Bharring wrote: His point is that if you took a full Company (6xTac squads, 2xDevs, 2xASM), for instance, you can actually have them all in a 2k list - that's only 1300 points of bodies.
It's a poor point, because 100 bodies of Marines with 700 points of support/gear is much worse than 100 bodies of Marines with 1000 points of support/gear. 300 points is quite a lot (+15% current points).
He's saying people would spam marines if they were 10 points. He is wrong. You might see 30 on the table at that price. Which is a savings of about 90 points. With how poorly marines perform do you really think that would be game breaking?
I already spam marines at 13 ppm, taking 70-90 in a 2000 pointer. I'd be taking over 100 if they were 10, it would be a no brainer.
You're not a good example of how this game is generally played. To be completely fair.
I'm not convinced 10 points is a fair price. To me the problem lies with the chapter tactics being mostly garbage and the wargear being generally overcosted.
Mamatag RG have the cookie cuter best chapter tactic in the game and their bolter marines still suck it is pretty clearly not just a wargear and chapter tactic probem.
Bharring wrote: His point is that if you took a full Company (6xTac squads, 2xDevs, 2xASM), for instance, you can actually have them all in a 2k list - that's only 1300 points of bodies.
It's a poor point, because 100 bodies of Marines with 700 points of support/gear is much worse than 100 bodies of Marines with 1000 points of support/gear. 300 points is quite a lot (+15% current points).
He's saying people would spam marines if they were 10 points. He is wrong. You might see 30 on the table at that price. Which is a savings of about 90 points. With how poorly marines perform do you really think that would be game breaking?
I already spam marines at 13 ppm, taking 70-90 in a 2000 pointer. I'd be taking over 100 if they were 10, it would be a no brainer.
You're not a good example of how this game is generally played. To be completely fair.
I'm not convinced 10 points is a fair price. To me the problem lies with the chapter tactics being mostly garbage and the wargear being generally overcosted.
Mamatag RG have the cookie cuter best chapter tactic in the game and their bolter marines still suck it is pretty clearly not just a wargear and chapter tactic probem.
Because the game isn't fought troops vs troops. And you know this.
Raven Guard tactics would be an entirely different story if they affected everything, not just infantry and walkers.
Bharring wrote: His point is that if you took a full Company (6xTac squads, 2xDevs, 2xASM), for instance, you can actually have them all in a 2k list - that's only 1300 points of bodies.
It's a poor point, because 100 bodies of Marines with 700 points of support/gear is much worse than 100 bodies of Marines with 1000 points of support/gear. 300 points is quite a lot (+15% current points).
He's saying people would spam marines if they were 10 points. He is wrong. You might see 30 on the table at that price. Which is a savings of about 90 points. With how poorly marines perform do you really think that would be game breaking?
I already spam marines at 13 ppm, taking 70-90 in a 2000 pointer. I'd be taking over 100 if they were 10, it would be a no brainer.
You're not a good example of how this game is generally played. To be completely fair.
I'm not convinced 10 points is a fair price. To me the problem lies with the chapter tactics being mostly garbage and the wargear being generally overcosted.
Yeaahh... maybe... but:
I recently played a locals tournament, and came in 2nd with my marine horde featuring 10 man Tac Squads, 4 Rhinos, Devs etc. Now the guy that came in first ran IG Custodes soup. 3 Bike Captains, Scions, mortars, I think Pask, Tanks etc. Now, because of the tourney setup (random opponents) we never actually fought each other, and we both won all our games quite handily. Due to time limits, I couldn't table my opponents as we never got past turn 3, however I'd say I was well on my way to tabling each. (1900pts, 1800ish, and 1400ish pts killed respectively, and me with plenty left to finish the job). Essentially he came out ahead because he could table his opponents faster than I could, and that's fair enough. We've got ourselves a "grudge match" scheduled and that ought to be a good fight.
But my takeaway from that is that marines can still beat the snot out of lots of opponents, given the right play. I don't buy all the crap they're getting, especially if I can do well without what the internet tells me is "best". (Guilliman, RG, Leviathans, etc) I don't even play Forge World, just straight codex with essentially units that were available 20 years ago.
Now some of my perspective is certainly "big fish small pond" I'm sure. But I'm also sure that a lot of the "complaining" perspective is straight up lacking in smart play and giving up early on units that require a different strategy to play.
If your games are only going to turn 3, that is awful, that must be a teeth-pullingly slow affair. I am sorry you got your score crippled by slowplayers.
Playing over 100 models in a double battalion i can get 6 turns done in 2.5-3 hours.
Bharring wrote: His point is that if you took a full Company (6xTac squads, 2xDevs, 2xASM), for instance, you can actually have them all in a 2k list - that's only 1300 points of bodies.
It's a poor point, because 100 bodies of Marines with 700 points of support/gear is much worse than 100 bodies of Marines with 1000 points of support/gear. 300 points is quite a lot (+15% current points).
He's saying people would spam marines if they were 10 points. He is wrong. You might see 30 on the table at that price. Which is a savings of about 90 points. With how poorly marines perform do you really think that would be game breaking?
I already spam marines at 13 ppm, taking 70-90 in a 2000 pointer. I'd be taking over 100 if they were 10, it would be a no brainer.
You're not a good example of how this game is generally played. To be completely fair.
I'm not convinced 10 points is a fair price. To me the problem lies with the chapter tactics being mostly garbage and the wargear being generally overcosted.
Mamatag RG have the cookie cuter best chapter tactic in the game and their bolter marines still suck it is pretty clearly not just a wargear and chapter tactic probem.
Because the game isn't fought troops vs troops. And you know this.
Raven Guard tactics would be an entirely different story if they affected everything, not just infantry and walkers.
The best Alaitoc units aren't just dark reapers.
What dose the RG tactic working on tanks have to do with their tactical marines sucking? It is pretty clear bolter marines are bad no matter how much you try and shift the issue onto their tactics and wargear despite having some of the best of both with the RG trait and the ability to take plasma guns.
Well - the RG tactic not affecting vehicles is a big deal.
Like - how good would a -1 to hit repulsor be?
How good would a -2 to hit fireraptor be? or Levi dread?
Even razorbacks at -1 to hit would be super sturdy.
Clearly - the tactics not affecting vehicles is a big deal. However - here is where the issue really becomes clear. The most viable method to play space marines is to spam mech! The infantry are so bad - players avoid them even though they get free rules like...the best army trait in the game (-1 to hit).
The issue is marines over pay for t4 and a 3+ save on every infantry model base in their army. Or even worse they overpay for 2+ saves on everything else.
The wargear is also overcosted. So you can't even really pay the unfortunate tax to get a nice weapon - you overpay there too.
10 might be to low but 11 still feels too much. If marines are 11 points they would still need a buff to the bolter - which I'd actually be in favor of.
My problem is that cheaper marines means Tyranid troops are even more screwed. In my Tyranids Wishlist thread I suggested giving tyranid troops improved saves (except genestealers) by +1, and people lost their minds.
10 pts may be too cheap, but I'd still crap turds of joy if I got Tacs/Devs/ASM for 11 pts. Adjust a couple special and heavy weapon prices (meltaguns, grav guns) and I'd be happy as a clam.
Marmatag wrote: My problem is that cheaper marines means Tyranid troops are even more screwed. In my Tyranids Wishlist thread I suggested giving tyranid troops improved saves (except genestealers) by +1, and people lost their minds.
That is because they are fools and don't want opponents armies to get stronger.
Every nid infantry should have a 5+ save at their current price point. Warriors go to 3+.
Infantry go up to 5 points for IG.
If those changes went through today - I don't think you'd have a problem with 10-11 point marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rocmistro wrote: 10 pts may be too cheap, but I'd still crap turds of joy if I got Tacs/Devs/ASM for 11 pts. Adjust a couple special and heavy weapon prices (meltaguns, grav guns) and I'd be happy as a clam.
And grav cannons (15) and multi meltas (15) and las cannons (20)
Marines have the toughness of a 12 point unit but the damage output of a 6-7 point unit. I guess putting them at 11 points would be something, but I don't think it would make tacticals a good use of points.
They don't seem to be talked about - but its the same problem as Necron Warriors.
If those changes went through today - I don't think you'd have a problem with 10-11 point marines.
Xeno, I'll give credit where credit is due - you haven't changed this stance throughout the thread.
But I don't feel like anyone here will be satisfied with point cost reductions on marines while a better solution is around.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Or you could fix Bolt weapons and Marine melee. You can't just make everything cheaper as sometimes it won't scale correctly.
The man speaks truth.
Marines will never be taken while there exists a cheaper troops choice available - that fulfils the role of detachment tax - while being cheaper and generating MORE of what you take the troops for.
This is a problem with soup and the basic 'no-asymmetrical balance' design of 8e.
Before people get up and in arms about this I want to clarify that I'm talking about asymmetrical point costs
Marines instead need to be unique, and able to fulfil a function or niche that doesn't just have a "better choice" available by souping.
Where does that leave us?
In order to be a staple (in the realm of soup), marines need to be able to either:
- Be a cheaper alternative to Guardsmen when it comes to CP and detachments
- Have higher Damage Per Turn than Guardsmen
- Survive longer than Guardsmen
- Perform a function Guardsmen cannot do (ie, unique abilities and tactics)
Right now *most* people are picking out the easiest to theory craft of the four options "Being cheaper..." and that, my friends is not the right choice for the games health in the long term, as a race to the bottom is never good for anyone.
Race to the bottom though is no good for new players. They come here expecting to shoot stuff with bolters and then discover that bolters are one of the weakest weapons in the game.
Bolters and chainswords are the problem, they are not weapons good enough for an elite model, but you can't make them better, because you overstep on primaris weapons, which are supposed to be better.
IMHO the only solution is to add a rule, there is no other way out of this.
I propose the following:
For tactical squads "Fire Pattern: If this unit includes at least 5 models, you can add 1 to its hit rolls in the shooting phase. In addition, models in this unit may fire an additional shot with bolters when shooting at a target within half weapon's range."
For assault squads"Assault formation: If this unit includes at least 5 models, you can add 1 to its hit rolls in the figthing phase. In addition, models in this unit may perform an additional attack with chainswords every time they fight"
Those would make bolters and chainswords more powerful on those models, while at the same time improving the effects of special weapons in the squad.
This way, a special weapon in a tactical/assault squad is more effective than one in the hands of a devastator/veteran, but limited in number. Seems fair as a mechanic for the basic elements of a faction. It also encourages 10 men squads, which would finally give a meaning to ATSKNF.
I'd also prefer buffed Marines over cheap Marines. For example:
Let them ignore the first point of incoming AP that would reduce their save to something worse than their normal armor save (so AP1 would still remove their cover save). This is a massive increase in durability against the weapons that currently butcher Marines without increasing it against non AP attacks (like giving them a second wound would do).
Give all Marines +1 attack the turn they charge. This gives them something to do when they get up close to stuff, and incentivises charging them before they charge you.
Give the chainsword and bolt weapons AP1. Remember that Marines would be able to ignore a point of AP, so this only increases their damage vs other factions, which are typically more lightly armored targets, and are less hurt less by incoming AP. It's also worth noting that I'd give necrons almost the same buffs to ignore AP that I'm talking about for Marines, but that's another topic.
These changes would make a 10 man assault marine squad do 31 attacks on the charge with S4, AP1. This would realistically kill 11 guardsmen on a charge. If you think that's too powerful, consider that space wolves skyclaws currently kill the exact same number of guardsmen, and I don't think anyone is calling them overpowered.
Defensively, these assault Marines would still die when focused down with AP0 fire or basic melee attacks, and AP1 would still reduce their cover saves, but they'd also get their 3++ a whole lot more vs weapons with AP, which would let them stick around a bit longer but not make them too annoying to kill (which should be the role of primaris).
I'd try these changes at marines current points costs, then buff/ nerf things from there. There would still be a number of other fixes needed (like fixing marine vehicles and repointing special and heavy weapons) but I think these changes would be a good first step in the marine statline not being a liability.
Rocmistro wrote: To me that all sounds like way too much, but I'm just a noob with 65..err....66 posts so what do I know?
What about making the bolter an assault 2 / 18" weapon instead of Rapid Fire?
The only problem with that is the Rapid Fire 1 24" weapon is the game's baseline. Nearly every faction has access to that profile on a base troop choice. Aren't astartes shotguns Assault 2 18" or am I misremembering the range?
Spoletta wrote: Race to the bottom though is no good for new players. They come here expecting to shoot stuff with bolters and then discover that bolters are one of the weakest weapons in the game.
Bolters and chainswords are the problem, they are not weapons good enough for an elite model, but you can't make them better, because you overstep on primaris weapons, which are supposed to be better.
IMHO the only solution is to add a rule, there is no other way out of this.
I propose the following:
For tactical squads "Fire Pattern: If this unit includes at least 5 models, you can add 1 to its hit rolls in the shooting phase. In addition, models in this unit may fire an additional shot with bolters when shooting at a target within half weapon's range."
For assault squads"Assault formation: If this unit includes at least 5 models, you can add 1 to its hit rolls in the figthing phase. In addition, models in this unit may perform an additional attack with chainswords every time they fight"
Those would make bolters and chainswords more powerful on those models, while at the same time improving the effects of special weapons in the squad.
This way, a special weapon in a tactical/assault squad is more effective than one in the hands of a devastator/veteran, but limited in number. Seems fair as a mechanic for the basic elements of a faction. It also encourages 10 men squads, which would finally give a meaning to ATSKNF.
That would screw GK over so hard. Normal marines can afford to run more dudes per squad then 5, and they do have chainswords and normal bolters on their troops. This would make marines more efficient, even if their points cost wouldn't change.
Marmatag wrote: My problem is that cheaper marines means Tyranid troops are even more screwed. In my Tyranids Wishlist thread I suggested giving tyranid troops improved saves (except genestealers) by +1, and people lost their minds.
That is because they are fools and don't want opponents armies to get stronger.
Every nid infantry should have a 5+ save at their current price point. Warriors go to 3+.
Infantry go up to 5 points for IG.
If those changes went through today - I don't think you'd have a problem with 10-11 point marines.
Yes then I would be fine with it. 3+ save warriors would also make it more balanced. It would give me a comparative option to fight marine tide. They would out-range me but i would be better in melee. I'll take that if it's a reasonably fair trade off.
I still think nerfing firepower/buffing durability across the board would help Marines out. Check out the 'Durability' thread in Proposed Rules. It alone doesn't fix Marines, but would it help?
There is a simple problem - some infantry is just too cheap.
The easier solution is for models like guardsmen to be T2.
Or, have weapons improve based on the type of armor they're shooting at. For instance, against Light Armor, the heavy bolter is -2, whereas versus Medium Armor it's ap-1, and Heavy Armor it's AP-0. But this layer of complexity is just too much when the game wants to be as simple as it is.
I still think its much easier to admit that marines are a flawed concept and adjust points accordingly. The buff marines camp and nerf everything else camps suffer from crazy amounts of unintended consequences.
Accept that plasma and dissy cannons make marines functionally grots. Price to reflect this mathematical reality.
Bharring wrote: I still think nerfing firepower/buffing durability across the board would help Marines out. Check out the 'Durability' thread in Proposed Rules. It alone doesn't fix Marines, but would it help?
Too many codices have it too good now. Nerfing firepower just makes guardsmen even more immortal for their cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Marines are not the only units affected by anti-MEQ/TEQ weapons being too available, though.
So? Did i say change only marines? All elite infantry are basically victims atm. Because of costing, all weapons are anti-meq, and none are anti-geq. Sounds like the problem is costing, not too much firepower.
Bharring wrote: Not all elite infantry are basically victims. Custodes. AL Zerkers. Reapers.
Sorry what.
Al zerkers are half the time victims. namely after you used forward operatives and didn't get the first turn.
That - 1 isn't going to save you in that circumstance. (not only that but you wasted a good cp per squad for a HIMMELFAHRTSKOMMANDO)
Additionally what do these dudes have in common? They all can pack a mean fast punch. Some more reliable then others.
The custodes also have the thoughness (somewhat) to back the punch up, whilest the eldar is just ignoring happily your shooting phase.
Now your regular Spike or spikeless marine has none of the above. Same with tyranid warriors. Same with necron warriors. See the problem?
If those changes went through today - I don't think you'd have a problem with 10-11 point marines.
Xeno, I'll give credit where credit is due - you haven't changed this stance throughout the thread.
But I don't feel like anyone here will be satisfied with point cost reductions on marines while a better solution is around.
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Or you could fix Bolt weapons and Marine melee. You can't just make everything cheaper as sometimes it won't scale correctly.
The man speaks truth.
Marines will never be taken while there exists a cheaper troops choice available - that fulfils the role of detachment tax - while being cheaper and generating MORE of what you take the troops for.
This is a problem with soup and the basic 'no-asymmetrical balance' design of 8e.
Before people get up and in arms about this I want to clarify that I'm talking about asymmetrical point costs
Marines instead need to be unique, and able to fulfil a function or niche that doesn't just have a "better choice" available by souping.
Where does that leave us?
In order to be a staple (in the realm of soup), marines need to be able to either:
- Be a cheaper alternative to Guardsmen when it comes to CP and detachments
- Have higher Damage Per Turn than Guardsmen
- Survive longer than Guardsmen
- Perform a function Guardsmen cannot do (ie, unique abilities and tactics)
Right now *most* people are picking out the easiest to theory craft of the four options "Being cheaper..." and that, my friends is not the right choice for the games health in the long term, as a race to the bottom is never good for anyone.
My personal prefernce is to make marines have better stats and bump their points up 1-2 points.
When I heard they were making a new eddition and adding damage profiles to weapons - I was really excited. I figured marines would look something like this.
T4 Str4 2W 3+ save with 2 attacks I also thought they might get better mobility too. That is basically a primaris marine. Now - that is a good statline. It's not worth 18 points with a bolt rifle though. I'd say that is worth more like 14-15 with a standard bolter which I also hoped would be a better weapon. D2 of 6's or something. Anything to make it stand out. If we made that change then what are primaris to be? IDK - throw a wound on them for 19 and that sounds right.
There is a simple problem - some infantry is just too cheap.
The easier solution is for models like guardsmen to be T2.
Or, have weapons improve based on the type of armor they're shooting at. For instance, against Light Armor, the heavy bolter is -2, whereas versus Medium Armor it's ap-1, and Heavy Armor it's AP-0. But this layer of complexity is just too much when the game wants to be as simple as it is.
I had a similar idea I posted a while back in proposed rules.
40k already has a unit tag mechanic, why not make it have more use with weaponry?
My personal prefernce is to make marines have better stats and bump their points up 1-2 points.
When I heard they were making a new eddition and adding damage profiles to weapons - I was really excited. I figured marines would look something like this.
T4 Str4 2W 3+ save with 2 attacks I also thought they might get better mobility too. That is basically a primaris marine. Now - that is a good statline. It's not worth 18 points with a bolt rifle though. I'd say that is worth more like 14-15 with a standard bolter which I also hoped would be a better weapon. D2 of 6's or something. Anything to make it stand out. If we made that change then what are primaris to be? IDK - throw a wound on them for 19 and that sounds right.
I think 3 Wound Primaris is a bit over the top, as 2 W is *only* bad right now due to the over abundance of 2 Damage weapons.
imo the only solution is a new mechanic, not more stats as everyone and their mother uses marines as the baseline.
Not to mention that the change cannot be blown out of proportion by the other marine factions.
Here's some of the restricted design space:
- Marines cannot have an extra attack - Space Wolves and Blood Angels benefit from it too much
- Marines cannot have BS 2+ / WS 2+ - Space Wolves trait is now useless
- Removes design space for veterans
- Marines cannot have a FNP - Iron Hands trait is now useless
- No extra wound or attack - muh primaris
- No higher armour save - Kills terminator space
- No rerolling armour save - 2+ rerolling in cover is bad design
This basically means marines must be improved sideways, not vertically.
Some examples of sideways upgrades:
- Ignore first AP of all weapons shot at them
- Reduce damage taken by 1, to a minimum of 1 (This may only apply to Primaris and their brethren)
- Special ammunition variations for all bolters, unique to snowflake faction ( Perhaps change for 1 CP at the start of your turn ) ie.
- Exploding Shot: 2 damage against < INFANTRY > targets
- Neurotoxin Shot: Units shot at by this weapon strike as if they did not charge this turn (Including in overwatch)
- Haywire Shot: For everyone 1 damage suffered by weapons with this shot, reduce its M by 1" and its BS by 1 (to a maximum of 6+).
The special ammunition would also make taking 'max marine squads' good again, as it minimises the cost of changing shots.
Median Trace wrote: What if they dropped ASM’s a point or two and made them a troop choice? Mobile, deepstriking objective grabbers?
If you drop them two points then you still cost more then a tac marine and are still worse than it and it is not even like tacs are very good in the first place so they would still be trash.
I'm not sure an ASM with jetpack is worse than a stock Tac. Worse at gunlining. Worse at holding an objective. But a lot more manuverable. That's what you use ASM for. They should be complementing yoru Tacs, not replacing them.
Bharring wrote: I'm not sure an ASM with jetpack is worse than a stock Tac. Worse at gunlining. Worse at holding an objective. But a lot more manuverable. That's what you use ASM for. They should be complementing yoru Tacs, not replacing them.
But they do that worse than Vanguard. Assault Marines has no purpose is the issue.
The design space thing that Eonfuzz is more or less the same kind of conclusion I had reached intuitively. Therefore the only options left are:
-drop points.
-change SM weapon rules. Specifically I'm thinking the chainsword here.
-adding in a stratagem that's really good for jump troops (or possibly even Assault Marines if you want to highlight them over Vanguard Vets/Death Company).
There is room for design here. But it would require special rules by chapter.
Maybe ultramarines assault marines get a different bonus than iron hands, etc.
But, this would add complexity that GW seems unwilling to do. I would be open to going back to the days where each chapter got their own codex. Ultramarines codex, Black Templars, etc.
"But they do that worse than Vanguard. Assault Marines has no purpose is the issue."
I would certainly take 5-6ppm ASM over currently-priced VV. I don't think anyone here is saying that ASM are worth their *current* points.
As for design space, I think there is space, but requires a hard look at killyness across the game.
Design space that doesn't require a full rewrite. GW has hardcoded killiness into 8th. Marines are just mathematically some of the worst at surviving it.
It really is simple to just drop their points - it worked for everyone else. It will work for these trash units too. In basically 100% of cases - units aren't taken because they are not worth the points. Not because their job isn't needed. This is usually indicative of at least a 15-20% over-costing compared to what they can do. So any change that does not at least make the under-performer at least 15- 20% cheaper - are worthless. So when making suggesting on how to fix bad units. Don't under do it. The point is we want people to play units that are unplayable.
Lets take the space marine vindicator for example. You'd think being dropped in price twice from index to codex and again in chapter approved this thing would be a bargain.
Well - not really - because it's original 145 price point was beyond absurd. It averages 2 shots hitting on 4's (cause it's always moving). One +1 str lascannon hit for 145 points? No - that is worth much more like 110-100 points.
So see how making small adjustments does nothing? When is the last time you saw a vindicator? You've got to get a real sense of how bad a unit is - realize what it would take to make that unit playable. Then make it happen.
Assault marines are bad. Probably among the worst 10 units in the game. They need roughly a 30% price drop to be playable.
Right, a 30% price drop would be ~5 pts (from the Jump version, which I *think* is what we are talking about here, to 11 pts.
Breaking it down, I see it as this:
-the basic Astartes stat line comes in at 11 pts. (ie, Tacticals)
Assault Marines get a -1 discount for not having ObjSec and not having a bolter, so start at 10, and pay 1 pt. instead for a jump pack (if they want it, or they can run around on foot with pistol and chainsword for 10 pts., LOL).
Devastators pay +2 pts for the privilege of holding a heavy weapon and getting a free signum (or you can break this up however you want, the point is, people are happy to pay 13 pts for a devastator right now and they are common in most space marine lists).
Bharring wrote: They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.
They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.
\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1. Maybe a Gretchen is worse. Maybe a pathfinder. Maybe a tervigon. IDK. There are a lot of really bad units. Every Codex has a stinker. Assault marines are in the top 10 worst units though.
Bharring wrote: They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.
They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.
\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1. Maybe a Gretchen is worse. Maybe a pathfinder. Maybe a tervigon. IDK. There are a lot of really bad units. Every Codex has a stinker. Assault marines are in the top 10 worst units though.
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight. there are more, at least ASM can DS onto objectives and are just Marines with FLY, Fly is a good Keyword.
Bharring wrote: They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.
They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.
\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1. Maybe a Gretchen is worse. Maybe a pathfinder. Maybe a tervigon. IDK. There are a lot of really bad units. Every Codex has a stinker. Assault marines are in the top 10 worst units though.
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight. there are more, at least ASM can DS onto objectives and are just Marines with FLY, Fly is a good Keyword.
Naming index units is kinda dishonest, and Assault Centurions are certainly better than Assault Marines.
"Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight
It's tough when arguing between two units that never see play what is worse, because what is worse has to be a measure of how playable it is.
In that regard, Wraithblades are definitely better than Assault Marines, as are most of the things in that list. Assault centurions might be worse, but it's difficult to make a case either way, because neither unit has a use case in the meta.
Bharring wrote: They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.
They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.
\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse?
Tactical Marines
Space Marine Assault Centurions
Tyrannocyte
Grey Knight Paladins
Primaris Reivers (Which perform the same role in the same faction!)
Eldar Nightspinner Tanks (think I got the name right...)
Space Marine Terminators
Eldar Avatar of Kaine
Chaos Space Marines
Space Marine Standard Dreadnought (seriously, 8 wounds and nearly impossible to hide behind terrain. Don't worry though, most configurations will cost more than the more survivable predator)
Assault marines could use a buff, but I think it's more a consequence of them using the overcosted tac marine for their base cost instead of anything wrong with the unit.
Bharring wrote: "Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight
Bharring wrote: They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.
They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.
\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse?
Tactical Marines
Space Marine Assault Centurions
Tyrannocyte
Grey Knight Paladins
Primaris Reivers (Which perform the same role in the same faction!)
Eldar Nightspinner Tanks (think I got the name right...)
Space Marine Terminators
Eldar Avatar of Kaine
Chaos Space Marines
Space Marine Standard Dreadnought (seriously, 8 wounds and nearly impossible to hide behind terrain. Don't worry though, most configurations will cost more than the more survivable predator)
Whoa, I flatly disagree with much of this.
For example, Reivers in the context of deathwatch aren't bad at all.
Bharring wrote: "Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight
Most are either the same book or an Eldar book (higher tier)
So two players each just pulled 10 different worse units out of the air. ASM are not bottom 10.
Sidenote: what makes Assault Cents better than ASM? I'd rather have the ASM, myself.
At least you can SFtS the Centurions for 3 Hurricane Bolters to the face.
Hope you can kill 243 points of models in one shot, because they aren't getting a second one. That's assuming you are using the stock flamers that won't get to overwatch if you fail the charge.
At their price, you're getting a 5-man ASM squad for every Centurion.
3 Hurricane Bolters are nice. 18-Naked-Tac-Marine nice. For a little more than 18 naked Tac Marines.
ASM have a huge mobility increase over Assault Cents. Don't get me wrong, there are things Assault Cents can do that ASM can't. They're very different units - you shouldn't be replacing one directly with the other. But there's a much wider array of things those ASM can do that those Cents can't.
Bharring wrote: "Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight
Most are either the same book or an Eldar book (higher tier)
So two players each just pulled 10 different worse units out of the air. ASM are not bottom 10.
Sidenote: what makes Assault Cents better than ASM? I'd rather have the ASM, myself.
At least you can SFtS the Centurions for 3 Hurricane Bolters to the face.
Hope you can kill 243 points of models in one shot, because they aren't getting a second one. That's assuming you are using the stock flamers that won't get to overwatch if you fail the charge.
Anything with that capability at range is gonna suffer the -1 to hit. Melee would be bad for them though. Ironically.
Bharring wrote: At their price, you're getting a 5-man ASM squad for every Centurion.
3 Hurricane Bolters are nice. 18-Naked-Tac-Marine nice. For a little more than 18 naked Tac Marines.
ASM have a huge mobility increase over Assault Cents. Don't get me wrong, there are things Assault Cents can do that ASM can't. They're very different units - you shouldn't be replacing one directly with the other. But there's a much wider array of things those ASM can do that those Cents can't.
You're only ever running them as Raven Guard. So for 1CP the mobility issue is non-existent.
Martel732 wrote: Units that only work for one chapter can never qualify as "good" to me. Or even "decent", really.
Marines only HAVE one Chapter that works, and that's Raven Guard.
I thought you moved to deathwatch because it wasn't working?
I'm talking about the Vanilla codex in this context. Only one Chapter works. Deathwatch isn't really a Chapter in the same context.
Yeah I moved to Deathwatch, but I'm looking to see what Space Wolves can offer. Outflanking Blood Claws might not be terrible as a distraction after all.
Bharring wrote: They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.
They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.
\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse?
Tactical Marines
Space Marine Assault Centurions
Tyrannocyte
Grey Knight Paladins
Primaris Reivers (Which perform the same role in the same faction!)
Eldar Nightspinner Tanks (think I got the name right...)
Space Marine Terminators
Eldar Avatar of Kaine
Chaos Space Marines
Space Marine Standard Dreadnought (seriously, 8 wounds and nearly impossible to hide behind terrain. Don't worry though, most configurations will cost more than the more survivable predator)
Assault marines could use a buff, but I think it's more a consequence of them using the overcosted tac marine for their base cost instead of anything wrong with the unit.
The 2 only unit on this list in the same ballpark as assault marines is the tyranocyte and the tactical marine - but the tac marines is clearly better than the ASM. Reivers and Night spinners aren't even bad - nor are dreads - they are close to being middle teir units.
Bharring wrote: "Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight
Most are either the same book or an Eldar book (higher tier)
So two players each just pulled 10 different worse units out of the air. ASM are not bottom 10.
Sidenote: what makes Assault Cents better than ASM? I'd rather have the ASM, myself.
At least half of those units don't even belong in a discussion about worst units in the game. LOL Falcons? Wraithblades? Incubi? Why would you want ASM over assault cents? Assault cents can do some real damage. They are actually one of the better units in the marine codex.
Martel732 wrote: Units that only work for one chapter can never qualify as "good" to me. Or even "decent", really.
Marines only HAVE one Chapter that works, and that's Raven Guard.
I thought you moved to deathwatch because it wasn't working?
I'm talking about the Vanilla codex in this context. Only one Chapter works. Deathwatch isn't really a Chapter in the same context.
Yeah I moved to Deathwatch, but I'm looking to see what Space Wolves can offer. Outflanking Blood Claws might not be terrible as a distraction after all.
I could be wrong but I see a lot of UM placing higher than RG in ITC rankings.
Martel732 wrote: Units that only work for one chapter can never qualify as "good" to me. Or even "decent", really.
Don't worry - dev cents are about 40 points overcosted base. They are actually worse than assault marines I am afraid. So I have to eat my words a bit here. I almost forget about dev cents they are so bad.
Martel732 wrote: Units that only work for one chapter can never qualify as "good" to me. Or even "decent", really.
Marines only HAVE one Chapter that works, and that's Raven Guard.
I thought you moved to deathwatch because it wasn't working?
I'm talking about the Vanilla codex in this context. Only one Chapter works. Deathwatch isn't really a Chapter in the same context.
Yeah I moved to Deathwatch, but I'm looking to see what Space Wolves can offer. Outflanking Blood Claws might not be terrible as a distraction after all.
I could be wrong but I see a lot of UM placing higher than RG in ITC rankings.
No you're seeing more Roboute in ITC rankings. He's the same crutch that Tyranid players had with Tyrants and Mawlocs. Nobody told Tyranid players to hush over their poorly balanced codex though!
Martel732 wrote: Units that only work for one chapter can never qualify as "good" to me. Or even "decent", really.
Marines only HAVE one Chapter that works, and that's Raven Guard.
I thought you moved to deathwatch because it wasn't working?
I'm talking about the Vanilla codex in this context. Only one Chapter works. Deathwatch isn't really a Chapter in the same context.
Yeah I moved to Deathwatch, but I'm looking to see what Space Wolves can offer. Outflanking Blood Claws might not be terrible as a distraction after all.
I could be wrong but I see a lot of UM placing higher than RG in ITC rankings.
Ultra marines is the best. They still are. The characters do it.
I can take calgar for a net gain of 5 cp on the guy who takes a captain and turns to chapter master. Calgar is also the best non guilliman assault unit in the codex - which helps because if he can defeat a deamon prince in CC where a Captain just gets folded over - that can win you a game. Also get the best warlord trait. 5+ to regen command points. Which if you get on a roll can mean calgar is fighting twice every turn. Get the best librairan. Not to mention guilliman himself - who isn't any good on a top table but has a newb stomper effect. The end result is space marines are a short range army and they do not benifit from -1 to hit like other armies do. RG basically have to throw the trait away to use their agressor and hellblaster infiltrations. Or they can play gunline with dreads and devestators - hate to break it to you - that army doesn't win.
Oh, I agree. Marines can't gunline past a certain point because other armies can do it better. Marines have to get close to work really well, which is why I tend to think Raven Guard is sort of a red herring.
Maybe run them as the gunline portion of an army, that could work. Personally I can't get past the not being able to shoot if touched thing. I'd rather eat a couple more casualties from gunfire but still be able to function after cc.
Xenomancers wrote: Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1.
Celestian. Imagine an assault marine. Now remove jump pack access, trade -1S -1T for +1A, and then replace the CCW with a bolter for that unit that just got the +1A because why the hell not?
Will you honestly tell me you improved those assault marines, lol ?
Oh I forgot. You also trade chapter tactics with stuff like “a 6++ save that is only useful against weapon with AP-4, because you will use the power armor save instead when AP is -3 or less, and you won't be able to use it against mortal wounds”, or even better , a rule that states that if the opponent has psykers (else the rule is useless), if those psykers have powers that are WC5 (any higher WC and the rule is useless), if those psykers roll exactly 5 when casting their powers (else the rule is useless), then you can dispel the power… if you roll a 6, that is.
NICE!
Xenomancers wrote: Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1.
Celestian. Imagine an assault marine. Now remove jump pack access, trade -1S -1T for +1A, and then replace the CCW with a bolter for that unit that just got the +1A because why the hell not?
Will you honestly tell me you improved those assault marines, lol ?
Oh I forgot. You also trade chapter tactics with stuff like “a 6++ save that is only useful against weapon with AP-4, because you will use the power armor save instead when AP is -3 or less, and you won't be able to use it against mortal wounds”, or even better , a rule that states that if the opponent has psykers (else the rule is useless), if those psykers have powers that are WC5 (any higher WC and the rule is useless), if those psykers roll exactly 5 when casting their powers (else the rule is useless), then you can dispel the power… if you roll a 6, that is.
NICE!
1. You'll get Chapter Tactic equivalents with the codex
2. You can give them all Storm Bolters can you not?
The reason I don't think points changes can fix everything is that sometimes a unit is just badly designed.
Most of the space Maine units are just terrible almost regardless of their points cost. All you have to do is look at what the same units were good at in previous editions to see that they really didn't make the transition into 8th very well at all.
Look at attack bikes. Previously, a multi-melta attack bike was a fast mobile unit capable of getting into melta range and potentially killing or significantly damaging a vehicle. In this edition, moving makes them hit on 4s, and you need an average of 3 unsaved multi-melta wounds to kill a rhino. You'd need 7 multi-melta attack bikes to make that happen right now. So the multi-melta attack bike is useless, not because of its points cost, but because it can no longer ever perform it's intended role in 8th edition. It's simply been left behind by the edition, to the point that I'm not sure there is any reasonable points level that would make them competitive. Even if the unit was 40 points I'm not sure anyone would want one.
A much better solution would be to give the bike special rules a allowing it to fire the weapon without penalty, and make multi-meltas scary enough that 1-2 attack bikes stood a chance of doing serious damage.
Martel732 wrote: Make them cheaper to reflect their poor design. Done. What is so hard here?
The fact that marines shouldn't be cheaper, they should be stronger.
I still think that both tactical and assault marines need to be improved in offense. T4 3+ is a good defensive stat at that cost if it is paired with an equivalent firepower.
If tacts and AM did actually hurt, they would be good.
Yeah. Or I can take the less expensive Sisters and get a 2 point reduction and Objective Secured instead, at the cost of only 3 storm bolters on a 5 women squad, and some useless CC buff for a unit that has s3 t3 no CCW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: A much better solution would be to give the bike special rules a allowing it to fire the weapon without penalty, and make multi-meltas scary enough that 1-2 attack bikes stood a chance of doing serious damage.
Melta weapons need a buff, hard. They now wound anything tougher than a marine on foot on a 3+, the enemy is now even more likely to have an invulnerable save AND an extra save, and to come with -1 to hit, and then if you somehow still manage to wound you won't one-shot things anymore...
People have laid out how there is no room to make them stronger. Primaris tried, and made them weaker.
Not really, sure they would not be on the higher end as far as durability, but marines are not intended to be bricks, they are meant to be elite shock troops. Like all shock troops, they should hit hard but bleed points faster than other alternatives. So, T4 3+ is fine, but they need to bring the hurt. This indirectly means increasing durability, since if they could have a decent damage, you would actually put them in tranports.
It's not true that there is no room to make them stronger, this is 8th edition, we have bespoken rules, let's use them. The one i proposed before for tacs would make the bolters stronger when in the hands of a tac squad of at least 5 members, which isn't even such an abstract rule since groups of marines implement fire patterns to optimize the firepower.
I think there is definitely design space. Most of the needed changes just involve giving Marines back the things 8th took away.
Letting them ignore the first point of AP would be effective and flavorful, letting them actually be sort of durable again.
Tacking the ultramarine trait onto ATSNKF and figuring out something else for UM to do (better overwatch, probably) would be fine, as it's pretty much exactly what ATSNKF used to do.
Giving Marines a flat extra attack wouldn't break anything. It's the same amount of attacks they used to have after charging. It would also buff SW but they also need one.
Space Maine vehicles could move and fire heavy weapons, and fall back and shoot at -1. It's still not as good as the fly that most other armies have.
Land raiders could move and allow units to disembark. They could do it in every edition before this, and it's basically a 300 point warp time.
Las and melta could do more damage, since SM are designed to bring these weapons in small numbers, and single shot weapons should be devastating when they do make it through. Having them do D6 but never less than 3-4 damage would be a good start. Making them a flat 5 probably wouldn't break anything either.
Rhinos could have fire points again.
Primaris could go into any transport but take up 2 spaces.
Bolters could be AP1.
Killshot could only require 2+ preds.
Vindicators could add D3 shots for every 5 models in the target unit, and cap at 5d3 (average of 10 shots vs units of 20+).
Terminators could ignore the penalties to hit for moving and shooting heavy weapons, or from using PF/TH.
Blood angels could have Assault Marines as troops.
Vanguard Vets could deepstrike closer to the enemy, or on the first turn regardless of the FAQ, or at least reroll charges, but only come in 5 man squads (to seperate them from assault Marines and avoid spam).
Sternguard could have real special ammo.
People have laid out how there is no room to make them stronger. Primaris tried, and made them weaker.
Not really, sure they would not be on the higher end as far as durability, but marines are not intended to be bricks, they are meant to be elite shock troops. Like all shock troops, they should hit hard but bleed points faster than other alternatives. So, T4 3+ is fine, but they need to bring the hurt. This indirectly means increasing durability, since if they could have a decent damage, you would actually put them in tranports.
It's not true that there is no room to make them stronger, this is 8th edition, we have bespoken rules, let's use them. The one i proposed before for tacs would make the bolters stronger when in the hands of a tac squad of at least 5 members, which isn't even such an abstract rule since groups of marines implement fire patterns to optimize the firepower.
Totally agree. To me Marines feel just about right in terms of how resilient they are; they just don’t kick out enough damage to have the impact they should for their points. Give them a boost in their basic offensive output (let them shoot bolt weapons twice and +1A to the basic Marine statline is my favoured solution, as this helps out Tacs, Assault Marines, and Terminators all in one go) and I think they’d be ok. They *should* be reasonably solid against light arms fire, they *should* take a pasting from dedicated anti-armour weaponry, but they *should* be able to chew through inferior, more numerous infantry without sweating it too hard.
Martel732 wrote: Marines have never really been good at " bringing the hurt" since 3rd, imo. Their offense/pt has been bad for a while now.
Deffo agree. Having just done the numbers, letting Tactical Marines shoot bolters twice and giving them two attacks brings them somewhat in line – in terms of offensive output against infantry – with the equivalent points’ worth of Guardsmen.Even if they got this, I think there’s potentially still an argument for dropping them to 12pts. I’d really like to see something like this as it stops your standard Marines being nothing more than a delivery method / bullet magnet for heavy/special weapons
Automatically Appended Next Post: I know I’ve slightly digressed from the Assault Marine topic, but I think they’d feel more like they should if they could fire twice with their Bolt pistols, then get 3A with chainswords (it even makes the Eviscerator worth taking on a regular guy as he’d get 2 attacks)
"Units that only work for one chapter can never qualify as "good" to me. Or even "decent", really."
Except Alaitoc. Because knifeears.
"You're only ever running them as Raven Guard. So for 1CP the mobility issue is non-existent."
For a heavy gun unit, sure. For a mobile skirmisher/bully hell no. Mobility is crucial for that role, long after deployment.
"Why would you want ASM over assault cents? Assault cents can do some real damage."
Sure, Assault Cents can do damage. But you don't take ASM for damage. Very different role.
"Wraithblades"
Because Termies work well when you're not Marines. Sure, they're 3W T6, but they're also 3+ 7++, no native DS, no guns.
"Incubi"
Because everybody loves running VV on foot giving everyone a power weapon (and no stormshield). That's basically what Incubi are. They certainly hit harder than ASM. But they don't move like ASM. And they're even less durable.
"Falcons"
Lets go ahead and drop the QuadLas pred's firepower by half - that's fair if we cut it's price by 25%, right? It's not a terrible unit, I could be persuaded that I was wrong on this specific one (so we're down to only a couple dozen worse units listed)?
"NightSpinner"
What makes you think that gak is mid tier?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do think Marines could really use 2A base across the board. And ASM/Tacs 11ppm base.
Yeah. Or I can take the less expensive Sisters and get a 2 point reduction and Objective Secured instead, at the cost of only 3 storm bolters on a 5 women squad, and some useless CC buff for a unit that has s3 t3 no CCW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: A much better solution would be to give the bike special rules a allowing it to fire the weapon without penalty, and make multi-meltas scary enough that 1-2 attack bikes stood a chance of doing serious damage.
Melta weapons need a buff, hard. They now wound anything tougher than a marine on foot on a 3+, the enemy is now even more likely to have an invulnerable save AND an extra save, and to come with -1 to hit, and then if you somehow still manage to wound you won't one-shot things anymore...
I'd rather take 5 Storm Bolters than an Assault Marine squad. I'm not even sure why this would be a conversation.
"Why would you want ASM over assault cents? Assault cents can do some real damage."
Sure, Assault Cents can do damage. But you don't take ASM for damage. Very different role.
And for that role Vanguard are 2 points more to do it more effectively.
Insectum7 wrote: Assault marines have the maneuverability to aggressively tie up units for 2 points cheaper than VV.
And then do less damage for the points and then the unit falls back and then your unit gets shot.
So at that point you NEED to do damage. Assault Marines don't cut it whatsoever. At least Vanguard can do a bunch more before dying.
You aren't gonna be using 10 points for anything you didn't already buy anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Again, with the "VV are currently more cost effective at this" - why does that mean ASM will never be more cost effective.
Further, VV being better than ASM don't make ASM worse than other units that are worse than VV.
I'm not sure what the value of that statement was, if any.
Because it's literally a 2 point difference for that much of a difference in effectiveness. One unit is already doing the job and doing it better. Why are you taking the lesser option? Vanguard aren't even that great either! So why would you spend 10 points less for a squad that's WAY worse in performance?
So Assault Marines are a badly designed unit AND ineffective due to other options.
I dunno. ASM do a lot more damage/point to most non-fly vehicles. Not so much in terms of HP damage, but in terms of shutting them down or forcing their hands.
Not every unit in the game contributes just dakka (range or CC) to the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Slayer,
The discussion is how many points ASM *should* be. Not how many points they are.
Unless you're talking about units "worse than ASM". At which point, there are a gakton more units more overshandowed in their respective codexes than ASM. 2ppm difference vs what you get isn't good, sure. But there are many other units that pay as much or more points for even *less* than offenders in their dexes.
Because, by that metric, we can add Conscripts and Vets and Dire Avengers and Vypers and Hornets and War Walkers and Wraithlords and... well far too many units that are more overshadowed than ASM. "Trash" doesn't mean "My dex has better options".
Bharring wrote: "Units that only work for one chapter can never qualify as "good" to me. Or even "decent", really."
Except Alaitoc. Because knifeears.
"You're only ever running them as Raven Guard. So for 1CP the mobility issue is non-existent."
For a heavy gun unit, sure. For a mobile skirmisher/bully hell no. Mobility is crucial for that role, long after deployment.
"Why would you want ASM over assault cents? Assault cents can do some real damage."
Sure, Assault Cents can do damage. But you don't take ASM for damage. Very different role.
"Wraithblades"
Because Termies work well when you're not Marines. Sure, they're 3W T6, but they're also 3+ 7++, no native DS, no guns.
"Incubi"
Because everybody loves running VV on foot giving everyone a power weapon (and no stormshield). That's basically what Incubi are. They certainly hit harder than ASM. But they don't move like ASM. And they're even less durable.
"Falcons"
Lets go ahead and drop the QuadLas pred's firepower by half - that's fair if we cut it's price by 25%, right? It's not a terrible unit, I could be persuaded that I was wrong on this specific one (so we're down to only a couple dozen worse units listed)?
"NightSpinner"
What makes you think that gak is mid tier?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do think Marines could really use 2A base across the board. And ASM/Tacs 11ppm base.
Would it suprise you that the night spinner is actually one of the most efficient sources of damage in the eldar arsenal? Why doesn't it get played? Because why would you ever take it over a firm prism which has access to one of the best stratagems in the game? I play it for fun sometimes - really underrated unit. It's certainly not a top 10 worst units. Some units have high invo saves - Great at killing bike units - basically worth shooting at anything that isn't t8.
Wraith Blades are an undesirable unit because spears do more damage (than anything in the game) and have 4x the mobility - they certainly are tough with t6 3W 4++ Tougher than custodians and cost less. Their weapons are really what is lacking but they will tear up infantry though. The key thing here is t6 is a great toughness breakpoint. str 3 wounds on 6 str 5 wounds on 5 - very few weapons are good at killing this unit.
Listing a bunch of units that aren't actually bottom 10 isn't an arguement. To be bottom 10 you have to suck at everything for your cost. Storm gaurdians are a bad unit and dev cents and tactical marines are the only units listed that belonged on a top 10 units list.
I dunno, 140 points for 2d6 S7 AP0 D1 shots with pseudorending? Not terrible. Do you know how much Marines pay for 4d3 S7 AP-2 D1 shots? With the option to overheat, signum, and cheribum?
Nightspinner has it's uses, although it's outclassed by other units. ASM has it's uses, although it's outclassed by other units.
Wraithblades? Sure, T6 helps - makes Lasguns wound on 6s! Which is great! Except you're still dying to Lasguns faster than Termies. For more points. Yes, even with 3W. Like Termies, they have their use. But it's not Shining Spears that keep them from the table - it's because nobody wants Termie-style units. Remove Shining Spears, and Wraithblades don't take their place.
If you think no weapons are good at killing them, you've never seen Plasma - overcharged or not.
I never tried to list the 10 worst units in the game. I was just listing 10 units worse than ASM. My point is ASM are bad, but not worst-10 bad.
Insectum7 wrote: Assault marines have the maneuverability to aggressively tie up units for 2 points cheaper than VV.
And then do less damage for the points and then the unit falls back and then your unit gets shwnot.
So at that point you NEED to do damage. Assault Marines don't cut it whatsoever. At least Vanguard can do a bunch more before dying.
Stopping a unit (or two) from shooting, and then taking more firepower from even more units is a job well done. How many points can this measly little unit tear away from shooting your other units?
Vanguard might do an extra wound or two. Yay. Unless you upgrade them for even more points, in which case you've got very different units again.
... I did a mathfail. Wraithguard aren't actually dying twice as fast to Lasguns as Termies. Still, I'm not seeing Wraithguard as more effective than ASM.
They are a bit too much, I agree. Definitely more than 6 though. They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.
They are a bit too much, I agree. Definitely more than 6 though. They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.
Even that would be kinda high for what they are ATM. Two S4 attacks in CC is just not worth 14 points. Well tying stuff up dose add some value even at 14 points a head that still to expensive just to stop one unit from shooting.
They are a bit too much, I agree. Definitely more than 6 though. They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.
Even that would be kinda high for what they are ATM. Two S4 attacks in CC is just not worth 14 points. Well tying stuff up dose add some value even at 14 points a head that still to expensive just to stop one unit from shooting.
They are a bit too much, I agree. Definitely more than 6 though. They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.
Even that would be kinda high for what they are ATM. Two S4 attacks in CC is just not worth 14 points. Well tying stuff up dose add some value even at 14 points a head that still to expensive just to stop one unit from shooting.
Multicharge?
So you'd multicharge and then still do less damage for the points compared to Vanguard?
JNAProductions wrote: I’m curious if the damage per point of VVs is worth it against, say, Leeann Russes.
Because stopping them from shooting? Very useful. But neither unit will do much damage against them.
Well VV just do 100% more damage for 2 points so even if it is VS a russ the opportunity cost of being able to hurt something else in CC a bit should the option come up kinda makes it hard to justify them.
JNAProductions wrote: I’m curious if the damage per point of VVs is worth it against, say, Leeann Russes.
Because stopping them from shooting? Very useful. But neither unit will do much damage against them.
Well VV just do 100% more damage for 2 points so even if it is VS a russ the opportunity cost of being able to hurt something else in CC a bit should the option come up kinda makes it hard to justify them.
Hmm. My experience is that most of the damage by AM is made by the melta bomb sergeant, something the VV can't use. But what you say is probably true against light infantry or even MEQ (if your VV take some power weapons)
How do you expect to get either Assault Marines or VV into combat with a Leman Russ? Any decent army is going to have screens, so I think you can only reasonably compare their effectiveness against screens, and VV are way better at it.
Both units need to see taken back to the drawing board and have enough changes made to them via special rules that they are useful in different situations now that VV aren't limited to the elite slot and assault Marines can't ever be troops.
jcd386 wrote: How do you expect to get either Assault Marines or VV into combat with a Leman Russ? Any decent army is going to have screens, so I think you can only reasonably compare their effectiveness against screens, and VV are way better at it.
Both units need to see taken back to the drawing board and have enough changes made to them via special rules that they are useful in different situations now that VV aren't limited to the elite slot and assault Marines can't ever be troops.
By flying over the screens? You do realize you have like 1800-1900 points of shooting to blast a hole in the screen before your charge and you can fly over the ragged remains yes? That's literally covered earlier in the thread where I explain how I do the exact same thing with Seraphim.
Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.
Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.
Xenomancers wrote: Can we stop defending bad units? The whole marine line needs repricing.
The whole marine line should have matched Primaris stats from the beginning with 2 attacks and 2 wounds. Easier to price that out without racing to the bottom and turning them into a bloody horde army.
Horde is the way to go in 8th. Actually fielding quality is usually a liability until you get up to DG and Custodes levels of durability. Currently, I think primaris marines are WORSE than old marines due to the prevalence of 2 damage and D3 damage weapons.
Guys I keep coming back around to this idea...Assault Marines...should have (wait for it...) Assault weapons. But again, that requires a full redesign.
Martel732 wrote: Horde is the way to go in 8th. Actually fielding quality is usually a liability until you get up to DG and Custodes levels of durability. Currently, I think primaris marines are WORSE than old marines due to the prevalence of 2 damage and D3 damage weapons.
The most prevalent source of 2 damage weaponry is plasma, and plasma kills normal expensive 1 wound marines just as quickly as it does Primaris. But with only 1 wound, they fall even faster to attrition fire as well. At their current 16 ppm, if they were blessed with 3 A and 2 W, they'd be much better than they currently are even with 2 damage weaponry everywhere. Doesn't matter if that extra point of damage is wasted - they're still dead. This boogeyman of 2 damage weaponry is overplayed.
And all I can say to those who can't use a fly unit to surround models and prevent falling back - play these scenarios out solo to get better at positioning. To those that let drop plasma land in rapid fire range - learn from these mistakes and screen out better.
Marines should be more durable than they are - yes, and they should be priced based on THAT. Maybe that comes from more auras from underutilized buff characters (marines love them auras), or maybe it comes from a statline upgrade. Either way, they should not be made into another fotm horde army. There's a midpoint between what they are now and where Custodes are - and they should fit into that spot. Not as killy, not as durable, but still elite and still durable.
Xenomancers wrote: Can we stop defending bad units? The whole marine line needs repricing.
The whole marine line should have matched Primaris stats from the beginning with 2 attacks and 2 wounds. Easier to price that out without racing to the bottom and turning them into a bloody horde army.
"The most prevalent source of 2 damage weaponry is plasma"
No, it's not. It's a menagerie of weapons. Most notably, the insane disintegrator cannon. Also, look at a single riptide plus missilesides. It's insane.
I'd rather give up fewer points to these weapons than try to defend against them. Because you really can't.
Martel732 wrote: Horde is the way to go in 8th. Actually fielding quality is usually a liability until you get up to DG and Custodes levels of durability. Currently, I think primaris marines are WORSE than old marines due to the prevalence of 2 damage and D3 damage weapons.
The most prevalent source of 2 damage weaponry is plasma, and plasma kills normal expensive 1 wound marines just as quickly as it does Primaris. But with only 1 wound, they fall even faster to attrition fire as well. At their current 16 ppm, if they were blessed with 3 A and 2 W, they'd be much better than they currently are even with 2 damage weaponry everywhere. Doesn't matter if that extra point of damage is wasted - they're still dead. This boogeyman of 2 damage weaponry is overplayed.
And all I can say to those who can't use a fly unit to surround models and prevent falling back - play these scenarios out solo to get better at positioning. To those that let drop plasma land in rapid fire range - learn from these mistakes and screen out better.
Marines should be more durable than they are - yes, and they should be priced based on THAT. Maybe that comes from more auras from underutilized buff characters (marines love them auras), or maybe it comes from a statline upgrade. Either way, they should not be made into another fotm horde army. There's a midpoint between what they are now and where Custodes are - and they should fit into that spot. Not as killy, not as durable, but still elite and still durable.
You seem reasonable.
What do you think about this?
Tac Marine - 14 points 2W 2A
Assault marine (jump packs) - 17 points 2W 2A
Primaris marine - 20 points 3W 2A - Stalker bolters buffed to have sniper rule at +3 points - assault bolters go to Assault 3 for +0 points - bolt rifles do double damage on 6's
VV - 21 points (jump packs) 2W 3A - special rule that they can deep strike within 6" of any friendly unit that started on the table (sterngaurd get the same statline for the same points)
Terminators - 25 points 3W 3A - Ignore negative modifiers to hit (including any terminator armor unit)
Scouts don't change at all
Chapter tactics affect all space marine units
Martel732 wrote: "The most prevalent source of 2 damage weaponry is plasma"
No, it's not. It's a menagerie of weapons. Most notably, the insane disintegrator cannon. Also, look at a single riptide plus missilesides. It's insane.
I'd rather give up fewer points to these weapons than try to defend against them. Because you really can't.
Yeah really - d2 or higher is pretty standard on more than half the weapons in most lists. Or the weapon has huge rate of fire or even worse it has both. Heck for 174 points I can take an IK Helverine with 4d3 str 7 ap-1 flat 3 damage. FFS that is less than a 10 man primaris marine unit. Flat multi damage is not rare in the least. Flat multi damage is the best stat a weapon can have too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Scouts are too expensive at 11 ppm. They should cost the same as sisters.
I really don't care about scouts but I agree - they are lackluster at their point cost. I just don't want to get in an arguement over scouts actaully being "good" units because they show up in tournament lists with BA. I'll just come out and end that right now. Scouts show up in tournament lists because 120 point smash captain that can 1 shot 600 point units is good - the scouts are a worthwhile tax to get that plus some CP - they aren't worth in in basically any other situation.
Yeah this is the problem I have with Xenomancers suggestions. It's not that I don't think they are reasonable in a vaccuum; I do. It's the problem with the trickle down/adjustment of every other codex that would be required. Adjusting PPM is the only way to handle the balance intra-codex. If you buff them the way Xeno suggests, you have to go back and redo Crisis Suits, GK Terms, Chaos Terms, Custodes, etc. That's not an errata, that's a new edition.
Well it would be pretty redundant for them to have that - marker lights already give them all kinds of buffs. I agree though - crisis suits need a lot of help. If their points are to remain the same - I'd probably say. 3+BS standard - and possibly some sort of mobility rule like they had before. Can move d6 inches after they shoot. That would be justified at their points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rocmistro wrote: Yeah this is the problem I have with Xenomancers suggestions. It's not that I don't think they are reasonable in a vaccuum; I do. It's the problem with the trickle down/adjustment of every other codex that would be required. Adjusting PPM is the only way to handle the balance intra-codex. If you buff them the way Xeno suggests, you have to go back and redo Crisis Suits, GK Terms, Chaos Terms, Custodes, etc. That's not an errata, that's a new edition.
Oh I am totally in support of anything including a redesign of a unit that see's no play. It is really not a difficult as anyone suggests. It's as simple as this. Take the vanilla tac/assaul/and terminator platforms given the base cost i posted above. Figure the % difference in price change and put it flat across every similar unit in CSM and BA/ DA/ ect. fix the stats/ fix the points. Examine special rules and affects on the new stat line and price accordingly.
Terms that already have 3W get 4 and go up in points slightly more.
Units that already have + base attacks get +2 instead of +1 and cost slightly more.
Units that have a base defensive stat like 5+++ cost slightly more.
I could literally figure these changes in a day. Get a group of 10 people together to test them and look for game breaking interactions in a week. Fix every trash marine unit in the process.
We could do this for every army. Not saying marines are the only ones in a bad spot right now. It's just they are first on my priority list because the tactical in power armor being the base unit for 75% of the entries in these armies - it basically means 75% of these books are trash.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.
Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.
LOL.
We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.
This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.
Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.
LOL.
We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.
This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.
Patently absurd. First of all - we are talking about turn 2 here. The majority of units in range to shoot gaurdsmen just got blown up by manticores and russes and basalisks. Yeah - the VV/DC/ or whatever can deepstrike and charge over a gap in the line now...but they can't charge the tanks till turn 3.
Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN. We are talking about super efficient units vs super not efficient units.
It's like saying an f-15 can take on an f-22. Or saying you can beat an average dice with a dice that is programmed to roll 2's. NO. It wont - you cant.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.
Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.
LOL.
We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.
This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.
Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN.
And now we've reached the height of absurdity, where people are claiming things that can be proven as demonstrably untrue with only a single counter-example as ground truth.
Glad to see you're up to have a reasoned, fact-informed, sensible discussion, instead of assuming the conclusion and then twisting the entire discussion to match your conclusion. Assuming the conclusion before making the argument is a fallacy called 'question begging', not that you actually care since facts and truth have little purchase on your mind, apparently.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.
Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.
LOL.
We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.
This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.
Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN.
And now we've reached the height of absurdity, where people are claiming things that can be proven as demonstrably untrue with only a single counter-example as ground truth.
Glad to see you're up to have a reasoned, fact-informed, sensible discussion, instead of assuming the conclusion and then twisting the entire discussion to match your conclusion. Assuming the conclusion before making the argument is a fallacy called 'question begging', not that you actually care since facts and truth have little purchase on your mind, apparently.
You are suffering from denial I think. You are talking about scenerios that don't take place. Somehow 1500 points of BA with 500 points of jump packs in reserve is going to outshout IG turn 1. Then turn 2 you are going to charge over 60 remaining gaurdsmen to attack tanks. I suppect you play against some really bad players that don't know how to stagger units or how to position. Plus since we are basically list countering - I am assuming this IG player has a few sentinels and hellhounds on his front line pushing back your deepstrikers even farther. This is an absolutely joke to even talk about a space marine army beating guard.
"Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN."
Seeing as it literally happens on a daily basis, this is just crazy talk.
IG seem to win more often than Marines, currently, sure. But to say SM can't win is just stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "We could do this for every army. Not saying marines are the only ones in a bad spot right now. It's just they are first on my priority list because the tactical in power armor being the base unit for 75% of the entries in these armies - it basically means 75% of these books are trash."
The definition of Codex Creep. You "fix" a book, making it better than everything else. Then you "fix" the next one. Repeat ad nausium. At least everyone gets a turn on top, but most players get boned 90% of the time this way.
You can effortlessly tailor a marines list to beat Imperial Guard. It will get crushed - absolutely crushed - in a take-all-comers scenario.
However, to beat them, you won't be bringing assault elements. That isn't how you beat guard. Which is kind of what the discussion is really about. People want to use their assault marines and assault units, and are frustrated those units are essentially turned off by Guard - and other armies - in 8th edition. To that end, complaining solely about Guard is probably what you guys don't like, because Tau turn off assault even harder than Guard do.
Yes, you can load a list up with Raven Guard lascannons and probably beat Guard. Bring a couple Xiphons to deal with artillery that is out of LOS. It can be done. There are solid elements to a marines list, and they begin and end with Forgeworld, for the most part.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.
Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.
LOL.
We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.
This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.
It's not rudimentary. The Russ is physically out of charge range against people who know what they are doing. Maybe if the battle cannon had a range of say 36" instead of 72", what you say might be possible. And, yes, please don't post again. By all means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN."
Seeing as it literally happens on a daily basis, this is just crazy talk.
IG seem to win more often than Marines, currently, sure. But to say SM can't win is just stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "We could do this for every army. Not saying marines are the only ones in a bad spot right now. It's just they are first on my priority list because the tactical in power armor being the base unit for 75% of the entries in these armies - it basically means 75% of these books are trash."
The definition of Codex Creep. You "fix" a book, making it better than everything else. Then you "fix" the next one. Repeat ad nausium. At least everyone gets a turn on top, but most players get boned 90% of the time this way.
Marines can beat them, but not using the outlined method.
Bharring wrote: "Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN."
Seeing as it literally happens on a daily basis, this is just crazy talk.
IG seem to win more often than Marines, currently, sure. But to say SM can't win is just stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "We could do this for every army. Not saying marines are the only ones in a bad spot right now. It's just they are first on my priority list because the tactical in power armor being the base unit for 75% of the entries in these armies - it basically means 75% of these books are trash."
The definition of Codex Creep. You "fix" a book, making it better than everything else. Then you "fix" the next one. Repeat ad nausium. At least everyone gets a turn on top, but most players get boned 90% of the time this way.
I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level.
No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided. They both outshoot and out assault space marines.
You realize with a priest and straken a 4 point catachan has 3 str 4 attacks for 4 gakking points. Please - tell me how a marine player can beat that. He's spending 16 points for 2 str 4 attacks from an assault marine. In case you can't count. That is 600% more damage and each squad can fight TWICE - 1200% damage! On top of shooting better. IG players just make me laugh.
"I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
That's how it usually goes. The result, when groups aim at that using the one-book-at-a-time approach combined with a shortsightedness when balancing that "one book" is almost always power creep.
"No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided."
Funny. Then I guess everyone who's ever claimed to see SM win is a liar. You aren't claiming SM usually lose to IG, or odds are will lose a game - you're claming them winning never happens. Very different claim.
More to the point, I prevent the other local BA guy from ever assaulting my souped IG tanks by careful positioning of disposable gaks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
That's how it usually goes. The result, when groups aim at that using the one-book-at-a-time approach combined with a shortsightedness when balancing that "one book" is almost always power creep.
"No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided."
Funny. Then I guess everyone who's ever claimed to see SM win is a liar. You aren't claiming SM usually lose to IG, or odds are will lose a game - you're claming them winning never happens. Very different claim.
Yes, it's obvious. Take a Bobby G party, and then have the IG player roll cold on his turn 1. GG, imperial guard. IG can afford multiple turns of cold rolling vs assault; they can delay them for a long time. They only need one hot turn, and the game is over for melee power armor.
Bharring wrote: "I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
That's how it usually goes. The result, when groups aim at that using the one-book-at-a-time approach combined with a shortsightedness when balancing that "one book" is almost always power creep.
"No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided."
Funny. Then I guess everyone who's ever claimed to see SM win is a liar. You aren't claiming SM usually lose to IG, or odds are will lose a game - you're claming them winning never happens. Very different claim.
I win a lot with space marines and I am not a liar. Wins vs IG are impossible if not for abnormally bad dice for the IG player. Ofc anything can win - What I am saying that the odds are very much against it and fundamentally the marine has 0 advantage in the game. There is nothing to suggest that they should win. It's kind of like suggesting that soldiers have a good chance at charging and destroying a machine gun nest or bunker with a grenade running enfilade up a beach. No - they don't. If your only hope is that the IG player doesn't roll average for you to lose half your amry turn 1 (because marines do not have defense against powerful shooting and overpay for EVERYTHING). There is no point in even playing that game.
I can't imagine a worse matchup for marines. Maybe harlequins is actually worse.
Also - how exactly are we to discuss changes to any unit if you have to also include the 40-50 other changes that have to happen as a result? Just assume that what I say is genuine - every unit that needs help will get help. Lets focus on the topic at hand.
Also - for the purposes of this discussion I exclude forge world options because - that is not the space marine codex. It is quite possible that some marine forge world option actaully need nerfs. IDGAF about them because #1 I am not paying 3x the cost for a crappy resin model that comes delivered warped AF. #2 Forge world has a bad stigma for P2W and I like to avoid that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: More to the point, I prevent the other local BA guy from ever assaulting my souped IG tanks by careful positioning of disposable gaks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
That's how it usually goes. The result, when groups aim at that using the one-book-at-a-time approach combined with a shortsightedness when balancing that "one book" is almost always power creep.
"No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided."
Funny. Then I guess everyone who's ever claimed to see SM win is a liar. You aren't claiming SM usually lose to IG, or odds are will lose a game - you're claming them winning never happens. Very different claim.
Yes, it's obvious. Take a Bobby G party, and then have the IG player roll cold on his turn 1. GG, imperial guard. IG can afford multiple turns of cold rolling vs assault; they can delay them for a long time. They only need one hot turn, and the game is over for melee power armor.
The game is over in 1 turn for shooty power armor too if IG have 1 hot turn. Space marines get a hot turn and wow...they still have enough firepower to table me next turn still...not very impressive.
"I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
You're arguing that a specific army be brought up to what you believe to be the overall power level. And that you'll, then, do the other armies.
The problem is, a lot of your claims either strongly suggest you'd make whichever book you're looking at OP, or that you don't have the depth of understanding needed to accomplish such a feat. It requires a great deal of finesse and understanding of the finer points and intricacies.
"Just assume that what I say is genuine - every unit that needs help will get help. Lets focus on the topic at hand."
If every unit that needs help gets help, then you either do a perfect job in a single pass (incredibly unlikely), or is textbook power creep. It requires more discretion than "Buff units until they're good".
"how exactly are we to discuss changes to any unit if you have to also include the 40-50 other changes that have to happen as a result?"
Interpolation.
First, the range. You don't bring everything up to the top. You try to trim everything to the middle. You don't hit everything that isn't #1. You hit the top 10%-ish and buff the bottom 10%-ish. This maximizes your return on balance for the effort expended, and lends itself to more of a lightest-touch fix.
Second, scope of the change. Don't invent new rules where you don't have to. Points should be the primary balancer. Common stats that make sense should be used over more complex rules. And soforth. The more creative you get, the more likely you'll screw up.
Bharring wrote: "I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
You're arguing that a specific army be brought up to what you believe to be the overall power level. And that you'll, then, do the other armies.
The problem is, a lot of your claims either strongly suggest you'd make whichever book you're looking at OP, or that you don't have the depth of understanding needed to accomplish such a feat. It requires a great deal of finesse and understanding of the finer points and intricacies.
"Just assume that what I say is genuine - every unit that needs help will get help. Lets focus on the topic at hand."
If every unit that needs help gets help, then you either do a perfect job in a single pass (incredibly unlikely), or is textbook power creep. It requires more discretion than "Buff units until they're good".
"how exactly are we to discuss changes to any unit if you have to also include the 40-50 other changes that have to happen as a result?"
Interpolation.
First, the range. You don't bring everything up to the top. You try to trim everything to the middle. You don't hit everything that isn't #1. You hit the top 10%-ish and buff the bottom 10%-ish. This maximizes your return on balance for the effort expended, and lends itself to more of a lightest-touch fix.
Second, scope of the change. Don't invent new rules where you don't have to. Points should be the primary balancer. Common stats that make sense should be used over more complex rules. And soforth. The more creative you get, the more likely you'll screw up.
Well this is where we disagree. My idea is to balance to the top. Because that is what happens in every other game I play and it will piss off the fewest people. If this is the only place we disagree - then great! We should have no trouble identifying the problem units (the good and the bad) that need to be adjusted. The thing is I don't think there is any benefit to adjusting to the middle because #1 we already have lots of playtest data in tournaments using the best rules (we have none for the middle). #2 Nerfing units has a much worse affect on customer satisfaction than buffs. Everyone. Loves. Buffs.
The problem with buffing to the top is that you're not perfect. Nobody is. Your fixes are going to have variance.
If the best thing is model A, and we consdier that to be at 100 right now, after you redesign the first book, most might be right around there, but some will be at 95, others will be at 105.
Now you fix the second book. You're aiming for 105 - because that's top. Some things will be 100, but just as many will be 110.
And now model A is trash. The meta is now clearly better than it. So you have to rebalance it.
Round and round it goes. Each round gets stronger.
Side note - if you're only interested in buffing the bad stuff, not the middle stuff, why focus so much on a mid-tier codex?
Bharring wrote: The problem with buffing to the top is that you're not perfect. Nobody is. Your fixes are going to have variance.
If the best thing is model A, and we consdier that to be at 100 right now, after you redesign the first book, most might be right around there, but some will be at 95, others will be at 105.
Now you fix the second book. You're aiming for 105 - because that's top. Some things will be 100, but just as many will be 110.
And now model A is trash. The meta is now clearly better than it. So you have to rebalance it.
Round and round it goes. Each round gets stronger.
Side note - if you're only interested in buffing the bad stuff, not the middle stuff, why focus so much on a mid-tier codex?
Is the alternative to do nothing?
I think you have to:
1. Buff the bad stuff / nerf the not fun stuff, as conservatively as possible.
2. See what those changes did to the game
3. Fix any unforeseen issues
4. Repeat until the game is "perfect"
I don't see how moving towards a better game isn't always going to be better, and you can't only get there with nerfs 100% of the time.
Marines are marines though, GW are trying to balance so I don't think we'll be crap for long. GW will either change the points or come up with something stupid like formations again.
Necrons seem pretty bad. Tau are pretty bad. And that's about it for real factions. with out getting into the different colors of power armor.
Tau are upper-middle tier.
Tier A
Knight Soup
Custodes Soup
Eldar Soup
Tier B
Chaos Soup (includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (Soup, and Mono)
Tier C
Admech & Knights
Space Marines
Tyranids
Tier D
Necrons
Orks
Pure knights is still top teir dude. You can easily get 12 starting CP. More than enough to keep a knight at full invo - and resurrect dead knights Or power up a Castellan. CP in general are overrated in this sense. If you build a list to use certain stratagems on certain turns. You simply do not need more than this. Knights are OP on their own.
Necrons seem pretty bad. Tau are pretty bad. And that's about it for real factions. with out getting into the different colors of power armor.
Tau are upper-middle tier.
Tier A
Knight Soup
Custodes Soup
Eldar Soup
Tier B
Chaos Soup (includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (Soup, and Mono)
Tier C
Admech & Knights
Space Marines
Tyranids
Tier D
Necrons
Orks
Pure knights is still top teir dude. You can easily get 12 starting CP. More than enough to keep a knight at full invo - and resurrect dead knights Or power up a Castellan. CP in general are overrated in this sense. If you build a list to use certain stratagems on certain turns. You simply do not need more than this. Knights are OP on their own.
How do you get 12 CP with pure knights best I can do is 6 since even the cheapest knight that makes CP the gallant is 350 points min. I mean I know my knight list has 11 but it has around 350 points of space marines to fill out a battalion.
assault marines are 13 points without jetpack? and you want them to be 5-6 points around guardsmen and Orcs points?
No offence but I personal find that a bit stupid, dropping a model with 3+ ws/bs, with 4S/T, 7 LD and a 3+ sv to around a model with 4+ws/bs, 3S/T, 6LD and 5+ sv points level sounds unbalanced.
mew28 wrote: How do you get 12 CP with pure knights best I can do is 6 since even the cheapest knight that makes CP the gallant is 350 points min. I mean I know my knight list has 11 but it has around 350 points of space marines to fill out a battalion.
Gallants and helverins presumably. 4 gallant, 2 helverin. 3 gallant into 1 det(6CP), rest into other(3CP). 1764 pts. Not that it would be particularly effective list though...So claiming they get that "easily" is misleading.
mew28 wrote: How do you get 12 CP with pure knights best I can do is 6 since even the cheapest knight that makes CP the gallant is 350 points min. I mean I know my knight list has 11 but it has around 350 points of space marines to fill out a battalion.
Gallants and helverins presumably. 4 gallant, 2 helverin. 3 gallant into 1 det(6CP), rest into other(3CP). 1764 pts. Not that it would be particularly effective list though...So claiming they get that "easily" is misleading.
You can pretty much fit two gallants, two armigers, and two other knights at 2k without carapace weapons on all of them.
mew28 wrote: How do you get 12 CP with pure knights best I can do is 6 since even the cheapest knight that makes CP the gallant is 350 points min. I mean I know my knight list has 11 but it has around 350 points of space marines to fill out a battalion.
Gallants and helverins presumably. 4 gallant, 2 helverin. 3 gallant into 1 det(6CP), rest into other(3CP). 1764 pts. Not that it would be particularly effective list though...So claiming they get that "easily" is misleading.
You can pretty much fit two gallants, two armigers, and two other knights at 2k without carapace weapons on all of them.
Yeah so I wouldn't say that easy. 2 gallants when generally 1 is max that really benefits. Also dominus knights are pretty darn hard to fit. 3 gallant, castellan with 4 shieldbreakers(suboptimal), helverin and armiger juuuust about fits but 3 gallants...Bleh. Suboptimal castellan, bleh.
Yeah you can do it but "easily" is not a word I would choose for it.
Xenomancers wrote: Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN.
Lore-appropriate. Marines just don't have the numbers man. The marines are a scalpel and the Imperial Guard are an anvil. Ever tried to hit an anvil with a scalpel? Scalpel will break over the anvil EVERY. GODDAMN. TIME.
Necrons seem pretty bad. Tau are pretty bad. And that's about it for real factions. with out getting into the different colors of power armor.
Tau are upper-middle tier.
Tier A
Knight Soup
Custodes Soup
Eldar Soup
Tier B
Chaos Soup (includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (Soup, and Mono)
Tier C
Admech & Knights
Space Marines
Tyranids
Tier D
Necrons
Orks
Pure knights is still top teir dude. You can easily get 12 starting CP. More than enough to keep a knight at full invo - and resurrect dead knights Or power up a Castellan. CP in general are overrated in this sense. If you build a list to use certain stratagems on certain turns. You simply do not need more than this. Knights are OP on their own.
How do you get 12 CP with pure knights best I can do is 6 since even the cheapest knight that makes CP the gallant is 350 points min. I mean I know my knight list has 11 but it has around 350 points of space marines to fill out a battalion.
2 armigers and a galant
2 gallants and castellan
It's not the best list but its 12 CP.
Personally I have no issue with running 4 knights with just 9 CP That is a castellan 2 crusaders and a galant all with carapace weapons. I prefer to run with Guilliman though because of the reroll 1's aura.
mew28 wrote: How do you get 12 CP with pure knights best I can do is 6 since even the cheapest knight that makes CP the gallant is 350 points min. I mean I know my knight list has 11 but it has around 350 points of space marines to fill out a battalion.
Gallants and helverins presumably. 4 gallant, 2 helverin. 3 gallant into 1 det(6CP), rest into other(3CP). 1764 pts. Not that it would be particularly effective list though...So claiming they get that "easily" is misleading.
Gallants are probably the best unit in the IK codex (outside of Castellan) - so just spamming gallants can be really effective. They hit WAAAY under their point cost. Just won a 20 man 750 tornament with a gallant with relic missile launchers and 2 helverines. Gallant never died - he killed a crusader/ a warglaive and a helverine / a nurgle prince and put wounds on mortarian / and about 20 poor blood angels. In 3 games...the damage output is insane.
Xenomancers wrote: Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN.
Lore-appropriate. Marines just don't have the numbers man. The marines are a scalpel and the Imperial Guard are an anvil. Ever tried to hit an anvil with a scalpel? Scalpel will break over the anvil EVERY. GODDAMN. TIME.
I'm not sure what lore you have been reading. Space marines don't really lose - except to other marines.
More realistically though. Marines are a precision force that deploy with the element of surprise and shock and awe. Their use would be limited to destroying key enemy units or installations - though they probably would die in the process.
There would never be a situation where an army of marines would line up revolutionary war style and battle it out with 1000 times their number. You are right - there would be no point.
To state the obvious, assault marines are not a dedicated assault unit that is meant to beat up genestealers and so on. It is a "close quickly" unit meant to neutralize enemy ranged infantry like Guardsmen and Fire Warriors. .
They may or may not be overcosted, but that is the basis on which they should be judged. (and you can't mathhammer it either. Oh no!)
Xenomancers wrote: Space marines don't really lose - except to other marines.
I concede that marines are their own worst enemy. Like Chapter Master George snooze, half his chapter turns to Chaos, they exterminate themselves. Sad.
Alcibiades wrote: To state the obvious, assault marines are not a dedicated assault unit that is meant to beat up genestealers and so on. It is a "close quickly" unit meant to neutralize enemy ranged infantry like Guardsmen and Fire Warriors. .
They may or may not be overcosted, but that is the basis on which they should be judged. (and you can't mathhammer it either. Oh no!)
But they just don't work. They don't actually do any of those things with their current rules.
Without jump packs, they are worse than tactical Marines in almost every way (worse weapon options, not troops, about equivalent damage).
With jump packs, they can either drop in and have their flamers be out of range and hope to make 9" charge to tie something up, or charge them across the board for two turns to flamer and charge something. Neither of those options are very useful. When they do get into combat, 11 attacks doesn't really do anything meaningful (kills 3 guardsmen), and unless you can tripoint lock the unit you assaulted, they likely just fall back and kill you.
GW needs to look at units like assault Marines and give them special rules that let them actually complete their role, like a way to keep units in combat with them (like witches do), increased likelihood of making the initial charge (like demons have) or... anything.
Alcibiades wrote: To state the obvious, assault marines are not a dedicated assault unit that is meant to beat up genestealers and so on. It is a "close quickly" unit meant to neutralize enemy ranged infantry like Guardsmen and Fire Warriors. .
They may or may not be overcosted, but that is the basis on which they should be judged. (and you can't mathhammer it either. Oh no!)
But they just don't work. They don't actually do any of those things with their current rules.
Without jump packs, they are worse than tactical Marines in almost every way (worse weapon options, not troops, about equivalent damage).
With jump packs, they can either drop in and have their flamers be out of range and hope to make 9" charge to tie something up, or charge them across the board for two turns to flamer and charge something. Neither of those options are very useful. When they do get into combat, 11 attacks doesn't really do anything meaningful (kills 3 guardsmen), and unless you can tripoint lock the unit you assaulted, they likely just fall back and kill you.
GW needs to look at units like assault Marines and give them special rules that let them actually complete their role, like a way to keep units in combat with them (like witches do), increased likelihood of making the initial charge (like demons have) or... anything.
So. Would a universal rule change that disenfranchises people from ALWAYS retreating when charged basically fix the assault marines? Or would they remain just ass marines.
Something like:
Sweeping Advance - Cowardice inspires fresh fervour in the emperor's finest. Whenever an enemy unit falls back from < Assault Marines >, you may immediately strike again with this unit as if it were the fight phase. For every model killed this way, reduce their fall back distance by 1"; if no distance remains the fall back can no longer be made.
Alcibiades wrote: To state the obvious, assault marines are not a dedicated assault unit that is meant to beat up genestealers and so on. It is a "close quickly" unit meant to neutralize enemy ranged infantry like Guardsmen and Fire Warriors. .
They may or may not be overcosted, but that is the basis on which they should be judged. (and you can't mathhammer it either. Oh no!)
But they just don't work. They don't actually do any of those things with their current rules.
Without jump packs, they are worse than tactical Marines in almost every way (worse weapon options, not troops, about equivalent damage).
With jump packs, they can either drop in and have their flamers be out of range and hope to make 9" charge to tie something up, or charge them across the board for two turns to flamer and charge something. Neither of those options are very useful. When they do get into combat, 11 attacks doesn't really do anything meaningful (kills 3 guardsmen), and unless you can tripoint lock the unit you assaulted, they likely just fall back and kill you.
GW needs to look at units like assault Marines and give them special rules that let them actually complete their role, like a way to keep units in combat with them (like witches do), increased likelihood of making the initial charge (like demons have) or... anything.
So. Would a universal rule change that disenfranchises people from ALWAYS retreating when charged basically fix the assault marines? Or would they remain just ass marines.
Something like:
Sweeping Advance - Cowardice inspires fresh fervour in the emperor's finest. Whenever an enemy unit falls back from < Assault Marines >, you may immediately strike again with this unit as if it were the fight phase. For every unit killed this way, reduce their fall back distance by 1"; and if no distance remains the fall back can no longer be made.
I think something like that would give them a purpose that would seperate them from other units, which is what they really need in addition to the general buffs the marine faction in general needs. Without things like that you would still never see them unless they actually were about 8 points a model.
Alcibiades wrote: To state the obvious, assault marines are not a dedicated assault unit that is meant to beat up genestealers and so on. It is a "close quickly" unit meant to neutralize enemy ranged infantry like Guardsmen and Fire Warriors. .
They may or may not be overcosted, but that is the basis on which they should be judged. (and you can't mathhammer it either. Oh no!)
But they just don't work. They don't actually do any of those things with their current rules.
Without jump packs, they are worse than tactical Marines in almost every way (worse weapon options, not troops, about equivalent damage).
With jump packs, they can either drop in and have their flamers be out of range and hope to make 9" charge to tie something up, or charge them across the board for two turns to flamer and charge something. Neither of those options are very useful. When they do get into combat, 11 attacks doesn't really do anything meaningful (kills 3 guardsmen), and unless you can tripoint lock the unit you assaulted, they likely just fall back and kill you.
GW needs to look at units like assault Marines and give them special rules that let them actually complete their role, like a way to keep units in combat with them (like witches do), increased likelihood of making the initial charge (like demons have) or... anything.
So. Would a universal rule change that disenfranchises people from ALWAYS retreating when charged basically fix the assault marines? Or would they remain just ass marines.
Something like:
Sweeping Advance - Cowardice inspires fresh fervour in the emperor's finest. Whenever an enemy unit falls back from < Assault Marines >, you may immediately strike again with this unit as if it were the fight phase. For every unit killed this way, reduce their fall back distance by 1"; and if no distance remains the fall back can no longer be made.
That's a neat idea, altough I'm guessing you meant "For every model killed . . ." But yeah, I like that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And Assault Marines don't exactly kill a lot of stuff that would fall back, so it's still a useless ability.
What about Guardsmen, Fire warriors, Gretchin, Guardians and the various Scouts?
Other than that, what do think the ass marines should be able to kill in a single charge? Where's the cry for value end?
To clarify, I think all Marines need something like the following:
1. Either an extra base attack, or at least an extra attack the turn they charge.
2. To either reduce all AP that effects their armor save by 1, or at least treat AP1 as AP0 if it would make their save worse than a 3+ ( but it would still remove a cover save bonus).
3. Bolters and chainswords get AP1
Those changes would give Marines decent damage, and increase their durability against the weapons that currently butcher them. I see changes of this sort as the only alternative to 10 point marine hordes other than simply not seeing Marines at all like we have now.
But even after the basic Marine statline is fixed the assault squad will continue to be a terrible unit because it doesn't serve a role or provide utility that isn't easily provided by other units.
So I think they would also need a special rule that makes them worth taking over other options in the book. Some example abilities could be:
Blazing charge: They can charge after they advance.
Staggering impact: the turn they charge, one enemy unit they are fighting must fight last.
Rout the enemy: when an enemy unit attempts to fall back from an assault squad, roll off and add compare movement characteristics. If the assault squad wins, the unit may immediately fight again without any pile in or consolidate moves allowed.
Eviscerator changes: change it to have 2 profiles:
Grind: Sx2 AP3 D3 -- -1 to hit, successful hits against vehicles count as two hits.
Swipe: S+2 AP2 1 -- make 2 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon
And so on. They have to good at SOMETHING or they'll never see play.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And Assault Marines don't exactly kill a lot of stuff that would fall back, so it's still a useless ability.
What about Guardsmen, Fire warriors, Gretchin, Guardians and the various Scouts?
Other than that, what do think the ass marines should be able to kill in a single charge? Where's the cry for value end?
Well. Guardsmen fall back 6". You would need to kill 5 to keep them in h2h assuming you started b2b. If you kill 5 you likely killed 5 or more before so squad dead.
That fallback slowing a) wouldn't have big effect likely b) is unneccessary complex for GW(seeing how much simpler stuff was removed in 8th...) c) pretty illogical. why would guys be killed slow down rest? More like reverse...RAN AWAY!
Of course SM are mid-tier. There are two ways to rank tiers:
By major faction:
Tier A:
Imperium
Eldar
Tier B:
Chaos
Tier C:
Necrons
Tau
Nids
Orkz
Or by book:
Tier A:
Craftworld
DE IG Custodes
IK
Tier B:
DG SM (Vanilla)
CSM
Tier C:
AdMech
GK Necrons
Orkz
In either tiering structure, SM sure seem mid-tier.
JCD,
I agree with your points on balancing. You hit the top units and buff the bottom units. There should be a target, preferably about the middle of the road, that you should be balancing towards. You don't balance towards the 'current top', because that causes power creep. I think you and I agree on how balance should be approached.
I'm fine with also adjusting things around the 30th or 70th percentile as well - as long as they're obviously not near the ideal. Best to hit the top and bottom, as you get the biggest impact/results from that. But you can hit more than just those.
As for what I'm currently thinking for balancing Marines:
-Battle Brothers get +1A base
-Battle Brothers go down to 10ppm, but the Boltgun now costs 1ppm (note - this actually makes specials/heavies 1ppm cheaper, and also makes Chainsword/pistol 1ppm cheaper as well).
-General durability changes I suggested here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/761963.page#10118792 (cliffnotes - nerf most AP in the game, and nerf Plas back to 7th ed stats, basically)
-CTs affect Vehicles (note - I'd rather rework the CTs, but this is more in line with lightest-touch).
Avoiding giving more AP to Marines, because the super prevelance of AP is part of what's killing them.
So your contention is that Admech, Orks, Necrons, and GK are all inferior to marines, and that marines are roughly equivalent to DG (I disagree) and CSM (strongly disagree).
I'd put SM in tier C, as they are closer to the first four than DG and CSM.
Martel732 wrote: So your contention is that Admech, Orks, Necrons, and GK are all inferior to marines, and that marines are roughly equivalent to DG (I disagree) and CSM (strongly disagree).
I'd put SM in tier C, as they are closer to the first four than DG and CSM.
Orks definitely need moved up a rank to be about equal power, but SM do top out against AdMech/Necrons/GK pretty easily.
Maybe they need their own tier, because I think DG and CSM are significantly better than loyalists. I guess that would be low-mid tier, with only a handful of books below them. Almost where they were in 2nd. Funny that. The last edition with armor save mods.
Marines aren't dead last, because in 2nd I was paying 30 ppm to have a 3+ chopped down to a 5+ by the basic Eldar weapon or by sonic blasters.
The problem with "marine" changes is all the +1 chapters and even those filthy heritics go from okayish to eldar
My first step would be to move ASM to troops and reduce their price to tacs +2 (whatever tacs end up as).
I agree that the only route to balance is through strats. And those strats have to be magnificent to make up for the overpriced under powered units.
Similar to how GK should have access to all imperium psychic powers give Vanilla Marines access to all imperium strats. (Maybe limit to just astartes strats, I'm probably being greedy wanting guard and custode strats)
Start throwing all that around and marines start working. The +1 chapters now actually have to give up flexibility for specialization instead of just being marines +1.
This can only happen after the guard CP battery is fixed but this would give vanilla marines a niche, reflect the tactical expertise of the army, encourage lots of tacs for cp and make marines competitive.
bananathug wrote: The problem with "marine" changes is all the +1 chapters and even those filthy heritics go from okayish to eldar
My first step would be to move ASM to troops and reduce their price to tacs +2 (whatever tacs end up as).
I agree that the only route to balance is through strats. And those strats have to be magnificent to make up for the overpriced under powered units.
Similar to how GK should have access to all imperium psychic powers give Vanilla Marines access to all imperium strats. (Maybe limit to just astartes strats, I'm probably being greedy wanting guard and custode strats)
Start throwing all that around and marines start working. The +1 chapters now actually have to give up flexibility for specialization instead of just being marines +1.
This can only happen after the guard CP battery is fixed but this would give vanilla marines a niche, reflect the tactical expertise of the army, encourage lots of tacs for cp and make marines competitive.
Part of what you suggest is consolidating the Angel codices into the Vanilla codex for all intents and purposes. Personally I agree to do that and think it would go a long way to help fix various issues.
I'm not sure I want traitors rolled into the same book with loyalists but yeah I think there's space in the "vanilla" book for the vamps and traitors (love you son's of the Lion).
Or throw both of those heretics into their own books once the rest of the BA succumb to their thirst and finally give them over to chaos where they belong...
DW and wolves are different enough that they can do their own thing. But it could just be being salty that my Templars were deemed fit to be thrown in with the rest of the chapters.
bananathug wrote: I'm not sure I want traitors rolled into the same book with loyalists but yeah I think there's space in the "vanilla" book for the vamps and traitors (love you son's of the Lion).
Or throw both of those heretics into their own books once the rest of the BA succumb to their thirst and finally give them over to chaos where they belong...
DW and wolves are different enough that they can do their own thing. But it could just be being salty that my Templars were deemed fit to be thrown in with the rest of the chapters.
I've put my thoughts in the proposed rules forum, but basically in my mind the only guys who get their own books are the ones completely unique in organization. That would be:
1. Grey Knights
2. Deathwatch
3. Space Wolves
4. Renegades/recently Traitor Marines (who honestly cannot be properly represented in either the Loyalist Scum or CSM codices)
You can also argue for Black Templars but I think they're better off in the Vanilla codex.
In my mind, each Chapter just gets their own couple of unique units (which I also outlined my thoughts) and then their Special Characters. Then we would have 10 generic Relics and then 3 unique to each of those Chapters in that codex. BAM, done.
Necrons are a close 3rd, then nids, dark angels, deathwatch, blood angels, death guard, and Custodes, which are all of the factions that lost more than half the time.
You can also see that as a primary faction, the codex order is GK, BA, SM, Necrons, Nids, dark angels, death guard, Custodes, CSM, deathwatch. And then Tau, who are sitting at right about 50% win rate and might be considered "balanced."
Seems pretty clear from these numbers there is a power armor problem.
There would never be a situation where an army of marines would line up revolutionary war style and battle it out with 1000 times their number. You are right - there would be no point.
You mean except when 25000 marines made a last stand on Baal against trilions of enemies?
Three factions are in the 20% range:
Gk Inquisition (we can ignore them)
Orkz
Most factions are between 40% and 60%:
Adeptus Astartes
Necrons
Adepta Sororitas
Space Wolves
Dark Angels
Tyranids
Officio Assassinorum
Renegade Guard
Deathwatch
Blood Angels
Death Guard
Adeptus Custodes
Cult Mechanicus
Chaos Daemons
T'au Empire
Chaos Space Marines
Genestealer Cults
Astra Militarum
Thousand Sons
Imperial Knights
Renegade Knights
Asuryani
Harlequins
Only 2 factions exceed 60%:
Drukhari
Ynnari
Calling anything under 50% "bottom tier" is a bit much. It does place SM on the lower end of mid tier, but nowhere near the true bottom tier with Orkz and GK.
That said, the only Power Armor factions above 50% are CSM and TK. And they're just barely north of 50%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Primary faction" is extremely gamey in this edition. I went by presence-in-list.
"Primary faction" lines up like this:
Grey Knights
Inquisition
Orks
Renegade Guard - Exactly the 33% point
Space Wolves
Adepta Sororitas
Blood Angels
Adeptus Astartes
Necrons
Tyranids
Dark Angels
Death Guard
Adeptus Custodes
Chaos Space Marines
Genestealer Cults
Deathwatch
--50% point
Cult Mechanicus
T'au Empire
Asuryani
Chaos Daemons
Harlequins
Renegade Knights
Imperial Knights
Drukhari
Astra Militarum
Thousand Sons
-- 66%
Ynnari
Ynnari is a clear outlier, although it is also the only faction I know of that cannot be non-primary-faction.
Doesn't mean much. Actually that whole ranking doesn't mean much. The only thing you get from that is that T'au are doing great and that GK suck. Apart from that, you will notice that above 50% you only have the factions which are common primary candidates for soup, even if the AdM is a bit of a surprise..
Ad mech is better than most want to admit. Their top tier options are pretty fantastic. Bots, electroshock preists, dune-crawlers, cheap and effective infantry - those walker things (forget their names) - reroll all hits auras - ect.
They have some terrible units - like destroyers which are criminally over-costed.
Xenomancers wrote: Ad mech is better than most want to admit. Their top tier options are pretty fantastic. Bots, electroshock preists, dune-crawlers, cheap and effective infantry - those walker things (forget their names) - reroll all hits auras - ect.
They have some terrible units - like destroyers which are criminally over-costed.
This is all 100% spot on. AdMech just don't have a variety of builds. Ultimately you know what you're getting, and that means your opponents can either counter it, or not. There's not a lot of variance.
And this data is horribly flawed.
Take Christopher Wright's list. It counts as Drukhari because he brought 3 VoidRaven Bombers in an entirely Alaitoc list. 500 points and suddenly it's Dark Eldar? Nah. Just like Guard will be inflated by soup in this same list.
Tau are much better than people say. I've been saying it for some time. Although Tau players are known to complain.
Unsurprising that Tyranids are hurting. Knights really upset the meta for them.
Is this a good time to wistfully reminisce about the days when Assault Marines cost 32 points per model, inclusive of chainsword? (37 if you wanted jump packs).
It's a weird time in 40k history when Jump pack assault infantry no longer have a place in a SM army and they're afraid to take on IG in hand to hand.
Xenomancers wrote: Ad mech is better than most want to admit. Their top tier options are pretty fantastic. Bots, electroshock preists, dune-crawlers, cheap and effective infantry - those walker things (forget their names) - reroll all hits auras - ect.
They have some terrible units - like destroyers which are criminally over-costed.
This is all 100% spot on. AdMech just don't have a variety of builds. Ultimately you know what you're getting, and that means your opponents can either counter it, or not. There's not a lot of variance.
And this data is horribly flawed.
Take Christopher Wright's list. It counts as Drukhari because he brought 3 VoidRaven Bombers in an entirely Alaitoc list. 500 points and suddenly it's Dark Eldar? Nah.
Just like Guard will be inflated by soup in this same list.
Tau are much better than people say. I've been saying it for some time. Although Tau players are known to complain.
Unsurprising that Tyranids are hurting. Knights really upset the meta for them.
I've been running 3 VRB in my DE list to counter shinning spears. I can basically take them out of the game with 3 fly bys. Holy crap I don't even want to think about how many meq they will kill in a turn....it is embarasing. What can't they kill exactly?
Thats 3 units taking an average of 6.5 mortal wounds. Plus they have 6d3 str 8 ap -4 d3 damage shots plus 3d6 reoll wounds str 7 misssles. Anyways - when this unit costs only 155 points - an assault marine is worth about 8 points lol.
Tau on the other hand are in kind of a weird spot - they can build a list a lot of different ways. They can generate a ton of CP with amazing firewarriors. Commanders with CIB just merk anything they shoot at. 12 shots with str 8 ap-1 d3 damage - hitting on 2's and with +1 to wound strat just murders things that rely on toughness or invo saves to survive. They are really strong vs knights - very weak against eldar - because hitting on 6's doesn't work.
Bharring wrote: Three factions are in the 20% range:
Gk Inquisition (we can ignore them)
Orkz
Most factions are between 40% and 60%:
Adeptus Astartes
Necrons
Adepta Sororitas
Space Wolves
Dark Angels
Tyranids
Officio Assassinorum
Renegade Guard
Deathwatch
Blood Angels
Death Guard
Adeptus Custodes
Cult Mechanicus
Chaos Daemons
T'au Empire
Chaos Space Marines
Genestealer Cults
Astra Militarum
Thousand Sons
Imperial Knights
Renegade Knights
Asuryani
Harlequins
Only 2 factions exceed 60%:
Drukhari
Ynnari
Calling anything under 50% "bottom tier" is a bit much. It does place SM on the lower end of mid tier, but nowhere near the true bottom tier with Orkz and GK.
That said, the only Power Armor factions above 50% are CSM and TK. And they're just barely north of 50%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Primary faction" is extremely gamey in this edition. I went by presence-in-list.
"Primary faction" lines up like this:
Grey Knights
Inquisition
Orks
Renegade Guard - Exactly the 33% point
Space Wolves
Adepta Sororitas
Blood Angels
Adeptus Astartes
Necrons
Tyranids
Dark Angels
Death Guard
Adeptus Custodes
Chaos Space Marines
Genestealer Cults
Deathwatch
--50% point
Cult Mechanicus
T'au Empire
Asuryani
Chaos Daemons
Harlequins
Renegade Knights
Imperial Knights
Drukhari
Astra Militarum
Thousand Sons
-- 66%
Ynnari
Ynnari is a clear outlier, although it is also the only faction I know of that cannot be non-primary-faction.
I didn't mean to imply that anything below 50% is bottom tier.
I'd say it's more like:
0-35% no army should be here and this should be fixed ASAP. Currently GK are the only codex army here.
36-45% these are the playable but definitely bad armies. There usually isn't a good reason to play these unless you just like the army. This is where I see SM and necrons due to poorly converted statlines and points costs. I actually think nids are better than their win rate suggests, but might also be one of the hardest armies to play correctly. They still seem to need some buffs, though.
45-55% I'd call these mid tier. In a perfect world, every army's win rate would be somewhere in this section. The closer to 50% the better.
55+% this stuff is too strong. Other armies either need to be brought up towards these books, or they need to come down some.
Soup helps mitigate some of the issues bad books have been letting you just take the good things from each book. This usually means avoiding anything resembling the Marine statline.
Keep in mind that a 50% win rate is 125% as successful as a 40% win rate, and a 60% win rate is 150% as successful as a 40% win rate, and so on.
Right now Ynnari have something like a 360% better win rate than grey knights do.
JCD,
I should have declared brackets before looking at the data. Not having done so lead me to try to fit brackets to the data, giving bad results.
+/- 5% from neutral (45%-55%) is a good target. Calling that 'mid tier' might work, but we also have small data sets with high variability and limited independence.
I'd think 0-35% means "trash tier", not low tier. Good point.
35%-45% gamewide should mean 'low tier', but the dataset only shows us limited data: thus I don't think it really says anything inside 40%-60% is outside 'mid tier'. However, SM are just barely short of that - actually suggesting that they are 'low tier'.
All that talk and I'm revising my take on the data: it does indeed show SM as low tier and CSM as mid tier.
Although Nova has more Marines in the top 11 than CSM...
They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.
(37 if you wanted jump packs).