spawns spore mines and can sport decent guns.
So it's very easy for Tyranids to deep strike with disgusting amounts of models. Like if you wanted to pop up with 90 Devilgaunts for some reason, it doesn't take much.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "It'll be great" they said. "Once your army's folded into the Vanilla Codex you'll get updates every edition and won't have to be a crappy army!" they said.
And now I'm an entitled whiner because I'm dissatisfied with my army getting shafted for the fourth edition in a row and I should just shut up and think of how the poor, oppressed Xenos never get anything nice ever and how awful and selfish I am for wanting an army that isn't "the same as everyone else, except worse".
Xenos life has been very poor though. Their models don't ever get updates - as a result your space marine army has to have bad rules.
Martel732 wrote: That doesn't even make business sense. Of course, this is the company that made the 1999 wave serpent kit the best model in 6th.
It's almost like the randomly select the rules they make without understanding them. Then they don't even pay attention when they sell out of a model with good rules like they can't even figure out why people are buying them. The guy that makes eldar rules just plays dumb. "Hey man why are these wave serpents going out of stock cosntantly...that kit is like 15 years old?" "I don't know...they must really like the look of it".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "It'll be great" they said. "Once your army's folded into the Vanilla Codex you'll get updates every edition and won't have to be a crappy army!" they said.
And now I'm an entitled whiner because I'm dissatisfied with my army getting shafted for the fourth edition in a row and I should just shut up and think of how the poor, oppressed Xenos never get anything nice ever and how awful and selfish I am for wanting an army that isn't "the same as everyone else, except worse".
So many people hate marines that we could have each marine cost 300 points at their current stats and those people would still be like “psh marines are fine you’re just spoiled lol.”
I’m hoping at the very least that chapter approved 2018 takes a long hard look at them. In the meantime I’m playing around with knights and guard.
fe40k wrote: Also; do Marine tactics and stratagems seem "lackluster", only because they were the first ones to use them?
People think "everyone got what Marines got" - when the only reason they think that, is because Marines were the first army released with the same rules that EVERYONE uses.
They're referred to as "Chapter Tactics", just because they were the first to use UNIVERSAL tactics/stratagems. Sure, some are reworded or slightly different, but they're all cut from the same cloth.
I'm going to concede that GW gotten better at designing factions and armies as the edition goes on -- but that's not the whole story.
There's also the aspect of "Imperial" as a faction itself; if it weren't for that, armies would be better designed in a codex-inclusive only fashion, and players would also have to adapt to using different units, and different roles.
As it stands now - why take anything except Imperial Guard, plus whatever melee BA/SM etc units to plug holes and fill weaknesses that the IG codex has?
To some extent yes, to some extent no.
Several marine stratagems are heavily hampered by the fact that the constituent units suck, and the stratagem viewed on its own is fine. "longrange artillery unit" gets to autohit while "fast scout unit" is within 12" of the target. If you replace Whirlwinds and Land Speeders here with Basilisk and Scout Sentinel, you'd have an extremely solid stratagem. "Elite unit adds 1 to wound rolls with its gun for 1CP" is fine for any elite unit that is good....but that doesn't include Sternguard. Tremor Shells would be a fun little ability if it was worth including Thunderfire Cannons even remotely. nice little feth you to stuff like shining spears, red grief Reaver blob, etc.
But several are definitely underpowered for what they do. Auspex scan should either be 1cp or have the range restriction removed entirely. Tactical Flexiblity just needs a rework, or needs to be made far more open-ended (like say, combine OR divide any unit with chapter tactics regardless of unit size.) Wisdom of the Ancients should be rerolling all hits, or some totally different buff, marines have huge numbers of reroll hit auras running around.
Games Workshop pretty clearly ended up hit-and-miss with the marine stratagems and marine units, and ended up with a combination where even the stuff that could work ended up looking pretty bad. Even looking at, for example, Grey Knights or Admech, the stratagems work far better on average.
When it comes to CTs, applying them to vehicles would go a Looooooooooooooooong way to fixing them. A couple I might add a bit of a bonus to - Imp Fists and Black Templars should probably get some kind of extra bonus, like similar CTs other factions get (Saim Hann for example gets BT tactics plus move and fire heavy on jetbikes, so maybe BTs should get a bonus attack ont he charge or something.) Salamanders, Ultras, RG, and IH would probably all be functional if tanks got them as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, feth us Walrus. We try melee marines. Feth us.
They've shitcanned power armor again, just like in 2nd. The results are the same.
Yes, this is an accurate representation of the overall sentiment in this "should marines get a second balance pass/second codex this edition" thread.
It's all a jeering crowd of blind-hate jackals clutching their xenos miniatures and spitting on your poor, permanently oppressed power armor.
"everybody sits in a circle, everybody reaches over to their right, everybody unzips their zipper, aaaaaand"
It's hard to say that Marines have been left out in the cold, when there's as many Space Marine (I+CSM) as there are books for all the other factions combined.
Sure, some books might be duds - good thing all the models are cross compatible.
Unlike for Xenos, some EDITIONS have been duds; as the one book they got didn't make the cut in terms of holding a candle to edition it was released in (if it was even released in the same edition at all - i remember when Xenos' went editions without a book release).
fe40k wrote: It's hard to say that Marines have been left out in the cold, when there's as many Space Marine (I+CSM) as there are books for all the other factions combined.
Sure, some books might be duds - good thing all the models are cross compatible.
Unlike for Xenos, some EDITIONS have been duds; as the one book they got didn't make the cut in terms of holding a candle to edition it was released in (if it was even released in the same edition at all - i remember when Xenos' went editions without a book release).
So because it happened to a couple of factions before the players should just sit and deal with it? As a primary Necron player I shouldn't have to be defending the SM/CSM players so much, and yet here I am doing it.
fe40k wrote: It's hard to say that Marines have been left out in the cold, when there's as many Space Marine (I+CSM) as there are books for all the other factions combined.
Sure, some books might be duds - good thing all the models are cross compatible.
Unlike for Xenos, some EDITIONS have been duds; as the one book they got didn't make the cut in terms of holding a candle to edition it was released in (if it was even released in the same edition at all - i remember when Xenos' went editions without a book release).
Didn’t your parents ever pull the “two wrongs don’t make a right” snap at you?
It’s kinda silly to take new player Bobby just starting his black templar and tell him “hey, your guys are gonna suck for a while, but you deserve it because other armies have sucked in the past.”
fe40k wrote: It's hard to say that Marines have been left out in the cold, when there's as many Space Marine (I+CSM) as there are books for all the other factions combined.
Sure, some books might be duds - good thing all the models are cross compatible.
Unlike for Xenos, some EDITIONS have been duds; as the one book they got didn't make the cut in terms of holding a candle to edition it was released in (if it was even released in the same edition at all - i remember when Xenos' went editions without a book release).
So because it happened to a couple of factions before the players should just sit and deal with it? As a primary Necron player I shouldn't have to be defending the SM/CSM players so much, and yet here I am doing it.
Fix Marines in Chaper Approved - why would you need to release another Codex to do this?
New Codexes should be for those factions who are still wating for their first one!
fe40k wrote: Ok, let's ask the question like this:
Is EVERY Marine codex bad this edition?
Are there any that have redeeming features?
Yes, but for the most part, it has nothing to do with the cross-compatible models, and often the stuff they share (marine statline/cost, terminators, various basic marine vehicles, shared stratagems) is what holds the faction back.
Deathwatch would be awesome with a fixed marine base cost, fixed drop pods and land raiders, and no crappy shared marine stratagems.
Don't get me wrong here, marine players: I fully agree that you have a bad codex right now, and I think it should be fixed. Where I disagree with you is where you start blatantly circlejerking ("eeeeeveryone thinks marines shouldn't be viable! They just want us to be crappy foreeeeever!") or where you think GW should slam the brakes on the current codex release schedule to make sure your faction is top tier before anyone else even gets a codex in the first place.
You should be (and almost certainly are) near the front of the line. But you should still be behind factions that have gotten zero releases since the launch of 8th. Space Wolves are playing out of like 5 pages in the index and have been for months.
I don't know who thinks what. Except for when people post blatant fiction. I don't think marines should get a codex before 2019 for sure. FAQ and CA fixes would probably be fine anyway.
fe40k wrote: Ok, let's ask the question like this:
Is EVERY Marine codex bad this edition?
Are there any that have redeeming features?
Yes, but for the most part, it has nothing to do with the cross-compatible models, and often the stuff they share (marine statline/cost, terminators, various basic marine vehicles, shared stratagems) is what holds the faction back.
Deathwatch would be awesome with a fixed marine base cost, fixed drop pods and land raiders, and no crappy shared marine stratagems.
Don't get me wrong here, marine players: I fully agree that you have a bad codex right now, and I think it should be fixed. Where I disagree with you is where you start blatantly circlejerking ("eeeeeveryone thinks marines shouldn't be viable! They just want us to be crappy foreeeeever!") or where you think GW should slam the brakes on the current codex release schedule to make sure your faction is top tier before anyone else even gets a codex in the first place.
You should be (and almost certainly are) near the front of the line. But you should still be behind factions that have gotten zero releases since the launch of 8th. Space Wolves are playing out of like 5 pages in the index and have been for months.
If space wolf index wasn't better than codex space marines they would have my sympathy. Also If I didn't know they were going to get the strongest codex in the edition I could care...actaully feth the space wolves. The lamest army to ever exist. Anyways. What is the point of CA - if they aren't going to fix bad armies and instead nerf them.
Look, I'm not saying Marines aren't relatively weaker; but that's a combination of factors.
1. Internal/external balance
2. Pricing, relative to other models, coupled with...
3. Rules of the edition; favoring certain types of statlines and rules (this edition is all about the 4ppm guardsman)
However, to say that they deserve a new codex because,
1. They have weak stratagems (more like a few "bad" ones)
2. Their "chapter tactics" are weaker than others
3. Certain portions of their codex are more viable than others
4. Points cost, model effectiveness, etc
- All factions suffer from the above problems. GK are the easiest ones to look at, because they should just be Custodes+ - "elite of the elite"+psychic powers; but they're more expensive Marines (which had pricing issues already), without anything but a weak psychic phase to go along with it.
GK have competitive models, but, not enough to build a realistic GK only army.
But look, all factions suffer from the problems that "shitcanned" Marines this edition.
I said they shitcanned power armor. Ven dread/leviathan spam works okay I guess. Power armor =/= marines. I just don't want to play that army, nor can I, since BA don't get ven dreads.
fe40k wrote: Ok, let's ask the question like this:
Is EVERY Marine codex bad this edition?
Are there any that have redeeming features?
Yes, but for the most part, it has nothing to do with the cross-compatible models, and often the stuff they share (marine statline/cost, terminators, various basic marine vehicles, shared stratagems) is what holds the faction back.
Deathwatch would be awesome with a fixed marine base cost, fixed drop pods and land raiders, and no crappy shared marine stratagems.
Don't get me wrong here, marine players: I fully agree that you have a bad codex right now, and I think it should be fixed. Where I disagree with you is where you start blatantly circlejerking ("eeeeeveryone thinks marines shouldn't be viable! They just want us to be crappy foreeeeever!") or where you think GW should slam the brakes on the current codex release schedule to make sure your faction is top tier before anyone else even gets a codex in the first place.
You should be (and almost certainly are) near the front of the line. But you should still be behind factions that have gotten zero releases since the launch of 8th. Space Wolves are playing out of like 5 pages in the index and have been for months.
If space wolf index wasn't better than codex space marines they would have my sympathy. Also If I didn't know they were going to get the strongest codex in the edition I could care...actaully feth the space wolves. The lamest army to ever exist. Anyways. What is the point of CA - if they aren't going to fix bad armies and instead nerf them.
Martel732 wrote: I don't know who thinks what. Except for when people post blatant fiction. I don't think marines should get a codex before 2019 for sure. FAQ and CA fixes would probably be fine anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: Also If I didn't know they were going to get the strongest codex in the edition I could care...
fe40k wrote: Look, I'm not saying Marines aren't relatively weaker; but that's a combination of factors.
1. Internal/external balance
2. Pricing, relative to other models, coupled with...
3. Rules of the edition; favoring certain types of statlines and rules (this edition is all about the 4ppm guardsman)
However, to say that they deserve a new codex because,
1. They have weak stratagems (more like a few "bad" ones)
2. Their "chapter tactics" are weaker than others
3. Certain portions of their codex are more viable than others
4. Points cost, model effectiveness, etc
- All factions suffer from the above problems. GK are the easiest ones to look at, because they should just be Custodes+ - "elite of the elite"+psychic powers; but they're more expensive Marines (which had pricing issues already), without anything but a weak psychic phase to go along with it.
GK have competitive models, but, not enough to build a realistic GK only army.
But look, all factions suffer from the problems that "shitcanned" Marines this edition.
It's more like.
1.) They have no linchpin stratagems
2.) They have the same chapter tactics as other armies but it does not affect their tanks (tanks are important in this eddition because they are tough)
3.) 90% instead of 50% of their codex is unplayable. Plus what is playable is comparable to throw away units in other armies. Guilliman is the only model in the army another army could envy.
4.) 3-4 are bascailly the same thing. Furthmore - our effective models which wern't even as effective as other models within the imperium were nerfed.
DW, BA & DA all have redeeming features. None are currently top end, especially since the beta dropped, but all offer interesting ways to play and some competitive units.
grouchoben wrote: DW, BA & DA all have redeeming features. None are currently top end, especially since the beta dropped, but all offer interesting ways to play and some competitive units.
This is as positive a statement as I'm willing to endorse.
Oh nothing, just in other threads where you're not ragging on others for gaking on marines' plight for past privilege you've opined that Riptides/occasionally Tau in general were so strong last edition they should be kept in a dumpster permanently.
fe40k wrote: Ok, let's ask the question like this:
Is EVERY Marine codex bad this edition?
Are there any that have redeeming features?
Yes, but for the most part, it has nothing to do with the cross-compatible models, and often the stuff they share (marine statline/cost, terminators, various basic marine vehicles, shared stratagems) is what holds the faction back.
Deathwatch would be awesome with a fixed marine base cost, fixed drop pods and land raiders, and no crappy shared marine stratagems.
Don't get me wrong here, marine players: I fully agree that you have a bad codex right now, and I think it should be fixed. Where I disagree with you is where you start blatantly circlejerking ("eeeeeveryone thinks marines shouldn't be viable! They just want us to be crappy foreeeeever!") or where you think GW should slam the brakes on the current codex release schedule to make sure your faction is top tier before anyone else even gets a codex in the first place.
You should be (and almost certainly are) near the front of the line. But you should still be behind factions that have gotten zero releases since the launch of 8th. Space Wolves are playing out of like 5 pages in the index and have been for months.
If space wolf index wasn't better than codex space marines they would have my sympathy. Also If I didn't know they were going to get the strongest codex in the edition I could care...actaully feth the space wolves. The lamest army to ever exist. Anyways. What is the point of CA - if they aren't going to fix bad armies and instead nerf them.
Martel732 wrote: I don't know who thinks what. Except for when people post blatant fiction. I don't think marines should get a codex before 2019 for sure. FAQ and CA fixes would probably be fine anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: Also If I didn't know they were going to get the strongest codex in the edition I could care...
Xenomancers wrote: actaully feth the space wolves. The lamest army to ever exist.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, feth us Walrus. We try melee marines. Feth us.
Yeah, I'M the one blindly going around hating on factions based on completely external factions than game balance.
Say, Martel, how do you feel about Riptides and Tau in general being allowed to be viable?
It's not blatant fiction. Space wolves have been marines plus 1 since forever. Martel will have my back on this I am sure. Space wolves are the main reason people have seen marines as being OP. It also adds insult to injury when you have to lose to stupid looking models riding oversized thunderwolves. Plus having to listen to all the stupid names of their units and weapons.
Frustration is a thing. And Riptides were really obnoxious. It's a minor irritation that their gun is better than the one on a LoW, but at least Tau players have to make choices with them now. They're downright under powered compared to ravagers.
I'm not even calling for Drukhari to get trashed. But if they are the new normal, marines should cost significantly less. GW needs to pick a normal and stick with it.
fe40k wrote: Ok, let's ask the question like this:
Is EVERY Marine codex bad this edition?
Are there any that have redeeming features?
Yes, but for the most part, it has nothing to do with the cross-compatible models, and often the stuff they share (marine statline/cost, terminators, various basic marine vehicles, shared stratagems) is what holds the faction back.
Deathwatch would be awesome with a fixed marine base cost, fixed drop pods and land raiders, and no crappy shared marine stratagems.
Don't get me wrong here, marine players: I fully agree that you have a bad codex right now, and I think it should be fixed. Where I disagree with you is where you start blatantly circlejerking ("eeeeeveryone thinks marines shouldn't be viable! They just want us to be crappy foreeeeever!") or where you think GW should slam the brakes on the current codex release schedule to make sure your faction is top tier before anyone else even gets a codex in the first place.
You should be (and almost certainly are) near the front of the line. But you should still be behind factions that have gotten zero releases since the launch of 8th. Space Wolves are playing out of like 5 pages in the index and have been for months.
If space wolf index wasn't better than codex space marines they would have my sympathy. Also If I didn't know they were going to get the strongest codex in the edition I could care...actaully feth the space wolves. The lamest army to ever exist. Anyways. What is the point of CA - if they aren't going to fix bad armies and instead nerf them.
Martel732 wrote: I don't know who thinks what. Except for when people post blatant fiction. I don't think marines should get a codex before 2019 for sure. FAQ and CA fixes would probably be fine anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: Also If I didn't know they were going to get the strongest codex in the edition I could care...
Xenomancers wrote: actaully feth the space wolves. The lamest army to ever exist.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, feth us Walrus. We try melee marines. Feth us.
Yeah, I'M the one blindly going around hating on factions based on completely external factions than game balance.
Say, Martel, how do you feel about Riptides and Tau in general being allowed to be viable?
It's not blatant fiction. Space wolves have been marines plus 1 since forever. Martel will have my back on this I am sure. Space wolves are the main reason people have seen marines as being OP. It also adds insult to injury when you have to lose to stupid looking models riding oversized thunderwolves. Plus having to listen to all the stupid names of their units and weapons.
you KNOW that space wolves are going to get the most OP codex of the edition, and that is not blatant fiction? Gods, share what you know man, we've been without good rumors for so long!
How do you know they're not going to be held back in mid to low tier like all other marine codexes due to a combination of poor shared stratagems, broken pricing schemes for basic marine troops and poor shared units/wargear rules?
I can give a grimly detailed history of power armor efficacy in metas if we want to. However, SW are usually at the top of the power armor heap in one way or the other. Exceptions include 2nd ed, and 3.5 when it was CSM. We can argue all day about 7th whether barkstar was better than gladius. Both were inane builds necessary to challenge WK/scatbike insanity.
Pretty sure GW faps off the SW regularly in their studio. Maybe I'll be wrong in 8th, but the track record is almost as solid as Eldar.
Space wolves haven't been good since 5th, and aren't good now. It's also unlikely they'll be any good in the new book without sweeping buffs to all other Marine factions.
jcd386 wrote: Space wolves haven't been good since 5th, and aren't good now. It's also unlikely they'll be any good in the new book without sweeping buffs to all other Marine factions.
How? Practially all their units are unique or have a unique build...it does not affect other marine factions. Plus - you are literally insane if you think they havn't been top dogs for a while now (no pun intended)
It's not blatant fiction. Space wolves have been marines plus 1 since forever.
*Snort. Only if you're counting armies made of giant herds of dogs. Otherwise no Grav and no Gladius in 7th.
The army is called space wolves...armies of dogs is what you get.
It's ether an actaul dog.
A half dog/ half daemon
or a man with dog teeth.
Also - Grav was not what dakka makes it out to be in 7th. Daemons being as prevalent they were - it's mind boggling to be that people spammed the weapon. I guess some of you people never play against daemons. Plus...a marine unit with a free razor back - was about on the same level as a scat pack and ultimately useless against an invisible death-star.
jcd386 wrote: Space wolves haven't been good since 5th, and aren't good now. It's also unlikely they'll be any good in the new book without sweeping buffs to all other Marine factions.
How? Practially all their units are unique or have a unique build...it does not affect other marine factions. Plus - you are literally insane if you think they havn't been top dogs for a while now (no pun intended)
uhhhhhhhhh no?
Grey hunters, Blood Claws, Wolf Scouts, Skyclaws, Terminators, Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators, Vindicators, Land Raiders, Stalkers, Hunters, Wolf Lords, Wolf Guard, Dreadnoughts, Long Fangs, and Venerable Dreadnoughts are all based on basic marine pricing.
Wulfen, the special characters, Murderfang, Santa Chariot, Fenrisian Wolves, 2x Unique Flyers, and Thunderwolves are actually unique.
Many units have some unique wargear options, but there's no reason to think that, for example, Wolf Guard Terminators are going to be any stronger than Deathwatch Terminators because they have limitless swaps.
They're still going to be crap, because their bodies will be priced like terminators, and their weaponry will be priced like terminators, straight out of the marine codex.
Also, there's no reason AT ALL to suggest SW are the best marine codex atm, or have been even close throughout 8th. We've seen like 2-3 space wolf lists in top tables vs how many guilliguns? Their performance has been identical to or worse than GK, which is probably at least partially due to them being in index, but FFS man you're just living in a fantasy world if you think the scary furries are currently convincing people somehow that marines are OP.
Primark G wrote: Space Wolves were good as support characters for Death Star armies but had no solid stand alone builds.
Wolfen...thunderwolves? Those units sucked huh?
We talking about 7th ed? Yes. Did we ever see Wulfen accomplishing anything despite all the hype about how super op they were going to be?
Oh look it turns out when every melee army just casts invis and runs across the battlefield with the mario star pickup music playing, the only thing that really matters is how fast you move. And wulfen did not move particularly fast.
It's not blatant fiction. Space wolves have been marines plus 1 since forever.
*Snort. Only if you're counting armies made of giant herds of dogs. Otherwise no Grav and no Gladius in 7th.
The army is called space wolves...armies of dogs is what you get.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most Space Wolves players didn't exactly sign up for an army comprised primarily of literal dogs.
Nope. Nobody ever looked at space wolves and went "cool, I'd like to play Marines with a viking flavor, that sounds awesome." nobody ever. They're all filthy, slavering furries who LOVE GWs wolf wolf of the wolf wolf naming conventions and have to sit down and put towels over their pants when they hear barking.
jcd386 wrote: Space wolves haven't been good since 5th, and aren't good now. It's also unlikely they'll be any good in the new book without sweeping buffs to all other Marine factions.
How? Practially all their units are unique or have a unique build...it does not affect other marine factions. Plus - you are literally insane if you think they havn't been top dogs for a while now (no pun intended)
uhhhhhhhhh no?
Grey hunters, Blood Claws, Wolf Scouts, Skyclaws, Terminators, Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators, Vindicators, Land Raiders, Stalkers, Hunters, Wolf Lords, Wolf Guard, Dreadnoughts, Long Fangs, and Venerable Dreadnoughts are all based on basic marine pricing.
Wulfen, the special characters, Murderfang, Santa Chariot, Fenrisian Wolves, 2x Unique Flyers, and Thunderwolves are actually unique.
Many units have some unique wargear options, but there's no reason to think that, for example, Wolf Guard Terminators are going to be any stronger than Deathwatch Terminators because they have limitless swaps.
They're still going to be crap, because their bodies will be priced like terminators, and their weaponry will be priced like terminators, straight out of the marine codex.
Also, there's no reason AT ALL to suggest SW are the best marine codex atm, or have been even close throughout 8th. We've seen like 2-3 space wolf lists in top tables vs how many guilliguns? Their performance has been identical to or worse than GK, which is probably at least partially due to them being in index, but FFS man you're just living in a fantasy world if you think the scary furries are currently convincing people somehow that marines are OP.
We're not in fifth edition anymore.
Just stop disagreeing with me to disagree dude. Space wolves are already ahead of codex space marines and being one of the only index left.
Greyhunters are unique - their issue has always been costing 1 point more than a space marine but being a lot better.
Same with wolflords and rune preists - cost the same as a libby or captain but gets much better gear...or randomly has a better invo save for no reason.
the bad units like terms and LR...just don't get taken. I'm not suggesting SW are going to be rolling people over with LR and terms obviosuly. It's going to be thunderwvoles/wolfen/and wolflords kicking your butt with no effective counterplay. Plus storm wolves - the storm raven plus 1.
It's not blatant fiction. Space wolves have been marines plus 1 since forever.
*Snort. Only if you're counting armies made of giant herds of dogs. Otherwise no Grav and no Gladius in 7th.
The army is called space wolves...armies of dogs is what you get.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most Space Wolves players didn't exactly sign up for an army comprised primarily of literal dogs.
Nope. Nobody ever looked at space wolves and went "cool, I'd like to play Marines with a viking flavor, that sounds awesome." nobody ever. They're all filthy, slavering furries who LOVE GWs wolf wolf of the wolf wolf naming conventions and have to sit down and put towels over their pants when they hear barking.
Ahh yes. Drunkard marines - that sounds interesting.
Nope. Nobody ever looked at space wolves and went "cool, I'd like to play Marines with a viking flavor, that sounds awesome." nobody ever. They're all filthy, slavering furries who LOVE GWs wolf wolf of the wolf wolf naming conventions and have to sit down and put towels over their pants when they hear barking.
HAHAHAHA! Best description of Space Wolf players I have ever heard.
Primark G wrote: Space Wolves were good as support characters for Death Star armies but had no solid stand alone builds.
Wolfen...thunderwolves? Those units sucked huh?
We talking about 7th ed? Yes. Did we ever see Wulfen accomplishing anything despite all the hype about how super op they were going to be?
Oh look it turns out when every melee army just casts invis and runs across the battlefield with the mario star pickup music playing, the only thing that really matters is how fast you move. And wulfen did not move particularly fast.
Yes - wolves did very well for the entire eddition. In literally countless events. Is this news to you? Wolfen being OP as feth was more of a late edition thing - it didn't see much tournament play. What i witnessed first hand was laughably OP. I honestly don't remember but I am pretty sure wolfen had a first turn charge mechanic.
Rune Priests don't 'randomly' get a better invuln save. That wargear would appear to have a point cost of 7pts.
Wolf Priest, gets a random "heal a wounded infantry model D3 wounds" ability for 3pts.
This would appear to be no different than something like a Sanguinary Priest granting his little +1S aura for a few points.
Grey Hunters appear to be marines that don't get Combat Squads or Heavy Weapons, and also have fewer special weapon options, but do get chainswords and some kind of reroll charge rolls of 1 banner. Does this also make Blood Angels tactical squads broken because they "randomly" get heavy flamers or Crusader squads broken because they "randomly" get neophytes?
And let's take a look at that totally unique datasheet for the Wolf Lord with "way better" gear, shall we?
Primark G wrote: SW are so much hot garbage as of now. No one plays them competitively.
SW are garbage right now yes. Their unit entries alone make them better than space marines even with army trait plus stratagems. (most because every space marine stratagem sucks)(and because every space marine unit sucks too) just wait till they get a codex. It's going to blow your mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Rune Priests don't 'randomly' get a better invuln save. That wargear would appear to have a point cost of 7pts.
Wolf Priest, gets a random "heal a wounded infantry model D3 wounds" ability for 3pts.
This would appear to be no different than something like a Sanguinary Priest granting his little +1S aura for a few points.
Grey Hunters appear to be marines that don't get Combat Squads or Heavy Weapons, and also have fewer special weapon options, but do get chainswords and some kind of reroll charge rolls of 1 banner. Does this also make Blood Angels tactical squads broken because they "randomly" get heavy flamers or Crusader squads broken because they "randomly" get neophytes?
And let's take a look at that totally unique datasheet for the Wolf Lord with "way better" gear, shall we?
Obviously I am referring to 7th edition. Which is what I responded to in your post. Who knows how GW will make SW better than vanilla marines by a large factor in 8th. It is coming though. Mark my words.
the_scotsman wrote: And let's take a look at that totally unique datasheet for the Wolf Lord with "way better" gear, shall we?
I assume you must know this, but Wolf Lords and WGBLs get access to the Space Wolves weapons list so they can take Wolf Claws etc. I wouldn't call these options way better than other Marines Captains, but they are different.
Primark G wrote: SW are so much hot garbage as of now. No one plays them competitively.
SW are garbage right now yes. Their unit entries alone make them better than space marines even with army trait plus stratagems. (most because every space marine stratagem sucks)(and because every space marine unit sucks too) just wait till they get a codex. It's going to blow your mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Rune Priests don't 'randomly' get a better invuln save. That wargear would appear to have a point cost of 7pts.
Wolf Priest, gets a random "heal a wounded infantry model D3 wounds" ability for 3pts.
This would appear to be no different than something like a Sanguinary Priest granting his little +1S aura for a few points.
Grey Hunters appear to be marines that don't get Combat Squads or Heavy Weapons, and also have fewer special weapon options, but do get chainswords and some kind of reroll charge rolls of 1 banner. Does this also make Blood Angels tactical squads broken because they "randomly" get heavy flamers or Crusader squads broken because they "randomly" get neophytes?
And let's take a look at that totally unique datasheet for the Wolf Lord with "way better" gear, shall we?
Obviously I am referring to 7th edition. Which is what I responded to in your post. Who knows how GW will make SW better than vanilla marines by a large factor in 8th. It is coming though. Mark my words.
So, you 'obviously' responded to my post talking about 8th edition with a response about 7th edition, after I showed a screeenshot example of you blatantly making something up?
And the fact that we see Space Marine lists in tournaments placing far, far more often throughout the entirety of 8th edition than Space Wolf lists indicates that wolves are somehow better than marines how?
As salty as I'd like to be about being an ork player who still doesn't even HAVE their codex, in truth I feel your pain. Last edition, orks were the first codex out the door and it was a train wreck smashing into a dumpster fire.
SM codex isn't nearly as bad as the 7th ed ork codex was, but still, the fact that everyone else's army traits apply to all units, but marines and CSM only get army special rules for infantry, bikes, and dreads, must rankle a bit.
the_scotsman wrote: And let's take a look at that totally unique datasheet for the Wolf Lord with "way better" gear, shall we?
I assume you must know this, but Wolf Lords and WGBLs get access to the Space Wolves weapons list so they can take Wolf Claws etc. I wouldn't call these options way better than other Marines Captains, but they are different.
the_scotsman wrote: And let's take a look at that totally unique datasheet for the Wolf Lord with "way better" gear, shall we?
I assume you must know this, but Wolf Lords and WGBLs get access to the Space Wolves weapons list so they can take Wolf Claws etc. I wouldn't call these options way better than other Marines Captains, but they are different.
SHUPPET wrote: This is exactly the problem. Thinking Space Marines are the only army that has internal balance issues is just the most blinkered view possible. You mention Nids and Tau like half their dexes aren't just pointless inclusion competitively and that's just the two I'm thoroughly versed in. It's this stupid only child syndrome that gives SM players the negative rep they have.
Well thats not really true is it. The Tau and nid books are relatively internally balanced compared to marines and still offer the capability to run very diverse forces. There are a lot of effective list variations for both of those codexes floating around without having to rely on other books as a crutch.
Broodlord (Overcosted - legit needs a buff) Old One Eye (Overcosted - probably a good thing - carnifex are OP) Harpy (Not actaully that bad) Haruspex (should hit on 3's) Crone (not actaully that bad) Lictor (not bad) Shrikes (not bad - no models - why 5+ save?) Skyslashers (Not bad just has no models) Maleceptor (Not bad - can be used effectively - Just strange 3 attacks with 4+ to hit d6 damage weapon - strong psychic) Pyrovores (Great against any CC army) Tervigon (Legit trash - no arguement) Zoanthropes (Actaully pretty good unit - spamming Neuros is better though) Tyranid Prime (Overcosted but amazing buff for warriors - I use it in competitive games and it does well) Tyrannocyte (Legit trash - you actually have scary stuff to put in it though) Tyrant Guard (Mandatory for swarmlord...not really sure why this is on the list) Toxicrine (Fantastic unit - try using it) Dimachaeron (Weird rules - use Toxicrine instead) Deathleaper (Was great in index then became trash - use index rules and you good) Red Terror (Trash - agree) Trygon Prime (Hummm - slgihtly more expensive trygon with better shooting attack and synapse...trygon better cause doesn't need the synapse but that doesn't make the prime worthless) every single LOW (I'm not so sure how terrible the CC haridrule is - he has a nice flamer attack and brutal CC that is almost automatic turn 1 with swarmy. Not enough defense though - rest are trash - agreed)
and that's just being generous and only including utter garbage units and not including things that just completely outclassed like Biovores, or just useless things like Warriors, Venomthropes and Gargs that see zero play, even though that was the original statement.
SO MUCH INTERNAL BALANCE
"only MY army needs fixes!"
You are being a little harsh on a lot of these units - I responded in parenthesis.
Marine issues are much more drastic by like another scale shift. Practically everything on that list has a marine counterpart that is much worse. Warriors aren't trash BTW. They are a very good unit. Hive Gaurd are just OP.
You're being utterly unrealistic for the sake of defending your army here, and none of the models I mentioned are seeing any play. Ever. Lol at thinking Shrikes aren't bad, they are Tervigon tier. They've been bad for so long I bet you had to Google what they actually are.
Tyrant Guard are probably the one thing that's debatable on that list. They are overcosted ablative wounds for the Swarmlord and never make them back. But it's POSSIBLE that alone gives them a niche that pushes them off that list. Feel free to replace them with Biovores who are weaker than HG against almost every single target in the game than. The rest? naaaaaah.
I'm not even complaining. The dex plays. But to say that no other army needs an update except SM, is the most blinkered, biased, unrealistic, nonsense statement you could make.
Also, for anyone singing the prayers of Tyranids Drop Pod, it's a bottom 3 model in the dex. It's 125 pts for a transport for a SINLGE MC (not even Carnifex broods). Like literally the only thing even close to costed at being worth transporting at that price point is Swarmlord, and he's a unit you are paying out the ass for a double move strat that you want on the board turn 1. Only troops deepstrike easily in the Tyranid army, and very few are worth taking to do so, that's not their role. A Devilgant "bomb" is basically the main thing even worth considering, and that still doesn't get played by anyone, because its 240 pts for a glass cannon of 45x S4 AP0 hits. You're taking like 20 GEQ models off the table for that price. It's rarely worth disrupting your list strategy.
Insectum7 wrote: Sort of, as the Tyrannocyte is also an MC which can shoot, assault and be a general nusiance.
At it's highest wounds profile, it has on average 3 attacks, at WS5+, and S5. It's shooting is a handful of deathspitters (not the MC kind, the infantry kind), also hitting at 5+. It's also slow as hell. Even other generic transports are doing more than it. Even the guy who up-played a bunch of Tyranid models that I listed as bad, admitted that this one is trash. Minor nuisance at best.
More capable than a drop pod I love the fact it can assault actually. Otherwise very specialist model, as it's standout ability is that it can carry big MCs.
I have no problem with GW taking a look at some armies and revising those that they feel aren't up to elvel. that said space marines are NOT the first codex I think of when I think "GW needs to make a 8.5 codex for them" that would be grey knights.
Insectum7 wrote: More capable than a drop pod I love the fact it can assault actually. Otherwise very specialist model, as it's standout ability is that it can carry big MCs.
Eh, it's not useless, but I'd much rather take 2 drop pods and use the 100 pts you save on a real unit.
Basically the only point of the Spore is that it takes big MC's since its obviously much worse than just tunneling in with Raveners or Trygons when in comes to infantry. And the only good MCs that would even want to be deepstriking (Carnifex's) cost literally less than the transport itself. Taking a 125 pt transport to DS a single 100 pt MC is just a waste of points.
Seriously think about the MC's in the army.
Swarmlord wants to be on the table to double move CC unit for turn 1 assault threat
Exocrine and Tyrannofex both want to be stationary for double shooting, deepstriking in is just putting them in your opponents face before they got a chance to double strike
Mawlocs and Trygons already deepstrike themselves
Haruspex, Toxicrene and Maleceptor are overpriced garbage
Dima is a consideration, but already pays a grip for the mobility to get himself into CC.
Similar with Harpy, Crone and Flyrant, except they couldn't go in one even if they wanted to
Not to mention they aren't coming down till turn 1, when they'd probably be in range if you just made them Kraken for free anyway.
There's a reason Tyrannocytes see no play. They are pointless model, bottom of the barrel addition in the new dex.
Oh I hear ya, I bought mine for the Swarmlord but I'm not sure it's worth it. (And I kinda lost interest in the Swarmlord anyways). Believe it or not, I kinda want to drop a Tervigon alongside a buckketload of burrowed gaunts (playing Jorm). I'm not sold on it, just something I'm thinking about. I like the models and I want to see what I can do with them.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh I hear ya, I bought mine for the Swarmlord but I'm not sure it's worth it. (And I kinda lost interest in the Swarmlord anyways). Believe it or not, I kinda want to drop a Tervigon alongside a buckketload of burrowed gaunts (playing Jorm). I'm not sold on it, just something I'm thinking about. I like the models and I want to see what I can do with them.
I (personally) don't think it is worth it for Swarmlord, he's basically the price of 2 Hive Tyrants, 3 Hive Tyrants if you factor in the pod, for the ability to double move a unit in their face, and its an ability you aren't getting if you are DS'ing him. I like my pod models as well, so I'm using them as Sporocysts (which is actually a really good unit).
BrianDavion wrote: I have no problem with GW taking a look at some armies and revising those that they feel aren't up to elvel. that said space marines are NOT the first codex I think of when I think "GW needs to make a 8.5 codex for them" that would be grey knights.
Okay while I figure most people here are inclined to agree with this statement, I'm sure that you could agree that by fixing vanilla marines by extension fixes Grey knights. Not totally, but by a great margin.
I really just wanna see what GW is gonna do because the marine Statline is like a sacred cow to them, but I guess you could say that about most other units. Probably just going to bump them up an A and W, then do the same to Primaris. After all coming up with flavourful rules costs time and momey
I'd actually be on board with them getting a stats bump, they are meant to be like a lot stronger than say Crisis suits right? or am I wrong, I don't follow the lore that much.
But that being said, if they got two wounds and a toughness upgrade all we'd ever hear is how it's a pointless buff, because "EVERYONE already hunts them with guns that do multi damage and is at least T6, GW doesn't care about Space Marines, blah blah blah". The SM players who I know in real life would be ecstatic, but I don't think they can win when it comes to the online community. I don't like balance issues, but if one army has to "struggle", at least it's the guys who were going to whine no matter what. And I use the word struggle extremely loosely, considering Ultramarines and Raven Guard are still taking top tables and cleaning out big meta threats with consistency.
increase SM W profile by 1 would go a long way. So basic marines with 2w, termies with 3w etc. Makes them more resistant to small arms but will still go down to dedicated weapons / AT (should even help satisfy the fluff bunnies)
Plague Marines with 2 wounds as standard would be huge a bump for them.
There's two types of fluff for the "fluff bunnies". One type is the bolter porn fluff bunny. "Mahreens should be awesomer because the books say they're awesome."
The other type is from the xenos point of view. In which marines with two wounds while every other base unit still has one, just goes a long way to diminish the core models of every other faction in the game.
Classically speaking, the breakdown is this:
Humans suck. A well trained soldier with his lasrifle is just a poor sod in the 40k universe.
Orks are tough and fighty. They're undisciplined, mad tough (fighting with limbs blown off and bullets in the head), and hyper aggressive to the edge and beyond sanity.
Eldar are like very skilled humans with access excellent gear.
Marines are as tough as an Ork, with the armor of the best Eldar, with the skill of an Eldar, stronger than every other member in this list, with gear occasionally rivaling that of an Eldar, and mad, mad discipline.
Insectum7 wrote: There's two types of fluff for the "fluff bunnies". One type is the bolter porn fluff bunny. "Mahreens should be awesomer because the books say they're awesome."
The other type is from the xenos point of view. In which marines with two wounds while every other base unit still has one, just goes a long way to diminish the core models of every other faction in the game.
Classically speaking, the breakdown is this:
Humans suck. A well trained soldier with his lasrifle is just a poor sod in the 40k universe.
Orks are tough and fighty. They're undisciplined, mad tough (fighting with limbs blown off and bullets in the head), and hyper aggressive to the edge and beyond sanity.
Eldar are like very skilled humans with access excellent gear.
Marines are as tough as an Ork, with the armor of the best Eldar, with the skill of an Eldar, stronger than every other member in this list, with gear occasionally rivaling that of an Eldar, and mad, mad discipline.
And somehow that's not good enough? Crazypants.
I get the desire for 2w, but it's wrong.
Well reasoned. Counter-point - Marines have two hearts!
Well, the other fluff thing about marines is that they can survive horrible wounds to fight another day. So even though many become incapacitated, they don't die from their injuries, heal, get bionics and rejoin the ranks.
I hope Land Speeders would be more viable. -1 to hit or no shooting after advance are bad if you compare them to Black Knights. And they do not get chapter tactics like vanilla bikes.
The thing is, 2W/2A Marines is not just trying to align to the fluff - it’s a concession to gameplay. It’s the same as Primaris Marines - do you really think that, from a lore standpoint, a single Primaris could bring the beatdown onto two Minimarines in hand-to-hand? Not on his life. But they gave him 2W/2A anyway because mechanically the game lacked a way to make the distinction accurately, and to try and make Primaris useable.
It’s the same problem with Minimarines. The game has nearly completed its race to the bottom - your Guardsman has one wound, one attack, a 50/50 hit rate, and costs 4 points. There isn’t a whole lot of room left to make him weaker short of Str/T 2. So with several gradations above Guardsmen - Veterans, Stormtroopers, Guardians and Sisters to name a few - Marines are forced into the mid-teens points bracket because otherwise you’d be asking ‘why am I taking a Sister for 9 points when for 1 point more I can get +1 Str/T?’ With Marines locked out of the sub-12 point bracket, the designers are forced to try and make them worth something-teen points.
Here’s the kicker, though: once you’re up into the teens points-wise, though, it’s a bad investment to give a 1-Wound model more stuff. Ask Grey Knights players about that. Or, to use an extreme example, would you take a 50pt 1-Wound model (aside from very small numbers of powerful suicide units)? No way in hell, right? Well Marines’ problem might not be that extreme, but the idea is the same. You can’t invest too much into 1-W models since they will die to a stiff breeze (even if you give them a 2+ Save, as Terminators of about 5 Editions of the game will tell you).
You can try to get around the problem by loading them up with special rules that bypass the game mechanics - like Berserkers attacking twice with obscene numbers of attacks each time. That works up to a point, but only on elite/special units - if every unit sidesteps the core rulebook and plays by their own rules you’re on the express route to a train wreck. Also, every point you invest in them without making them more durable ratchets them one notch further down the line of ‘glass cannon’. Now a glass cannon theme works for Eldar of all kinds - it is very much their schtick - and for armies that can run large numbers of models, since particularly in this edition there is a certain toughness to model quantity. However, asking Marine players to consider their half-ton monster men in inch-thick slabs on unobtanium armour as glass cannons is a real slap to the face.
Bumping Marines up to 2 Wounds/Attacks and a few points higher drags them out of that danger zone by giving them enough durability to be worth investing special wargear and abilities into. It also gives them a certain durability against small arms, while leaving them vulnerable against the sort of light-anti-tank weapons you’re supposed to use to hunt these things.
Put simply, Marines have been crowded out of a design space where 1 Wound is functionally useful with the current ruleset. It’s the easier route to fix Marines rather than nuke the game again and start from zero. Is it really that concerning that a Marine has twice as many wounds, twice as many Attacks and less firepower than say a Guardian, when he costs twice as much?
Edit: Also, there is a lore justification - cutting a Marine in half won’t stop him attacking you. Cut off his arm an he keeps hitting you with the other one without missing a beat. Shoot him in the heart or lungs and his backup ones take over. Give him a wound that would make him bleed out, he clots and forms scar tissue instantly. Of all basic-troop-shaped things in the game, they are kind of the leading contender for having two wounds.
A guardsman shooting a guardsman: 0.5 to hit; 0.5 to wound; 0.667 to fail save. Average =0.167
A marine shooting a guardsman: 0.667 to hit; 0.667 to wound; 0.667 to fail save. Average =0.296
A guardsman shooting a marine: 0.5 to hit; 0.333 to wound; 0.333 to fail save. Average =0.056
When shooting against a guardsman; a guardsman does 0.167 average damage and a marine does 0.296 average damage.
That means a marine has 177.778% more firepower than a guardsman.
When getting shot at by a guardsman; a guardsman receives 0.167 average damage and a marine receives 0.056 average damage.
That means a marine has 300% better durability than a guardsman. If marines get 2 wounds you would double their durability, so 600% more durability than a guardsman.
Please note that rapid fire may double the firepower but does not change the ratio, and that both can rapid fire. Both melee is the same damage as their ranged.
If we average firepower and durability we get 238.89% for 1 wound or 388.89% for 2 wounds. So if guardsmen a 4pts then (4pts x 238.89%) = 9.56pts for 1 wound and (4pts x 388.89%) = 15.56pts. If guardsmen were 5pts then (5pts x 238.89%) = 11.94pts for 1 wound and (5pts x 388.89%) = 19.44pts.
Personally I think all codices will be re-printed and updated every so often. This is simply because of CA and FAQs.
Once the initial major changes from the FAQs and CAs are in place, I think we’ll start to see the next wave of codices roll out with these changes written into the individual codices. This is simply because it helps the players, helps new players, and of course keeps people buying books every so often.
I don’t expect them to be re-visited until after the 2018 CA. This is because the game is still pretty un-settled and evolving. Once the September (autumn/prob winter…) big FAQ is out of the way, is fed back on and settles into the game, it will allow them to start to fix everything down in the next waves of publishing.
As it stands, the chances of a new wave of codices before the next big FAQ is unlikely, due to GW not fully knowing the overall state of the game and (well logically) it’d be a waste of time to add in all the changes, when, it’s likely going to need to be done again straight after.
SHUPPET wrote: I'd actually be on board with them getting a stats bump, they are meant to be like a lot stronger than say Crisis suits right? or am I wrong, I don't follow the lore that much.
But that being said, if they got two wounds and a toughness upgrade all we'd ever hear is how it's a pointless buff, because "EVERYONE already hunts them with guns that do multi damage and is at least T6, GW doesn't care about Space Marines, blah blah blah". The SM players who I know in real life would be ecstatic, but I don't think they can win when it comes to the online community. I don't like balance issues, but if one army has to "struggle", at least it's the guys who were going to whine no matter what. And I use the word struggle extremely loosely, considering Ultramarines and Raven Guard are still taking top tables and cleaning out big meta threats with consistency.
case in point, Primaris Marines, they GOT a second wound, and everyone talks about how crappy Primaris Marines are. that said a stats bump won't solve marines issues.
the problems with Marines are a points issue, (this is hard to solve as others have noted. basicly they're paying for stuff of questionable value) and that their stratigiums etc could be better. the stratigiums etc are where I'd expect to see improvements made. it'd be very easy to put out a supplemenbt for space marines called, I dunno "Codex Astarties: the stratigiums of Robute Gulliman" which giuves space marines some new stratigiums, it'd be simple eneugh to FAQ their chapter tactics apply to ALL marine units. etc. These seem more reasonable to me then a marine stat line change.
Grey Knights just need a total revamp, they need points reductions, more psykic powers (1k sons have 2 or 3 lists they can take powers from, why can't grey knights have the librarius disipine in addition to santic?) new stratigiums, proably new units..
If we average firepower and durability we get 238.89% for 1 wound or 388.89% for 2 wounds. So if guardsmen a 4pts then (4pts x 238.89%) = 9.56pts for 1 wound and (4pts x 388.89%) = 15.56pts. If guardsmen were 5pts then (5pts x 238.89%) = 11.94pts for 1 wound and (5pts x 388.89%) = 19.44pts.
I’m... actually ok with this. A 4pt Guardsman and a 15.5pt 2 Wound Marine isn’t a bad ratio IMO, as I’ve said before that I wish Primaris were 15pts and paid 1pt on top of that for a Bolt Rifle. It’s also worth noting that aside from Gretchin in close combat, the Lasgun is the closest weapon to being more efficient at killing Guardsmen than killing Marines (it isn’t, but it’s close - S2 AP- is the only profile that is better at killing Guardsmen than Marines). The moment you upgrade the lasgun’s Str or AP - or Damage for multi-Wound Marines - you get more efficient at killing Marines. So if a Lasgun is just at efficient at killing a 4pt Guardsman as a 15.5pt 2W Marine, a 2W Marine should probably cost 14pts.
SHUPPET wrote: This is exactly the problem. Thinking Space Marines are the only army that has internal balance issues is just the most blinkered view possible. You mention Nids and Tau like half their dexes aren't just pointless inclusion competitively and that's just the two I'm thoroughly versed in. It's this stupid only child syndrome that gives SM players the negative rep they have.
Well thats not really true is it. The Tau and nid books are relatively internally balanced compared to marines and still offer the capability to run very diverse forces. There are a lot of effective list variations for both of those codexes floating around without having to rely on other books as a crutch.
Broodlord (Overcosted - legit needs a buff)
Old One Eye (Overcosted - probably a good thing - carnifex are OP)
Harpy (Not actaully that bad)
Haruspex (should hit on 3's)
Crone (not actaully that bad)
Lictor (not bad)
Shrikes (not bad - no models - why 5+ save?)
Skyslashers (Not bad just has no models)
Maleceptor (Not bad - can be used effectively - Just strange 3 attacks with 4+ to hit d6 damage weapon - strong psychic)
Pyrovores (Great against any CC army)
Tervigon (Legit trash - no arguement)
Zoanthropes (Actaully pretty good unit - spamming Neuros is better though)
Tyranid Prime (Overcosted but amazing buff for warriors - I use it in competitive games and it does well)
Tyrannocyte (Legit trash - you actually have scary stuff to put in it though)
Tyrant Guard (Mandatory for swarmlord...not really sure why this is on the list)
Toxicrine (Fantastic unit - try using it)
Dimachaeron (Weird rules - use Toxicrine instead)
Deathleaper (Was great in index then became trash - use index rules and you good)
Red Terror (Trash - agree)
Trygon Prime (Hummm - slgihtly more expensive trygon with better shooting attack and synapse...trygon better cause doesn't need the synapse but that doesn't make the prime worthless)
every single LOW (I'm not so sure how terrible the CC haridrule is - he has a nice flamer attack and brutal CC that is almost automatic turn 1 with swarmy. Not enough defense though - rest are trash - agreed)
and that's just being generous and only including utter garbage units and not including things that just completely outclassed like Biovores, or just useless things like Warriors, Venomthropes and Gargs that see zero play, even though that was the original statement.
SO MUCH INTERNAL BALANCE
"only MY army needs fixes!"
You are being a little harsh on a lot of these units - I responded in parenthesis.
Marine issues are much more drastic by like another scale shift. Practically everything on that list has a marine counterpart that is much worse. Warriors aren't trash BTW. They are a very good unit. Hive Gaurd are just OP.
You're being utterly unrealistic for the sake of defending your army here, and none of the models I mentioned are seeing any play. Ever. Lol at thinking Shrikes aren't bad, they are Tervigon tier. They've been bad for so long I bet you had to Google what they actually are.
Tyrant Guard are probably the one thing that's debatable on that list. They are overcosted ablative wounds for the Swarmlord and never make them back. But it's POSSIBLE that alone gives them a niche that pushes them off that list. Feel free to replace them with Biovores who are weaker than HG against almost every single target in the game than. The rest? naaaaaah.
I'm not even complaining. The dex plays. But to say that no other army needs an update except SM, is the most blinkered, biased, unrealistic, nonsense statement you could make.
Also, for anyone singing the prayers of Tyranids Drop Pod, it's a bottom 3 model in the dex. It's 125 pts for a transport for a SINLGE MC (not even Carnifex broods). Like literally the only thing even close to costed at being worth transporting at that price point is Swarmlord, and he's a unit you are paying out the ass for a double move strat that you want on the board turn 1. Only troops deepstrike easily in the Tyranid army, and very few are worth taking to do so, that's not their role. A Devilgant "bomb" is basically the main thing even worth considering, and that still doesn't get played by anyone, because its 240 pts for a glass cannon of 45x S4 AP0 hits. You're taking like 20 GEQ models off the table for that price. It's rarely worth disrupting your list strategy.
First - Tyranids are a top codex. I could build my nid list 1 of 20 ways and just crush marines - with a lot of units you are saying are trash. I'd take shrikes vs assault marines ANYDAY - they are outclassed by geensteelers and warriros but you could build a list around a big unit of them in combo with swarmlord that actaully has greater threat range than a unit of steelers and hits harder. It's not optimal - but my marines have 0 options that can move 36 inches and charge someones back line with 46 attacks (something shrikes can do) Again I am not even saying this is a great thing - just that the unit is more capable than marine equivalents.
Stop focusing on what people are playing in tournaments in a discussion like this. No one played Carnifex in tournaments ether when you could take 7 flying hives - turns out though that carnifex are pretty dang good too. People only use the best option in tournaments - they don't even consider the second best option. Nids aren't even in the same ballpark as marines.
Nid can make a better pure assault list - a better pure shooter list - a better pure psyker list. They win in every phase of the game against marines even with their middle teir options. Nids DO NOT need help. Internal balance lacking is a problem all armies have - not saying that shouldn't be addressed. Marine issues are much less internal balance and more external. Most of the stuff in the codex is at the same level - rock bottom - so it has pretty good internal balance.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh I hear ya, I bought mine for the Swarmlord but I'm not sure it's worth it. (And I kinda lost interest in the Swarmlord anyways). Believe it or not, I kinda want to drop a Tervigon alongside a buckketload of burrowed gaunts (playing Jorm). I'm not sold on it, just something I'm thinking about. I like the models and I want to see what I can do with them.
I (personally) don't think it is worth it for Swarmlord, he's basically the price of 2 Hive Tyrants, 3 Hive Tyrants if you factor in the pod, for the ability to double move a unit in their face, and its an ability you aren't getting if you are DS'ing him. I like my pod models as well, so I'm using them as Sporocysts (which is actually a really good unit).
Should never take pod - just advance swarmy to meet with whatever unit you want to slingshot - if you really need to - they are many ways to boost SL movement with stratagems too. There is 0 reason to waste 120 points dropping swarmy - plus he needs tyrant guard.
A guardsman shooting a guardsman: 0.5 to hit; 0.5 to wound; 0.667 to fail save. Average =0.167
A marine shooting a guardsman: 0.667 to hit; 0.667 to wound; 0.667 to fail save. Average =0.296
A guardsman shooting a marine: 0.5 to hit; 0.333 to wound; 0.333 to fail save. Average =0.056
When shooting against a guardsman; a guardsman does 0.167 average damage and a marine does 0.296 average damage.
That means a marine has 177.778% more firepower than a guardsman.
When getting shot at by a guardsman; a guardsman receives 0.167 average damage and a marine receives 0.056 average damage.
That means a marine has 300% better durability than a guardsman. If marines get 2 wounds you would double their durability, so 600% more durability than a guardsman.
Please note that rapid fire may double the firepower but does not change the ratio, and that both can rapid fire. Both melee is the same damage as their ranged.
If we average firepower and durability we get 238.89% for 1 wound or 388.89% for 2 wounds. So if guardsmen a 4pts then (4pts x 238.89%) = 9.56pts for 1 wound and (4pts x 388.89%) = 15.56pts. If guardsmen were 5pts then (5pts x 238.89%) = 11.94pts for 1 wound and (5pts x 388.89%) = 19.44pts.
I think it's worth noting that a marine is only 300% more durable than a guardsmen against guardsmen with lasguns, which is about a marine's best case scenario.
It takes 9 guardsmen rapid firing (36 points worth) to kill 1 marines (at least 13 points) or 3 guardsmen (at least 12 points killed). So there is already a points disparity, though admittedly a small one. At their current points cost, marines are only about 92% as durable per point as guardsmen when they are being shot at my lasguns.
If you move to marines with bolters shooting marines and guardsmen, marines are only 266% more durable when compared model to model, and are only 82% as durable when compared point to point.
When you start involving weapons with AP, the gap widens, as it's easy for a gun to good at killing marines, but actually hard for a gun to get much better at killing guardsmen, since they are so easy to kill in the first place. I think this is very important, as these are the guns that people actually use to kill infantry, rather than small arm fire from their marines and guardsmen.
BS3+ Heavy Bolters: 9 Heavy Bolters kills 6 marines (78 points at least) or 10 guardsmen (40 points). Model to model marines are 166% more durable, but 51% as durable point to point.
BS3+ Assault Cannons: 9 kill 12 marines (156 points) or 25 guardsmen (100 points). Model to model marines are 208% more durable, but 64% as durable per point.
As you can see the toughness difference between marines and guard helps a little VS S6, but not by much.
The more AP you add, the wider the gap gets. Even anti-tank guns aren't terrible at killing marines. A few las cannons can actually be useful sometimes to kill off marines if you need to. 3 marines on an objective are much easier to shift with the wrong weapons than 9 guardsmen would be.
With the current AP system, Marines need to be much better than guardsmen against small arms fire on a durability per point basis, because when the real guns come into play, they are always going to give up more points. What you would really have to do is average the types of guns they are likely to be shot with, and then make the points match that.
For example: If you assumed that 50% of marines die to lasguns, and the other 50% die to assault cannons, marines would need to cost about 10 points with their current stats to equal the overall durability of a guardsmen.
If you bumped marines to 2 wounds and assumed that 1/3rd died to lasguns, 1/3rd died to OC Plasma, and 1/3rd to Assault cannons, they would only need to cost about 15 points to be as durable as guardsmen getting shot by the same guns on a durability per point basis. This ends up being 11 rapid fire plasma guns, 15 assault cannons, and 180 rapid fire lasguns killing 30 2W marines vs 113 guardsmen. And, i think if you look at most lists nowadays, the above ratio is probably off by quite a bit, in that there simply are not that many marines dying to small arms fire, meaning that 15 points is actually probably pretty generous, and that's only taking into account their durability. You would have to do something similar with offensive ability,and depending on what guns they had (normal bolter vs primaris guns) they would probably need to get even cheaper to actually be equivalent.
So it's not ridiculous in my opinion to say marines could be 14 points and have 2 wounds, as crazy as that seems on the surface.
Nah it's not crazy - It's been suggested many times that if you just added a wound to both tacs and primaris / terms that that would be about where they should be in terms of durability per point and they would still need an offensive buff.
Ideally, the Tactical Marine is worth 11 points and pays a point for the Bolter, but the issue is how the squad can be loaded out as well. The classic 1 Special/1 Heavy at 7 men and then an additional of either at 10 for 2 Special/1 Heavy or 2 Heavy/1 Special would be unique and at least slightly more functional.
The thing is, 2W/2A Marines is not just trying to align to the fluff - it’s a concession to gameplay.
Negative, it is a concession to power fantasy.
Because look at it from evey other factions perspective.
It already takes 10 Guardsmen, rapid firing, to kill one marine.
30 Hormagaunts don't even kill 5 marines
10 Dire Avengers kill 4ish (I think)
10 Fire Warriors rapid firing kill 2
These are core units of other factions, and what you'd be doing is cutting their effectivenes vs. Marines in half. The "concession to gameplay" is every other basic infantry unit concedes gameplay. Would it be fun as a fan of Fire Warriors to barely kill a marine with a full squad rapid firing? You make the charge with 30 Hormagaunts and kill 2 guys? That gameplay sucks.
The issue basic marines have is that they're fighting in a pitched battle where everyone is taking loads of heavy weapons and anti-elite weapons. An extra wound isn't necessarily going to help that, see the primaris complaints. They're still just dudes showing up to a tank battle, effectively. Especially considering the terrain conditions tournaments are under. So an extra wound doesn't really solve your problem, but it sure gives the middle finger to everyone elses basic infantry.
It's not a solution.
Edit: Also, there is a lore justification - cutting a Marine in half won’t stop him attacking you. Cut off his arm an he keeps hitting you with the other one without missing a beat. Shoot him in the heart or lungs and his backup ones take over. Give him a wound that would make him bleed out, he clots and forms scar tissue instantly. Of all basic-troop-shaped things in the game, they are kind of the leading contender for having two wounds.
Marines are not still attacking you after being cut in half.
For everything else, see Ork. Orks feel little pain, and will continue fighting without limbs with bullets in their heads. That's T4.
Edit: That's a little more strongly worded than it could be, I apologize.
You are missing the point insectum. Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry. They are much less durable against heavy weapons per point. They have less firepower per point. In essence - they are worse in every way to other infantry units in the game.
Realistically. Marines should get something for putting more points into 1 wound or they should just get more wounds.
I am not missing the point, but you're assuming that the only solution to your problem is to make them two wounds. When obviously there are other potential solutions.
Xenomancers wrote: You are missing the point insectum. Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry. They are much less durable against heavy weapons per point. They have less firepower per point. In essence - they are worse in every way to other infantry units in the game.
Realistically. Marines should get something for putting more points into 1 wound or they should just get more wounds.
So, if I took a unit that has a whole lot of points into one wound - say, a Dark Reaper - and I demonstrate that there is some other infantry unit in the game that is better at EVERYTHING than it (not sure how you do that, but let's say you did so let's say I did) how does that indicate to me that Dark Reapers deserve buffs and not that this other infantry unit deserves nerfs?
Because looking at tournament lists...boy oh boy, there seem to be a whole lot of guardsmen, and not a whole lot of...well, a lot of infantry units.
Does that mean EVERY infantry unit we don't see in tournaments should be buffed until they do something better than guardsmen?
Can't wait to see what my gretchins perform like after this next codex then
Space Marine vs. Guardsman is fine. The problem is, the game has moved to Epic level combat. It isn’t Guardsmen w/ lasguns anymore shooting marines - it’s their Leman Russes, or Guardsmen with lascannons or any other number of heavy weapons/vehicle/monsters.
That’s why marines are bad now. At killteam levels of play, people would be bitching how unkillable marines are. Against the current levels of firepower a 2,000 point list can bring, they’re nothing - and always will be nothing.
Insectum7 wrote: I am not missing the point, but you're assuming that the only solution to your problem is to make them two wounds. When obviously there are other potential solutions.
You could (for example) make them 11pts base.
The reason for why that's not acceptable to marine players is usually "well yes but we don't want that."
I had the idea of giving primaris marines the same ability aberrants have where they reduce damage they take by 1 to a minimum of one then giving them a slight point increase. Suddenly they feel like elite forces and their wounds matter. You would have to appropriate point cost them though. Too much and they're still not putting out enough damage to win firefights and if it is too little they are going to tank too much and just grind out a win.
As for normal marines I don't really see a way for them to get better going forward outside of point adjustments.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I had the idea of giving primaris marines the same ability aberrants have where they reduce damage they take by 1 to a minimum of one then giving them a slight point increase. Suddenly they feel like elite forces and their wounds matter. You would have to appropriate point cost them though. Too much and they're still not putting out enough damage to win firefights and if it is too little they are going to tank too much and just grind out a win.
As for normal marines I don't really see a way for them to get better going forward outside of point adjustments.
Personally I've never understood the desire for space marines to be this grinding army of unstoppable mega-armor that everything just bounces off of, when they're supposed to be an elite lightning-strike force. The whole formula of BIG BEEFY DEFENSIVE STATS iiiiiiiitty bitty gun just seems so broken, when we know for a fact if you take a unit like Deathwatch veterans with storm bolters suddenly it flips around and hey, they can actually kill things. They're a bit of a glass cannon, not as much as for example a dark eldar lightning strike unit but just enough where if you use your space marines to cripple or heavily damage the opposition, they don't have the firepower to get past the T4 and the 3+sv.
Let the Babys First Marines be the tanky necron wannabes. Buff normal marines' offense.
10 Guardsmen on rapid fire kill 1 Marines.
3 Marines on Rapid fire kill 2 Guardsmen.
Do the math and tell me who runs out of men first.
To be fair if you're a Marine player trying to go gun-line to gun-line with a Guard player you're probably doing it wrong.
To the original question Marines do need adjustments, but I think it's more the elites than the basic troops and needing Strategems/CTs that play to their actual strengths, and I don't think Vanilla Marines need a whole new codex to do that.
Give Termies and Centurions an extra wound, give Centurions drop-pod access, give Flash Grenades to Assault Marines, let more (maybe all) of the SM vehicles move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty...actually that would probably help basic Marines too, that sort of thing. They're supposed to be a scalpel, their rules shouldn't encourage you to try to gun-line with them. (Whoever suggested it, I like Grinding Advance on the Vindicator. Maybe the Whirlwind as well.)
Insectum7 wrote: I am not missing the point, but you're assuming that the only solution to your problem is to make them two wounds. When obviously there are other potential solutions.
You could (for example) make them 11pts base.
The reason for why that's not acceptable to marine players is usually "well yes but we don't want that."
Sure, points adjustment is one solution. Increasing lethality would be another. I'm not convinced marines are broken in the first place, but if I were to pick one, I think I'd go with lethality. Be that an extra bolter shot, or whatever.
I'm fine with them not changing, I'm fine with a minor points adjustment, I'm fine with slight buff to shooting or whatever. But the 2W thing should really be off the table, as far as I'm concerned.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I had the idea of giving primaris marines the same ability aberrants have where they reduce damage they take by 1 to a minimum of one then giving them a slight point increase. Suddenly they feel like elite forces and their wounds matter. You would have to appropriate point cost them though. Too much and they're still not putting out enough damage to win firefights and if it is too little they are going to tank too much and just grind out a win.
As for normal marines I don't really see a way for them to get better going forward outside of point adjustments.
Personally I've never understood the desire for space marines to be this grinding army of unstoppable mega-armor that everything just bounces off of, when they're supposed to be an elite lightning-strike force. The whole formula of BIG BEEFY DEFENSIVE STATS iiiiiiiitty bitty gun just seems so broken, when we know for a fact if you take a unit like Deathwatch veterans with storm bolters suddenly it flips around and hey, they can actually kill things. They're a bit of a glass cannon, not as much as for example a dark eldar lightning strike unit but just enough where if you use your space marines to cripple or heavily damage the opposition, they don't have the firepower to get past the T4 and the 3+sv.
Let the Babys First Marines be the tanky necron wannabes. Buff normal marines' offense.
Well I wouldn't say marines are always a lightning strike force. Several chapters prefer to grind down their opponents through overwhelming firepower and durability. Part of the idea of a marine is this super soldier behemoth of a man that can fight on to the bitter end. When they drop like flies it really takes away from the feel of the faction and the power of a marine. I find Deathwatch marines have appropriate levels of offensive capability, but fall behind in durability. The problem is that due to their durability they are unable to outlast their opponents. One big problem with marines is that they are all geared to be hybrid specialists, but in reality they are incapable of performing this well. Any melee unit worth anything will beat marines and any shooty unit worth anything will out shoot marines. You can't have marines perform their rolls well at all with the current system. The premium you pay for "versatility" hurts you more than helps you. The only way to really fix that is to buff the offensive and defensive abilities of marines (which is going to really change how a lot of units are balanced) or drop their points which is easier, but far less flavorful and thematic.
"Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry."
This comes up in every thread.
Marines are no more durable per point than Guardsmen in the open.
They are more durable per point (to anti-infantry weapons, in the open) than:
-Fire Warriors
-Scouts
-Guardians
-Harlequins
-Genestealers
-Dire Avengers
-Rangers
In fact, they are more durable per point than *most infantry*.
The infantry that *are* more durable per point than Marines are those defined by it - be it Necrons "Evil space robots that reubild themselves", Ork "Tides of soccer hooligans", Nid "Swarm of tiny bugs", and Guardsmen "Supernumerous bullet sponges".
Which of those should they, thematically, be more durable per *point* than?
(And that's in the in open. Cover does a *lot* more for Marines than most infantry.)
Bharring wrote: "Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry."
This comes up in every thread.
Marines are no more durable per point than Guardsmen in the open.
They are more durable per point (to anti-infantry weapons, in the open) than:
-Fire Warriors
-Scouts
-Guardians
-Harlequins
-Genestealers
-Dire Avengers
-Rangers
In fact, they are more durable per point than *most infantry*.
The infantry that *are* more durable per point than Marines are those defined by it - be it Necrons "Evil space robots that reubild themselves", Ork "Tides of soccer hooligans", Nid "Swarm of tiny bugs", and Guardsmen "Supernumerous bullet sponges".
Which of those should they, thematically, be more durable per *point* than?
(And that's in the in open. Cover does a *lot* more for Marines than most infantry.)
I think it is important to also compare the offensive output they bring to those other units. Harlequins and geanstealers have invulns which is going to be better than armor against a lot of things as well as possessing FAR superior melee capabilities alongside FAR superior mobility. Fire warriors are superior at killing things in every way (straight up better gun) and heck I'd even take guardsmen over marines for killing power due to the orders they can receive etc etc. I can tell you from a lot of experience I have had playing with Primaris marines that even intercessors with ap-1 bolters are laughed at by my club for how pathetic their damage output is. Sure they can be pretty durable against 1d weapons with low AP, but they don't do any damage worth noting.
However Primaris intercessors are pretty scary with their special ammo, but still easily countered by very popular meta heavy weapons like basilisks, plasma guns and Dissy cannons. That and they are also more expensive.
Xenomancers wrote: You are missing the point insectum. Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry. They are much less durable against heavy weapons per point. They have less firepower per point. In essence - they are worse in every way to other infantry units in the game.
Realistically. Marines should get something for putting more points into 1 wound or they should just get more wounds.
So, if I took a unit that has a whole lot of points into one wound - say, a Dark Reaper - and I demonstrate that there is some other infantry unit in the game that is better at EVERYTHING than it (not sure how you do that, but let's say you did so let's say I did) how does that indicate to me that Dark Reapers deserve buffs and not that this other infantry unit deserves nerfs?
Because looking at tournament lists...boy oh boy, there seem to be a whole lot of guardsmen, and not a whole lot of...well, a lot of infantry units.
Does that mean EVERY infantry unit we don't see in tournaments should be buffed until they do something better than guardsmen?
Can't wait to see what my gretchins perform like after this next codex then
I absolutely think if a unit costs more points than another unit - it should do something better than a comparable unit. Otherwise it is not worth more points.
The marine problem really does seem to stem from the Bolter. It's not so much that its a bad weapon, but its in an awkward place where it doesn't really have a viable target. Being the baseline, most everything in the game's durability is defined by why its good against Bolters. GEQ are durable against its low volume of fire. Being S5 is good because it puts them at the same wound roll as flashlights. Even marines themselves are proud of their armor save vs the things. There's just not anything you want to be targeting with the things, so what role are the bodies attached to it supposed to serve?
Fire Warriors die *twice* as fast vs anti-infantry weapons such as Bolters, moreso than Lasguns. Sure, it's only 14pts:13pts in Marine's favor vs S4, but it's still *in Marine's favor*.
As with all these threads, that's not to say Marines > Fire Warriors. It's only to say that Marines are more durable per point to anti-infantry weapons than Fire Warriors, if only marginally so.
T3 4+ is exactly half as durable vs S4AP0 in the open. Worse, in cover.
And that's probably the *closest* in my list. DAs are only 1ppm cheaper, yet die twice as fast to the weaponry discussed. Harlies are more expensive and die even faster.
Comments are much more constructive when they are accurate. It's not like this is the first time this statement has come up and been corrected.
Only SM players can see an army with 20+ unviable units and literally argue "well it's not as bad as ours so it should NEVER GET FIXED". Forgot how irrational this army makes certain players. Stick to the fluff Xenomancers, that power fantasy you're looking for doesn't belong in a balanced multi-player game, something you've never understood.
SHUPPET wrote: Only SM players can see an army with 20+ unviable units and literally argue "well it's not as bad as ours so it should NEVER GET FIXED". Forgot how irrational this army makes certain players. Stick to the fluff Xenomancers, that power fantasy you're looking for doesn't belong in a balanced multi-player game, something you've never understood.
I play both armies my friend. Nids is probably my most played army in 8th. My opinion is that it is a very good codex with lots of viable units and combos. I play toned down nids armies ALL THE TIME against armies like pure costodes - TS - admech - tau - harliquens. I still usually win. Space marines are the only army I play that I feel like it's over before it starts. Since eldar got a codex I havn't been able to beat them with marines. They even struggle against weak armies like admech and TS.
I regularly play with 9 man units of warriors with prime support / haruspex / toxicrines (both of which have flat 3 damage explosions that just murder elite units) / swarmlord with tyrant guard / tyranofex. Admittedly I am carried usually by carnifex which is usually include a few of. I even started removing geenstealers and replacing with trash units like hormagants (actually not such a bad unit with 1 cost stratagems giving out huge amounts of mortals). Again I am not disagreeing with you that internal balance is an issue for lots of armies including Nids - for me it's more of an issues that middle tier nids units still cream marines. External balance is a much more important factor though. I really can't sympathize for an army that can field multiple viable army compositions when the most viable marines armies have been constantly nerfed. FFS - the codex for marines was almost a nerf.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: The marine problem really does seem to stem from the Bolter. It's not so much that its a bad weapon, but its in an awkward place where it doesn't really have a viable target. Being the baseline, most everything in the game's durability is defined by why its good against Bolters. GEQ are durable against its low volume of fire. Being S5 is good because it puts them at the same wound roll as flashlights. Even marines themselves are proud of their armor save vs the things. There's just not anything you want to be targeting with the things, so what role are the bodies attached to it supposed to serve?
Playing against admech with 3 knights the other day - my firewarriors shined. Hit his crusader knight with +1 to wound strat and 5 markers. About 35 Fire warriors did about 20 wounds to the sucker. Wounding him on 4's.
I actually think all marines should have the primaris statline. It makes sense from a fluff side where a single marine is easily worth an entire platoon of guardsmen, and is strong enough to rip a turret off a tank with his bare power armored hands, even without a power fist.
However, I think they should be more expensive then tac marines are now if that were the case... maybe not as expensive as current primaris marines are, but definitely more expensive then tacs are now. I think marines should truly be a low model count, elite army. Not as much as GK or custodes, but more so then any other faction. I don't want to see power armored hordes, that is the sisters' schtick. As it stands now tacs aren't worth 13 points, and making them any lower risks turning them into a horde army. The marine statline needs to be revisited in this new edition.
w1zard wrote: I actually think all marines should have the primaris statline. It makes sense from a fluff side where a single marine is easily worth an entire platoon of guardsmen, and is strong enough to rip a turret off a tank with his bare power armored hands, even without a power fist.
That's why I don't read much black library. Pulling a turret off a tank now? Are you sure that's not "pulling a pintle mounted heavy bolter off its mount"?
"Worth an entire platoon of Guardsmen" are we going with a stand up fight in an open field? Or are we going with a marine can kill 30 guardmen if they're only getting to him piecemeal? Or maybe we should go with the fact that they can deploy incredibly fast, making short work of a task that a slower force would have to spend more time and more bodies to do? How do you quantify the "worth"?
And how do marines stack up to Aspect Warriors in the fluff? Is it consistent? Or is it all over the place, especially when taking into the account the stories told ftom an Eldar point of view? How does fluff talk about Chaos Marines, are they treated the same? Or does the fluff tell us that loyalists should have 2 wounds, while Chaos marines should only have 1.
Actually Chaos Marines are said to be more powerful, which is why I think the Chosen should be the basic troop rather than the Chaos Marine profile. These are all supposed to be Vets of the long war after all...why aren't they Vet stats?
Insectum7 wrote: I am not missing the point, but you're assuming that the only solution to your problem is to make them two wounds. When obviously there are other potential solutions.
You could (for example) make them 11pts base.
The reason for why that's not acceptable to marine players is usually "well yes but we don't want that."
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually Chaos Marines are said to be more powerful, which is why I think the Chosen should be the basic troop rather than the Chaos Marine profile. These are all supposed to be Vets of the long war after all...why aren't they Vet stats?
Yeah, I like Chosen. I'm glad they got their bonus chainsword option back, too. I'm not sure every model is supposed to be a vet. But maybe because of the tyrannical nature of the chaos legions, or just lack of discipline, many marines don't progress as far/fast.
Or if every model had access to the bonus chainsword like they used to.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually Chaos Marines are said to be more powerful, which is why I think the Chosen should be the basic troop rather than the Chaos Marine profile. These are all supposed to be Vets of the long war after all...why aren't they Vet stats?
Yeah, I like Chosen. I'm glad they got their bonus chainsword option back, too. I'm not sure every model is supposed to be a vet. But maybe because of the tyrannical nature of the chaos legions, or just lack of discipline, many marines don't progress as far/fast.
Or if every model had access to the bonus chainsword like they used to.
I would also say it's because not every chaos space marine is a veteran. Some may be fresh chaos space marines made by the legions or recently turned traitor marines from the chapters.
Excuse me while I jump in here having only read the first page:
Marines need a whole new codex (and CSM, Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, DG.) This is because they have issues that go far beyond some rules tweaks or point changes to fix.
1: Changes to offensive power (ap changes, proliferation of rerolls, etc) removed the survivability advantage that marines had.
2: Infantry hordes are incredibly strong due to AP changes and the almost complete uselessness of formerly powerful and cheap anti horde weapons (flamers, blasts, etc.). This means that, adjusted for points, cheap and weak horde units have more survivability than power armored MeQs.
3: The loss of the ability for low shot but high damage weapons to quickly eliminate targets has invalidated most elite armies. In the past, you could rely on some marines with meltas/fists/dreadnought ccws to reliably kill vehicles and characters. Now they cannot due to the new wounds and damage system. This means massing cheaper firepower is the only viable option. And on top of that, meltas got more expensive. Basic marine squads used to be a decent unit because you'd generally have a melta (or 2 as CSM) and a powerfist. This meant the squad could potentially threaten anything. Half the offensive firepower came from special weapons, and half the squads damage in melee came from the sergeant's power fist. And you had 7 tough ablative wounds protecting those 3 models. It was a solid anti-anything unit. Now, powerfists are no longer able to 1 shot vehicles and characters. I think it's silly that they were so much of the squad's power, but it still worked out well for the squad overall. The point is that marines didn't gain anything to make up for these losses in power. So now they are just worthless.
4: There is no price point that actually works for the basic MeQ statline without being absurd. They could cost 10 points, like sisters, and tactical marines will still be inferior to Guard Infantry or Guardians. Heck, tacs could cost 8 points per model and SM still wouldn't be good.
5: You could give every marine the primaris statline (+1 A, +1 W) right now, for free, and SM still wouldn't be that great because 2 strength 4 attacks is still garbage, and the types of weapons that wreck marines are mostly D2 anyway. And they'd still be less durable than an equivalent points value of guardsmen. And they'd still have poor firepower.
6: Death Watch has shown us that even having double the firepower (stormbolter) and wounding on 2's (special ammo), triple the melee attacks (a3 with chainsword) and having readily available re-roll 1's to wound (trait), re-roll hits (watch master = cheapest chapter master) and + 1 to wound strats barely makes MeQs useful. It's a big improvement for sure, but we're not seeing death watch overturning the previous meta. This is enough to solve the offensive firepower problem, but they still just die. We can't expect tacs to get this sort of stuff. And short of it, they aren't worth using.
So overall, for marines to be fixed, we need several large scale changes to 8th in terms of fixing hordes and anti horde weapons. And then we need either major changes to the marine statline, or major changes to their traits and rules to compensate for the problems with their statline. And that's going to need a new round of marine Codices.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually Chaos Marines are said to be more powerful, which is why I think the Chosen should be the basic troop rather than the Chaos Marine profile. These are all supposed to be Vets of the long war after all...why aren't they Vet stats?
Yeah, I like Chosen. I'm glad they got their bonus chainsword option back, too. I'm not sure every model is supposed to be a vet. But maybe because of the tyrannical nature of the chaos legions, or just lack of discipline, many marines don't progress as far/fast.
Or if every model had access to the bonus chainsword like they used to.
I would also say it's because not every chaos space marine is a veteran. Some may be fresh chaos space marines made by the legions or recently turned traitor marines from the chapters.
Then those can and should be represented via Vanilla Marines but with different keywords.
Your argument doesn't make sense when the supposed renegades are using heresy equipment they shouldn't have or lets use of tons of Daemon engines they just happened to get access to.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually Chaos Marines are said to be more powerful, which is why I think the Chosen should be the basic troop rather than the Chaos Marine profile. These are all supposed to be Vets of the long war after all...why aren't they Vet stats?
Yeah, I like Chosen. I'm glad they got their bonus chainsword option back, too. I'm not sure every model is supposed to be a vet. But maybe because of the tyrannical nature of the chaos legions, or just lack of discipline, many marines don't progress as far/fast.
Or if every model had access to the bonus chainsword like they used to.
The lack of discipline is the higher LD but not being totally indoctrinated (ATSKNF)
SHUPPET wrote: Only SM players can see an army with 20+ unviable units and literally argue "well it's not as bad as ours so it should NEVER GET FIXED". Forgot how irrational this army makes certain players. Stick to the fluff Xenomancers, that power fantasy you're looking for doesn't belong in a balanced multi-player game, something you've never understood.
I play both armies my friend. Nids is probably my most played army in 8th. My opinion is that it is a very good codex with lots of viable units and combos. I play toned down nids armies ALL THE TIME against armies like pure costodes - TS - admech - tau - harliquens. I still usually win. Space marines are the only army I play that I feel like it's over before it starts. Since eldar got a codex I havn't been able to beat them with marines. They even struggle against weak armies like admech and TS.
I regularly play with 9 man units of warriors with prime support / haruspex / toxicrines (both of which have flat 3 damage explosions that just murder elite units) / swarmlord with tyrant guard / tyranofex. Admittedly I am carried usually by carnifex which is usually include a few of. I even started removing geenstealers and replacing with trash units like hormagants (actually not such a bad unit with 1 cost stratagems giving out huge amounts of mortals). Again I am not disagreeing with you that internal balance is an issue for lots of armies including Nids - for me it's more of an issues that middle tier nids units still cream marines. External balance is a much more important factor though. I really can't sympathize for an army that can field multiple viable army compositions when the most viable marines armies have been constantly nerfed. FFS - the codex for marines was almost a nerf.
That's great - not everyone wants to play like you, and the ones who do still can. As it stands every CC unit in the book not named Genestealer may as well not exist. Even if the answer is nerfing Stealers, this needs to be fixed. SM are getting results too, there isn't a whole lot of variety in what Nid builds do well either. Above all, I can't for the life of me understand the logic that AFTER sm gets their fix and after the dex has all the things you want, why the hell nobody else can get fixed either. Until you drop this only-child attitude then I have zero sympathy for what GW decides to do to your army.
Insectum7 wrote: [That's why I don't read much black library. Pulling a turret off a tank now? Are you sure that's not "pulling a pintle mounted heavy bolter off its mount"?
No, as in actually ripping a turret straight off a tank. Space marines can move faster than a human eye can see, their reflexes are about 10x faster than a normal human, and with their power armor on are incredibly strong. If a space marine gets on top of a tank and gets his fingers under the turret and simultaneously uses his legs to push and arms to lift, I can easily see him ripping open a light tank like a tin can.
Insectum7 wrote: "Worth an entire platoon of Guardsmen" are we going with a stand up fight in an open field? Or are we going with a marine can kill 30 guardmen if they're only getting to him piecemeal? Or maybe we should go with the fact that they can deploy incredibly fast, making short work of a task that a slower force would have to spend more time and more bodies to do? How do you quantify the "worth"?
In a straight up open field fight. 30-50 guardsmen firing lasguns at 100m with no cover on either side vs a single marine with a bolter. The marine will take a lot of hits and possibly be wounded but all of the guardsmen will be dead by the end of it. Space marines are like aimbots with how accurate and how quickly they shoot.
Insectum7 wrote: And how do marines stack up to Aspect Warriors in the fluff? Is it consistent? Or is it all over the place, especially when taking into the account the stories told ftom an Eldar point of view? How does fluff talk about Chaos Marines, are they treated the same? Or does the fluff tell us that loyalists should have 2 wounds, while Chaos marines should only have 1.
A space marine should be roughly equivalent to an aspect warrior. An average chaos marine should actually be even tougher then an average space marine considering they are veterans of the long war and have a TON of combat experience due to a life of constant fighting.
I think CSM should have two wounds and two attacks as well for what it is worth, and be costed appropriately.
What's funny is that I'm actually an Imperial Guard fanboy and think space marines are overrated. But one thing space marines do well is local force superiority.
Martel732 wrote: Local force superiority doesn't mean much if the enemy has dozens of mortars and half a dozen ignore LoS tanks.
I meant local force superiority from a lore standpoint.
I agree with you that all flavors of marine are underpowered this edition. It's because the tac marine statline with 1W and 1A doesn't get you much this edition. Instead of making tac marines 11 points and making marines comparable to sisters, why don't we buff them to primaris levels and make them say... 18 points per? I'm not a marine player so it's kinda hard to gauge.
BTW this would include the bolt rifles and the -1 AP they confer.
Insectum7 wrote: "Worth an entire platoon of Guardsmen" are we going with a stand up fight in an open field? Or are we going with a marine can kill 30 guardmen if they're only getting to him piecemeal? Or maybe we should go with the fact that they can deploy incredibly fast, making short work of a task that a slower force would have to spend more time and more bodies to do? How do you quantify the "worth"?
In a straight up open field fight. 30-50 guardsmen firing lasguns at 100m with no cover on either side vs a single marine with a bolter. The marine will take a lot of hits and possibly be wounded but all of the guardsmen will be dead by the end of it. Space marines are like aimbots with how accurate and how quickly they shoot.
Let's give the Tac Marine 50 wounds and BS2+ then to reflect this
Let's give the Tac Marine 50 wounds and BS2+ then to reflect this
That is not what I'm suggesting. All I'm saying is that there is lore justification for giving marines more then 1W and 1A.
EDIT: BTW, if this guy had power armor and a bolter, this is pretty much what I see Space Marines being like on the battlefield. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGlWjIKoY4
Martel732 wrote: Local force superiority doesn't mean much if the enemy has dozens of mortars and half a dozen ignore LoS tanks.
I meant local force superiority from a lore standpoint.
I agree with you that all flavors of marine are underpowered this edition. It's because the tac marine statline with 1W and 1A doesn't get you much this edition. Instead of making tac marines 11 points and making marines comparable to sisters, why don't we buff them to primaris levels and make them say... 18 points per? I'm not a marine player so it's kinda hard to gauge.
BTW this would include the bolt rifles and the -1 AP they confer.
It's really hard to price point elite infantry with so many weapons that remove them VERY efficiently. Currently, intercessors are not a terrible approximation of what marines might be, but there are way too many weapons that remove them like grots. Therefore, it's a race to the bottom to reduce the efficacy of these weapons.
Martel732 wrote: Local force superiority doesn't mean much if the enemy has dozens of mortars and half a dozen ignore LoS tanks.
I meant local force superiority from a lore standpoint.
I agree with you that all flavors of marine are underpowered this edition. It's because the tac marine statline with 1W and 1A doesn't get you much this edition. Instead of making tac marines 11 points and making marines comparable to sisters, why don't we buff them to primaris levels and make them say... 18 points per? I'm not a marine player so it's kinda hard to gauge.
BTW this would include the bolt rifles and the -1 AP they confer.
It's really hard to price point elite infantry with so many weapons that remove them VERY efficiently. Currently, intercessors are not a terrible approximation of what marines might be, but there are way too many weapons that remove them like grots. Therefore, it's a race to the bottom to reduce the efficacy of these weapons.
I'd say that Intercessors would be right at 17 points and Deathwatch Intercessors at 19. Make Bolt weapons have their own little gimmick rule for lucky rolls and you would be slightly solid-ish.
Martel732 wrote: Local force superiority doesn't mean much if the enemy has dozens of mortars and half a dozen ignore LoS tanks.
I meant local force superiority from a lore standpoint.
I agree with you that all flavors of marine are underpowered this edition. It's because the tac marine statline with 1W and 1A doesn't get you much this edition. Instead of making tac marines 11 points and making marines comparable to sisters, why don't we buff them to primaris levels and make them say... 18 points per? I'm not a marine player so it's kinda hard to gauge.
BTW this would include the bolt rifles and the -1 AP they confer.
It's really hard to price point elite infantry with so many weapons that remove them VERY efficiently. Currently, intercessors are not a terrible approximation of what marines might be, but there are way too many weapons that remove them like grots. Therefore, it's a race to the bottom to reduce the efficacy of these weapons.
Sure, plasma rifles eat even two wound marines like candy, but I also think the entire marine lineup needs to be redone along the same lines. I think terminators need to be 3W or possibly even 4W along with commensurate increases in firepower. All appropriately pointed of course.
Martel732 wrote: Local force superiority doesn't mean much if the enemy has dozens of mortars and half a dozen ignore LoS tanks.
I meant local force superiority from a lore standpoint.
I agree with you that all flavors of marine are underpowered this edition. It's because the tac marine statline with 1W and 1A doesn't get you much this edition. Instead of making tac marines 11 points and making marines comparable to sisters, why don't we buff them to primaris levels and make them say... 18 points per? I'm not a marine player so it's kinda hard to gauge.
BTW this would include the bolt rifles and the -1 AP they confer.
It's really hard to price point elite infantry with so many weapons that remove them VERY efficiently. Currently, intercessors are not a terrible approximation of what marines might be, but there are way too many weapons that remove them like grots. Therefore, it's a race to the bottom to reduce the efficacy of these weapons.
Sure, plasma rifles eat even two wound marines like candy, but I also think the entire marine lineup needs to be redone along the same lines. I think terminators need to be 3W or possibly even 4W along with commensurate increases in firepower. All appropriately pointed of course.
This is the most durable Terminators have been in years. They dont need an extra wound and honestly there are very few weapons they're less durable against. What they need is a boost to offense which is why I literally always plug my idea of WS/BS2+ for all Terminator variants bar the GK troops.
Not just plasma. At least plasma has to get within 12" to really devastate. Dissy cannons and autocannons park at long range and just murder primaris. There's no point in using them. EVer.
Martel732 wrote: Local force superiority doesn't mean much if the enemy has dozens of mortars and half a dozen ignore LoS tanks.
I meant local force superiority from a lore standpoint.
I agree with you that all flavors of marine are underpowered this edition. It's because the tac marine statline with 1W and 1A doesn't get you much this edition. Instead of making tac marines 11 points and making marines comparable to sisters, why don't we buff them to primaris levels and make them say... 18 points per? I'm not a marine player so it's kinda hard to gauge.
BTW this would include the bolt rifles and the -1 AP they confer.
It's really hard to price point elite infantry with so many weapons that remove them VERY efficiently. Currently, intercessors are not a terrible approximation of what marines might be, but there are way too many weapons that remove them like grots. Therefore, it's a race to the bottom to reduce the efficacy of these weapons.
Sure, plasma rifles eat even two wound marines like candy, but I also think the entire marine lineup needs to be redone along the same lines. I think terminators need to be 3W or possibly even 4W along with commensurate increases in firepower. All appropriately pointed of course.
This is the most durable Terminators have been in years. They dont need an extra wound and honestly there are very few weapons they're less durable against. What they need is a boost to offense which is why I literally always plug my idea of WS/BS2+ for all Terminator variants bar the GK troops.
Again, the prevalence of 2 damage stuff ruins their resurgence.
Martel732 wrote: Local force superiority doesn't mean much if the enemy has dozens of mortars and half a dozen ignore LoS tanks.
I meant local force superiority from a lore standpoint.
I agree with you that all flavors of marine are underpowered this edition. It's because the tac marine statline with 1W and 1A doesn't get you much this edition. Instead of making tac marines 11 points and making marines comparable to sisters, why don't we buff them to primaris levels and make them say... 18 points per? I'm not a marine player so it's kinda hard to gauge.
BTW this would include the bolt rifles and the -1 AP they confer.
It's really hard to price point elite infantry with so many weapons that remove them VERY efficiently. Currently, intercessors are not a terrible approximation of what marines might be, but there are way too many weapons that remove them like grots. Therefore, it's a race to the bottom to reduce the efficacy of these weapons.
Sure, plasma rifles eat even two wound marines like candy, but I also think the entire marine lineup needs to be redone along the same lines. I think terminators need to be 3W or possibly even 4W along with commensurate increases in firepower. All appropriately pointed of course.
This is the most durable Terminators have been in years. They dont need an extra wound and honestly there are very few weapons they're less durable against. What they need is a boost to offense which is why I literally always plug my idea of WS/BS2+ for all Terminator variants bar the GK troops.
Space marines do need damage output increases, but they also need durability increases as well. With how the new AP system works, a +2 save and 2W is only marginally more durable than a tac marine. Plasma rifles still kill them in one shot. Terminators need to be at least 3W.
Edit: Also, there is a lore justification - cutting a Marine in half won’t stop him attacking you. Cut off his arm an he keeps hitting you with the other one without missing a beat. Shoot him in the heart or lungs and his backup ones take over. Give him a wound that would make him bleed out, he clots and forms scar tissue instantly. Of all basic-troop-shaped things in the game, they are kind of the leading contender for having two wounds.
Marines are not still attacking you after being cut in half.
Fallen Angels, p325-326 wrote:
“The Librarian hurled himself to the side just as the creature lunged into the squad’s midst with the force of a runaway train.
With a shout, Zahariel spun to face the beast as the queen gathered herself together like a coiling spring and lashed out again, this time catching Gideon and two of the corpses in its wide mandibles. The curved pincers snapped shut like a giant scissors. The two corpses were bisected at once; Gideon’s armour resisted a half-second longer before giving way as well.
A bolt pistol barked; Gideon, lying in a pool of his own blood, had reloaded his weapon and was snapping careful shots at the worm’s eyes.
w1zard wrote: I actually think all marines should have the primaris statline. It makes sense from a fluff side where a single marine is easily worth an entire platoon of guardsmen, and is strong enough to rip a turret off a tank with his bare power armored hands, even without a power fist.
That's why I don't read much black library. Pulling a turret off a tank now? Are you sure that's not "pulling a pintle mounted heavy bolter off its mount"?
"Worth an entire platoon of Guardsmen" are we going with a stand up fight in an open field? Or are we going with a marine can kill 30 guardmen if they're only getting to him piecemeal? Or maybe we should go with the fact that they can deploy incredibly fast, making short work of a task that a slower force would have to spend more time and more bodies to do? How do you quantify the "worth"?
And how do marines stack up to Aspect Warriors in the fluff? Is it consistent? Or is it all over the place, especially when taking into the account the stories told ftom an Eldar point of view? How does fluff talk about Chaos Marines, are they treated the same? Or does the fluff tell us that loyalists should have 2 wounds, while Chaos marines should only have 1.
Fluff =/= Crunch
This gets thrown around a lot. So this means basically a commissar gets more than one wound or better yet Calgar can stand beside the second Ultramarines chapter master. But then you have instances of fluff being crunch such as Eldar exarchs. Why do they have 2 wounds? For the most part it improves the game. While the idea that a single marine can take on a single guard unit is amusing, for the health of the GAME, they can't.
Crunch has been provided basically every other day for almost a year that marines can't compete. But here we are doing the same dance over and over and over...
Marines having 2 wounds may be too much, how should I know I never got to play a game with them having 2 wounds, have you?
There's enough Grey area in the fluff for them to have a second wound, or do you need 20+ implants for that extra wound? Must be it, rust stalkers have 2 wounds...
Let's give the Tac Marine 50 wounds and BS2+ then to reflect this
That is not what I'm suggesting. All I'm saying is that there is lore justification for giving marines more then 1W and 1A.
EDIT: BTW, if this guy had power armor and a bolter, this is pretty much what I see Space Marines being like on the battlefield. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGlWjIKoY4
Cool video. It's disappointing not a single comment picked up on the Chrono Trigger joke. But I guess that was the joke.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I literally always plug my idea of WS/BS2+ for all Terminator variants bar the GK troops.
...and I have always disagreed with you whenever you’ve brought it up.
That being said, why not both? A 3W/3A BS/WS2+ Terminator is something I could get behind. Hell, if you did that, you might actually get competitive Terminators. Which might break the internet, or at least the 40k part of it. When was the last time Terminators were competitive? When they had their 3+ on 2D6 save what, a quarter of a century ago?
Edit: Also, there is a lore justification - cutting a Marine in half won’t stop him attacking you. Cut off his arm an he keeps hitting you with the other one without missing a beat. Shoot him in the heart or lungs and his backup ones take over. Give him a wound that would make him bleed out, he clots and forms scar tissue instantly. Of all basic-troop-shaped things in the game, they are kind of the leading contender for having two wounds.
Marines are not still attacking you after being cut in half.
Fallen Angels, p325-326 wrote:
“The Librarian hurled himself to the side just as the creature lunged into the squad’s midst with the force of a runaway train.
With a shout, Zahariel spun to face the beast as the queen gathered herself together like a coiling spring and lashed out again, this time catching Gideon and two of the corpses in its wide mandibles. The curved pincers snapped shut like a giant scissors. The two corpses were bisected at once; Gideon’s armour resisted a half-second longer before giving way as well.
A bolt pistol barked; Gideon, lying in a pool of his own blood, had reloaded his weapon and was snapping careful shots at the worm’s eyes.
*shrug*
Yeahhh... how common is that? And can an Ork do the same? Because if an ork can do the same rare occurence as a space marine, you're just a heroic T4. (And within range if a banner, so they got you covered from a gameplay perspective).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I literally always plug my idea of WS/BS2+ for all Terminator variants bar the GK troops.
...and I have always disagreed with you whenever you’ve brought it up.
That being said, why not both? A 3W/3A BS/WS2+ Terminator is something I could get behind. Hell, if you did that, you might actually get competitive Terminators. Which might break the internet, or at least the 40k part of it. When was the last time Terminators were competitive? When they had their 3+ on 2D6 save what, a quarter of a century ago?
Last time they were not garbage was 4th when you could take 2 Assault Cannons in a 5 man squad. Even that was mediocre.
Also I'm not for over the top escalation like other people are. I prefer being conservative when it comes to making changes. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, Terminators get both. Then adjust prices as necessary. Simple and excellent.
Insectum7 wrote: [That's why I don't read much black library. Pulling a turret off a tank now? Are you sure that's not "pulling a pintle mounted heavy bolter off its mount"?
No, as in actually ripping a turret straight off a tank. Space marines can move faster than a human eye can see, their reflexes are about 10x faster than a normal human, and with their power armor on are incredibly strong. If a space marine gets on top of a tank and gets his fingers under the turret and simultaneously uses his legs to push and arms to lift, I can easily see him ripping open a light tank like a tin can.
Insectum7 wrote: "Worth an entire platoon of Guardsmen" are we going with a stand up fight in an open field? Or are we going with a marine can kill 30 guardmen if they're only getting to him piecemeal? Or maybe we should go with the fact that they can deploy incredibly fast, making short work of a task that a slower force would have to spend more time and more bodies to do? How do you quantify the "worth"?
In a straight up open field fight. 30-50 guardsmen firing lasguns at 100m with no cover on either side vs a single marine with a bolter. The marine will take a lot of hits and possibly be wounded but all of the guardsmen will be dead by the end of it. Space marines are like aimbots with how accurate and how quickly they shoot.
Insectum7 wrote: And how do marines stack up to Aspect Warriors in the fluff? Is it consistent? Or is it all over the place, especially when taking into the account the stories told ftom an Eldar point of view? How does fluff talk about Chaos Marines, are they treated the same? Or does the fluff tell us that loyalists should have 2 wounds, while Chaos marines should only have 1.
A space marine should be roughly equivalent to an aspect warrior. An average chaos marine should actually be even tougher then an average space marine considering they are veterans of the long war and have a TON of combat experience due to a life of constant fighting.
I think CSM should have two wounds and two attacks as well for what it is worth, and be costed appropriately.
What's funny is that I'm actually an Imperial Guard fanboy and think space marines are overrated. But one thing space marines do well is local force superiority.
Okay, so from what I'm reading then, we have a basic Space marine has a strength of 8 doing 2D6 damage. I mean they're ripping turrets off tanks, right?
And T6 5 wounds. With a bolter thats rapid fire 12. Because he's killing 30 guardsmen and only slightly wounded, just standing there in the open.
And at the same time, an Aspect Warrior is roughly equivalent. So let's just jack their stats way up, too. Am I reading this logic right?
Insectum7 wrote: [That's why I don't read much black library. Pulling a turret off a tank now? Are you sure that's not "pulling a pintle mounted heavy bolter off its mount"?
No, as in actually ripping a turret straight off a tank. Space marines can move faster than a human eye can see, their reflexes are about 10x faster than a normal human, and with their power armor on are incredibly strong. If a space marine gets on top of a tank and gets his fingers under the turret and simultaneously uses his legs to push and arms to lift, I can easily see him ripping open a light tank like a tin can.
Insectum7 wrote: "Worth an entire platoon of Guardsmen" are we going with a stand up fight in an open field? Or are we going with a marine can kill 30 guardmen if they're only getting to him piecemeal? Or maybe we should go with the fact that they can deploy incredibly fast, making short work of a task that a slower force would have to spend more time and more bodies to do? How do you quantify the "worth"?
In a straight up open field fight. 30-50 guardsmen firing lasguns at 100m with no cover on either side vs a single marine with a bolter. The marine will take a lot of hits and possibly be wounded but all of the guardsmen will be dead by the end of it. Space marines are like aimbots with how accurate and how quickly they shoot.
Insectum7 wrote: And how do marines stack up to Aspect Warriors in the fluff? Is it consistent? Or is it all over the place, especially when taking into the account the stories told ftom an Eldar point of view? How does fluff talk about Chaos Marines, are they treated the same? Or does the fluff tell us that loyalists should have 2 wounds, while Chaos marines should only have 1.
A space marine should be roughly equivalent to an aspect warrior. An average chaos marine should actually be even tougher then an average space marine considering they are veterans of the long war and have a TON of combat experience due to a life of constant fighting.
I think CSM should have two wounds and two attacks as well for what it is worth, and be costed appropriately.
What's funny is that I'm actually an Imperial Guard fanboy and think space marines are overrated. But one thing space marines do well is local force superiority.
Okay, so from what I'm reading then, we have a basic Space marine has a strength of 8 doing 2D6 damage. I mean they're ripping turrets off tanks, right?
And T6 5 wounds. With a bolter thats rapid fire 12. Because he's killing 30 guardsmen and only slightly wounded, just standing there in the open.
And at the same time, an Aspect Warrior is roughly equivalent. So let's just jack their stats way up, too. Am I reading this logic right?
Yeah let's stop talking about it and just do it already!
Yeah, I like Chosen. I'm glad they got their bonus chainsword option back, too. I'm not sure every model is supposed to be a vet. But maybe because of the tyrannical nature of the chaos legions, or just lack of discipline, many marines don't progress as far/fast.
Or if every model had access to the bonus chainsword like they used to.
The lack of discipline is the higher LD but not being totally indoctrinated (ATSKNF)
Oh I meant lack of discipline as in they're not training as often, doing instead. . . Whatever chaos does. Drinking, playing videogames, swimming lessons, I dunno.
Yeah, I like Chosen. I'm glad they got their bonus chainsword option back, too. I'm not sure every model is supposed to be a vet. But maybe because of the tyrannical nature of the chaos legions, or just lack of discipline, many marines don't progress as far/fast.
Or if every model had access to the bonus chainsword like they used to.
The lack of discipline is the higher LD but not being totally indoctrinated (ATSKNF)
Oh I meant lack of discipline as in they're not training as often, doing instead. . . Whatever chaos does. Drinking, playing videogames, swimming lessons, I dunno.
I'm not really sure what you think CSM's are doing all day. If they're not fighting the enemy they're fighting each other basically.
Insectum7 wrote: [That's why I don't read much black library. Pulling a turret off a tank now? Are you sure that's not "pulling a pintle mounted heavy bolter off its mount"?
No, as in actually ripping a turret straight off a tank. Space marines can move faster than a human eye can see, their reflexes are about 10x faster than a normal human, and with their power armor on are incredibly strong. If a space marine gets on top of a tank and gets his fingers under the turret and simultaneously uses his legs to push and arms to lift, I can easily see him ripping open a light tank like a tin can.
Insectum7 wrote: "Worth an entire platoon of Guardsmen" are we going with a stand up fight in an open field? Or are we going with a marine can kill 30 guardmen if they're only getting to him piecemeal? Or maybe we should go with the fact that they can deploy incredibly fast, making short work of a task that a slower force would have to spend more time and more bodies to do? How do you quantify the "worth"?
In a straight up open field fight. 30-50 guardsmen firing lasguns at 100m with no cover on either side vs a single marine with a bolter. The marine will take a lot of hits and possibly be wounded but all of the guardsmen will be dead by the end of it. Space marines are like aimbots with how accurate and how quickly they shoot.
Insectum7 wrote: And how do marines stack up to Aspect Warriors in the fluff? Is it consistent? Or is it all over the place, especially when taking into the account the stories told ftom an Eldar point of view? How does fluff talk about Chaos Marines, are they treated the same? Or does the fluff tell us that loyalists should have 2 wounds, while Chaos marines should only have 1.
A space marine should be roughly equivalent to an aspect warrior. An average chaos marine should actually be even tougher then an average space marine considering they are veterans of the long war and have a TON of combat experience due to a life of constant fighting.
I think CSM should have two wounds and two attacks as well for what it is worth, and be costed appropriately.
What's funny is that I'm actually an Imperial Guard fanboy and think space marines are overrated. But one thing space marines do well is local force superiority.
So, let's look at this from the view of other codexii.
Eldar. A howling banshee can run so fast, her footsteps sound like rain. She can kill a full tactical squad of marines between heartbeats. Wraithlords can throw chimeras hard enough to cave in the hulls of land raiders. Not wraith knights, wraith lords. A striking scorpion can step out of the back of a speeding wave serpent, decapitate two marines with a chainsword, and step back in before it move away. Keep in mind the WS didn't slow down, or stop. So, if we're going to go off of fluff for eldar, that means if I take a *squad* of banshees, you should just auto-lose.
Tau. Fire warriors get headshots for days. Dead marines everywhere, Tau reload. Kroot are just as strong, and even more agile. Battlesuits can over power marines in HtH combat, on sheer strength.
Necrons are just functionally immune to weapons. If you do manage to hit something that would be a wound, well, it just self repairs and stands up again. So, no shooting Necrons with your marines.
So, three examples of how xenos kick the feces out of marines like playing kickball on the playground. Marines have never equaled their fluff on the table top.
So, let's get back to talking about balanced rules, not a fetish.
Interestingly enough, in the latest battle report by tabletop tactics- Lawrence basically repeats my opening post, which considering he's a pretty well respected tournament player, with his fingers in just about every codex is a pretty good indication of the state of things.
My personal expiriance with the game is rather limited, but I would like to drop in my 2 euros. First of all I think people over focus on singular units. If just one unit or even two get buffed, and the rest stays bad, then the army at best will spam 3 of the good options and pray it is close enough to 2000pts to have a working army.
Second thing people want more damge from marines. Now I do not know how good or bad marines are, as dpt goes, but dpt is the most important factor in two situations.
A when the army has the ability to cripple the opposing army in 1-2 turns. The resilience matters litle as the main goal is to get turn one drop as many of opponents army as possible, and the game is mock up session and going for secondaries after that.
B when the game is based around the destruction of a specific targets like an HQ or a bunker etc. Then it doesn't matter what happens to the list, as long as turn 1-2 it gets the win, but probably loses on secondary objectives.
SM, although I could be wrong here, do not seem to be an army that focuses or can focus on fast destruction of enemy. It is a classic survival army, it is just that the stats are too low to actually survive stuff in 8th ed. So either GW nerfs armies that are build around killing, and imo that would be stupid as it is those armies theme, or GW should buff the resiliance of marines. Now I am not saying that a marine army should be unable to do any damage to the opposing army or have a few specilist units that can be very deadly vs specific targets, but I don't think that giving something like rapid fire 2 str5 ap-1 bolters to all marines and 3 plasma per squad would be good for the game.
Tell us more about your SM list that uses proper tactical squads and wins.
Quantity has a quality all its own, is the basic theory. Lots of power armor, esp in cover, still takes a lot of effort to shift.
That's a cool theory. I'd love to run a marine heavy list that's tough to move (like I used to in previous editions.) But the theory doesn't hold up in practice. Because they still aren't THAT hard to shift. And they don't have enough firepower for it to matter either. And you won't always have the right amount or placement of cover to make this work. At the end of the day, marines in cover are still point for point less durable than lighter, cheaper infantry. And have WAY less firepower. And your opponent can use cover too.
For this to work, marines would have to have more firepower and durability. Which is why I'm advocating for them to have that.
How about giving marines something like the +1W, and tac armor never gets worse save +5, termintors never get worse then +4, primaris get+5 with re-roll save of 1 and a +4 and re-roll 1s on the heavier suits?
No weapon change, maybe even a slight point increase.
Mmmpi wrote: Eldar. A howling banshee can run so fast, her footsteps sound like rain.
I'm with you.
Mmmpi wrote: She can kill a full tactical squad of marines between heartbeats.
Lol no. A howling banshee is definitely superior to a tactical marine in 1v1 but not that superior.
Mmmpi wrote: Wraithlords can throw chimeras hard enough to cave in the hulls of land raiders. Not wraith knights, wraith lords.
Yep, agreed.
Mmmpi wrote: A striking scorpion can step out of the back of a speeding wave serpent, decapitate two marines with a chainsword, and step back in before it move away.
I don't even think that is physically possible. If they were moving at those speeds the G forces alone would tear their bodies apart. They are fast but they aren't the Flash.
Mmmpi wrote: Tau. Fire warriors get headshots for days. Dead marines everywhere, Tau reload.
I have never seen this happen in the lore, ever. In fact quite the opposite. Tau fire warriors are supposedly the equivalent of well-trained Imperial Guardsmen with better equipment.
Mmmpi wrote: Necrons are just functionally immune to weapons. If you do manage to hit something that would be a wound, well, it just self repairs and stands up again. So, no shooting Necrons with your marines.
No they aren't. They have been shown multiple times in the lore to be able to be damaged even by lasguns. They vanish back to their tombs to be repaired when the damage is too great to be auto-repaired.
Mmmpi wrote: So, three examples of how xenos kick the feces out of marines like playing kickball on the playground.
Three incredibly wrong examples with no lore justification and nothing to back them up.
For what it is worth, I am not arguing for marines to be buffed on the tabletop to how they actually are in lore. I was simply presenting a solution to the FACT that marines are underpowered right now that doesn't involve tac marines being 11pts. 2W and 2A is plenty fair, as long as it is accompanied by a moderate price increase. This makes marines CLOSER to what they actually are in the lore and makes them balanced on the tabletop.
Karol wrote: How about giving marines something like the +1W, and tac armor never gets worse save +5, termintors never get worse then +4, primaris get+5 with re-roll save of 1 and a +4 and re-roll 1s on the heavier suits?
No weapon change, maybe even a slight point increase.
I'd be fine with that sort of thing conceptually, but it ends up making things annoying as far as rule bloat goes. We've increased it a lot as is with all the re-rolls. 8th was supposed to be simpler, but to me it feels like there's more to keep track of than in 5th. This sort of solution would help with the stat problem, but still be clunky for gameplay.
I think making marines 2+ armor and terminators 1+ would be simpler to deal with. This coupled with +1W would bring them closer to their old durability (relative to the now much higher firepower.)
Offense fixes would still be needed too. And points adjustments. I'm fine with them going back to costing more like in the past if they are decent again.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I literally always plug my idea of WS/BS2+ for all Terminator variants bar the GK troops.
...and I have always disagreed with you whenever you’ve brought it up.
That being said, why not both? A 3W/3A BS/WS2+ Terminator is something I could get behind. Hell, if you did that, you might actually get competitive Terminators. Which might break the internet, or at least the 40k part of it. When was the last time Terminators were competitive? When they had their 3+ on 2D6 save what, a quarter of a century ago?
Competitive Terminators is not something xenos 40k players want. It literally haunts their dreams...being beaten by poster boys of the game is a mortal fear for them.
I think the last time Terminators were competitive was when Chaos could run 3 Terminators with 3 Combi Meltas for 105 points. They didn't always do what you wanted them to do because of mishaps. But it was dirty cheap, and they made a decent distraction after they landed.
An interesting thought experiment would be, every time you suggest a Marine buff, also apply it to the exemplars of whatever you're giving Marines.
Marines are super durable. Want to make Marines W2? Cool. Necron Warriors are now also W2. Good luck mowing them down. Cap armor modifiers on them at -2? Cool, now Warriors always get a 6+ armor.
Marines are super skilled and/or have a great gun. So give their guns AP-1. Cool, now Shuriken and Pulse weapons drop Marines to a 4+ - without even rolling 6s!
Termies should be +1W, +1 Invuln. Great. Grots and Wracks are now +1W/+1FnP. Good luck killing them.
Bharring wrote: An interesting thought experiment would be, every time you suggest a Marine buff, also apply it to the exemplars of whatever you're giving Marines.
Marines are super durable. Want to make Marines W2? Cool. Necron Warriors are now also W2. Good luck mowing them down. Cap armor modifiers on them at -2? Cool, now Warriors always get a 6+ armor.
Marines are super skilled and/or have a great gun. So give their guns AP-1. Cool, now Shuriken and Pulse weapons drop Marines to a 4+ - without even rolling 6s!
Termies should be +1W, +1 Invuln. Great. Grots and Wracks are now +1W/+1FnP. Good luck killing them.
You mean like how grotesques got that exact thing in the new codex.....
Then maybe Termies should get something like that, too?
I'm actually not against Marines getting buffed. They need some help. I just strongly disagree with a lot of suggestions that do come up.
(although my preferred way to buff Marines is actually nerf most non-basic weapons. I want more Boltguns, Splinter Rifles, Pulse, Las, and Shuriken in the game. That Brightlance and Lascannon and Melta Gun should be the specialists on the field.)
Mmmpi wrote: Eldar. A howling banshee can run so fast, her footsteps sound like rain.
I'm with you.
Mmmpi wrote: She can kill a full tactical squad of marines between heartbeats.
Lol no. A howling banshee is definitely superior to a tactical marine in 1v1 but not that superior.
Mmmpi wrote: Wraithlords can throw chimeras hard enough to cave in the hulls of land raiders. Not wraith knights, wraith lords.
Yep, agreed.
Mmmpi wrote: A striking scorpion can step out of the back of a speeding wave serpent, decapitate two marines with a chainsword, and step back in before it move away.
I don't even think that is physically possible. If they were moving at those speeds the G forces alone would tear their bodies apart. They are fast but they aren't the Flash.
Mmmpi wrote: Tau. Fire warriors get headshots for days. Dead marines everywhere, Tau reload.
I have never seen this happen in the lore, ever. In fact quite the opposite. Tau fire warriors are supposedly the equivalent of well-trained Imperial Guardsmen with better equipment.
Mmmpi wrote: Necrons are just functionally immune to weapons. If you do manage to hit something that would be a wound, well, it just self repairs and stands up again. So, no shooting Necrons with your marines.
No they aren't. They have been shown multiple times in the lore to be able to be damaged even by lasguns. They vanish back to their tombs to be repaired when the damage is too great to be auto-repaired.
Mmmpi wrote: So, three examples of how xenos kick the feces out of marines like playing kickball on the playground.
Three incredibly wrong examples with no lore justification and nothing to back them up.
For what it is worth, I am not arguing for marines to be buffed on the tabletop to how they actually are in lore. I was simply presenting a solution to the FACT that marines are underpowered right now that doesn't involve tac marines being 11pts. 2W and 2A is plenty fair, as long as it is accompanied by a moderate price increase. This makes marines CLOSER to what they actually are in the lore and makes them balanced on the tabletop.
Then you haven't been reading any of the fluff for xenos. Between third ed and now there have been many pieces of fluff that have xenos doing exactly what I posted. Especially the eldar, and though I didn't give any examples, orks. The striking scorpion one is in CA (2000) or CA (2002). Then there's the various codexii, and novels.
The main point is, aside from IG, and at least one of the tyranid codexii, when an army is in the center of the story, or in their codex, they kick ass. And xenos, particularly eldar, and orcs, because they've been around for eight editions have plenty of fluff, that taken at face value make them broken. Nothing I posed isn't in fluff somewhere. The scorpion one is one of the more mild examples. But if a space marine can rip a turret off of a tank in a space marine novel, why can't an eldar with centuries of experience do similar feats of skill. BTW, if a scorpion can't do what was described, why would a space marine be able to move faster then the eye can follow? We're talking about a species that's militia makes marines seem as if they were moving in slow motion. Seriously.
Xenomancers wrote: Competitive Terminators is not something xenos 40k players want. It literally haunts their dreams...being beaten by poster boys of the game is a mortal fear for them.
Bharring wrote: An interesting thought experiment would be, every time you suggest a Marine buff, also apply it to the exemplars of whatever you're giving Marines.
Marines are super durable. Want to make Marines W2? Cool. Necron Warriors are now also W2. Good luck mowing them down. Cap armor modifiers on them at -2? Cool, now Warriors always get a 6+ armor.
Marines are super skilled and/or have a great gun. So give their guns AP-1. Cool, now Shuriken and Pulse weapons drop Marines to a 4+ - without even rolling 6s!
Termies should be +1W, +1 Invuln. Great. Grots and Wracks are now +1W/+1FnP. Good luck killing them.
I think this might be oversimplifying things. You're also assuming that these units are all starting from a place of balance in the first place. It doesn't make sense to buff a unit that is doing fine because you buffed one that isn't.
My impression is that Necron warriors are actually fairly effective as it is because of their res abilities and -1 AP on their basic weapon. They also cost less than Marines. If Necron players are feeling that they need to be more durable, then maybe they should be looked at, but I'm not aware of there being a big issue with them currently because res protocols provides pretty good durability as long as the squad isn't wiped, and -1 AP on the guns is pretty good so large squads are not a hindrance.
All Marines have to rely on is their armor save in an edition where armor saves are worth less than they ever have been.
All of this goes back to the AP system being terrible, which IMO is the actual issue.
I had intended it as a thought experiment, not a rule of balance. Obviously, different units need different adjustments to fairly balance. Further, the same change on different units have a different impact. It's more to try to keep the suggestions within reason.
I've seen a lot of "AP5 went to AP0, should be AP-1, that'd fix marines" across different threads. It might sound right, but imagine if you did make AP5 go to AP-1. Marines would be one of the worst hit factions, despite it intending to buff them! Further, when buffing Marines, you also need to remember that your Marines will face the same changes too, as half the army are Marines. So now, half your games, you might as well have a 4+ on your Marines.
It's important to imagine how the change would impact you on the other side of the table. And when discussing Marines, it seems facing other Marines isn't usually considered, so just imagine facing the same change on some dirty Xenos.
As for units doing fine/not doing fine, Tacs are in a worse place than they've been on that spectrum for a while, but these threads exist even when Tacs are one of the better troops. It's only been a fairly recent development where the average troop (by units with rules, not by what you see at top tables) aren't worse than Tacs.
Actually Warriors are pretty bad as you're required to invest too much into them for little return. We love our Immortals for a reason but Warriors can at least do a Veil Bomb so that's nice I guess...
...
All Marines have to rely on is their armor save in an edition where armor saves are worth less than they ever have been.
All of this goes back to the AP system being terrible, which IMO is the actual issue.
I have to disagree with that last part. I remember how bad the old "AP 4 means your Fire Warriors/Guardsmen/Tyranid Warriors get no save at all, but my Marines get the full 3+" made things. The current AP system is a vast improvement on that mess.
With the old system, most people didn't even know or care what had AP4. Many Marines players would swear up and down they didn't have a single AP4 weapon in their army.
Bharring wrote: With the old system, most people didn't even know or care what had AP4. Many Marines players would swear up and down they didn't have a single AP4 weapon in their army.
Because most of the AP4 weapons in the codex were pretty awful.
Bharring wrote: With the old system, most people didn't even know or care what had AP4. Many Marines players would swear up and down they didn't have a single AP4 weapon in their army.
It's been a while, but as I recall most Marine players didn't have any AP 4 weapons in their armies and neither did anyone else. Outside of basic rifles if it wasn't AP 3 or better it didn't see the table.
...oh wait, you mean no AP 4 weapons in the Codex don't you.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I literally always plug my idea of WS/BS2+ for all Terminator variants bar the GK troops.
...and I have always disagreed with you whenever you’ve brought it up.
That being said, why not both? A 3W/3A BS/WS2+ Terminator is something I could get behind. Hell, if you did that, you might actually get competitive Terminators. Which might break the internet, or at least the 40k part of it. When was the last time Terminators were competitive? When they had their 3+ on 2D6 save what, a quarter of a century ago?
Competitive Terminators is not something xenos 40k players want. It literally haunts their dreams...being beaten by poster boys of the game is a mortal fear for them.
I like how if it can't beat Eldar & Tau then it isn't strong against Xenos. There are other races, my good sir
Well, if the point is whether players completely forget stuff with a 4+ save, then forgetting Krak has a 4+ is exactly the point.
Sure, most 4+ SM weapons didn't get used. Assault Cannons and Heavy Flamers were great, but didn't have many worthwhile platforms. Heavy Bolters were meh, but sometimes got thrown in for free-ish. AutoCannons would have been nice if they were on the Heavy list for Devs, but weren't. It's easy to forget about all of these.
Now, Tau, Nids, and Craftworlders, they had oodles of AP4 weaponry.
As for why the AP4 weapons didn't get used? 3+ saves or vehicles ruled the edition. It was Marines or Serpents or Marines or Jetbikes or Marines++ or Ynari or Marines or WKs or Marines or Decurion almost all edition. Almost all of those were 3+ saves. So why bring AP4?
The main point is, aside from IG, and at least one of the tyranid codexii, when an army is in the center of the story, or in their codex, they kick ass. And xenos, particularly eldar, and orcs, because they've been around for eight editions have plenty of fluff, that taken at face value make them broken. Nothing I posed isn't in fluff somewhere. The scorpion one is one of the more mild examples. But if a space marine can rip a turret off of a tank in a space marine novel, why can't an eldar with centuries of experience do similar feats of skill. BTW, if a scorpion can't do what was described, why would a space marine be able to move faster then the eye can follow? We're talking about a species that's militia makes marines seem as if they were moving in slow motion. Seriously.
When I said "faster then the human eye can see" I didn't mean running, that would be stupid. I mean coarse reflexes like swinging a sword. Considering that even normal humans can move faster than the human eye can see UNAUGMENTED I don't think this is much of a stretch. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5WjkI5FuP0 <----- Skip the intro and go to 0:55
As for ripping the turret off of a light tank, that isn't much of a stretch either. ~5,000 pounds of force could probably do it. Again, we have actual strongmen TODAY that can deadlift 1,000 pounds. Why is it such a stretch that a genetically modified human wearing a suit of power armor that greatly enhances his strength could do the same at 5,000 pounds?
It's COMPLETELY different than slaughtering 10 space marines with a sword within a fraction of a second, which would be impossible from a physics standpoint because the directional changes at that speed would rip an organic body apart.
I highly doubt that ANYWHERE in the lore there is a howling banshee slaughtering 10 marines in between heartbeats, or a firewarrior headshotting marines like it is nothing.
Tell us more about your SM list that uses proper tactical squads and wins.
Quantity has a quality all its own, is the basic theory. Lots of power armor, esp in cover, still takes a lot of effort to shift.
That's a cool theory. I'd love to run a marine heavy list that's tough to move (like I used to in previous editions.) But the theory doesn't hold up in practice. Because they still aren't THAT hard to shift. And they don't have enough firepower for it to matter either. And you won't always have the right amount or placement of cover to make this work. At the end of the day, marines in cover are still point for point less durable than lighter, cheaper infantry. And have WAY less firepower. And your opponent can use cover too.
For this to work, marines would have to have more firepower and durability. Which is why I'm advocating for them to have that.
Weellll, right off the bat I'm getting this:
Bolters at MEQ=
40 (shots) × .666 (hits) x .5 (wound) x .17 (failed save) x 13 (ppm) = 29.4
Vs. GEQ=
40 x .666 x .666 x .5 x .4 = 35.48
So per point, marines in cover are more durable than guard vs. Bolters. So there's one claim we can question. The quick counter is that higher power weapons will put the guardsmen ahead in durability, and I won't deny that. But I'll counter that with the fact that you shouldn't be firing those weapons at GEQ anyways, but at their vehicles, where I think the point return will generally be higher than firing at MEQ types. This is one of the things I tend to bank on in my armies. Not using high value vehicles tends to negate some points that the other army has spent of lascannon type things.
The other claim involves damage output, which is more complicated because of mixed weapons, available buffs, etc. But maybe someone can suggest some contending units there and we can see what we can do with it. Sorry, busy atm.
Tell us more about your SM list that uses proper tactical squads and wins.
Quantity has a quality all its own, is the basic theory. Lots of power armor, esp in cover, still takes a lot of effort to shift.
That's a cool theory. I'd love to run a marine heavy list that's tough to move (like I used to in previous editions.) But the theory doesn't hold up in practice. Because they still aren't THAT hard to shift. And they don't have enough firepower for it to matter either. And you won't always have the right amount or placement of cover to make this work. At the end of the day, marines in cover are still point for point less durable than lighter, cheaper infantry. And have WAY less firepower. And your opponent can use cover too.
For this to work, marines would have to have more firepower and durability. Which is why I'm advocating for them to have that.
Weellll, right off the bat I'm getting this:
Bolters at MEQ=
40 (shots) × .666 (hits) x .5 (wound) x .17 (failed save) x 13 (ppm) = 29.4
Vs. GEQ=
40 x .666 x .666 x .5 x .4 = 35.48
So per point, marines in cover are more durable than guard vs. Bolters. So there's one claim we can question. The quick counter is that higher power weapons will put the guardsmen ahead in durability, and I won't deny that. But I'll counter that with the fact that you shouldn't be firing those weapons at GEQ anyways, but at their vehicles, where I think the point return will generally be higher than firing at MEQ types. This is one of the things I tend to bank on in my armies. Not using high value vehicles tends to negate some points that the other army has spent of lascannon type things.
The other claim involves damage output, which is more complicated because of mixed weapons, available buffs, etc. But maybe someone can suggest some contending units there and we can see what we can do with it. Sorry, busy atm.
Your math is right. Cover is odd in that it helps you more the better your save is, which seems unintuitive.
I disagree that AP 1 weapons like heavy bolters and assault cannons aren't for shooting at guardsmen. They are pretty clearly designed for killing infantry, and aren't particularly good at killing vehicles.
Also because Marines cost so much more than guardsmen, if argue that they should be more resistant per point against bolters and against lasguns out of cover, because as soon as any AP is involved there is no hope of them being comparable anymore.
Assuming basic bolter marines at rapid fire range thats 260 points of marines worth of shooting to kill 35 points of guardsmen.
Or as a percentage thats a rate of return of 13.5%
260 points buys you a lot of guardsmen (65 to be precise) even at 5ppm thats 52 guardsmen
That is 116 lasgun shots or 92 lasgun shots point for point plus 7 laspistol and 6 laspistols respectively.
123 x.5x.333x.17x13= 45.3 points of marines dead
99x.5x.333x.17x13= 36.4 points of marines dead
In the open things get worse
123x.5x.333x.333x13= 88.7 points of marines dead
123x.5x.5x.666x4= 81.918 points of dead guardsmen.
99x.5x.333x.333x13= 71 points of marines dead
99x.5x.5x.666x5= 82 points of 5ppm guard.
Marines with bolter do
40x.666x.666x.666x4=47.3 points of dead guards men.
40x.666x.5x.333x13=57.6 points of dead marines.
That says that something is far from balanced
I love the fact it can assault actually. Otherwise very specialist model, as it's standout ability is that it can carry big 
